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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

There has been a long running dispute at Israel-Hamas war, including multiple reverts and discussions (one, two, etc), over the lede's third paragraph; to resolve this I opened an RfC per dispute resolution. A few hours later, after three !votes including mine, Makeandtoss closed it, striking comments in violation of TPO. They had previously been involved in this dispute, in the article (example) and in discussions.

I reverted, but shortly after M.Bitton reclosed it. They weren't involved in the immediate dispute but are generally, including expressing strong opinions on related content. The RfC was necessary and lacked sufficient issues to justify a premature close making closing it generally disruptive, but more so here because of their involvement, locking in a status quo that they both appear to favor.

Previously discussed at ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page and ARCA, where Barkeep49 said they take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC and recommended AE.

M.Bitton declined to self-revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Makeandtoss:

1. 20:45, 14 October 2023 Page blocked from Israel-Hamas war and its talk page for 48 hours, for disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground
2. 19:38, 26 January 2024 Warned for edit warring, including at Israel-Hamas war

M.Bitton:

1. No relevant sanctions

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

Makeandtoss:

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11:32, 11 July 2017 (see the system log linked to above).

M.Bitton

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 16:20, 6 March 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regarding other disruption, they have engaged in slow-motion edit warring, misleadingly cited BURDEN in edit summaries, and gamed and violated 1RR.

For example, edit warring against attributing casualty figures in the lede - given the low pace it would be less concerning except they closed the RfC intended to resolve the dispute:

1. 20 May
2. 29 April (misleadingly cited BURDEN)
3. 13 April (described as "recently added nonsense")

May I have additional words and diffs to present the others? 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Newyorkbrad: Ping regarding request; 300 words and 20 diffs should be enough? 03:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Newyorkbrad. In response to Nableezy and Makeandtoss, I present these because admins noted no other recent problems had been identified; I understood that as asking whether they existed.

Disingenuous edit summaries

Claiming BURDEN (an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution) was not met

1. 11:36, 20 May - Suggests BURDEN requires non-Israeli sources.
2. 09:52, 14 May - Reverted 7,797 children and 4,959 women to 15,000 children and 10,000 women. Sourced.
3. 14:24, 29 April - Removed Gaza Health Ministry attribution. Source says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said.
4. 20:31, 17 April - Removed Amnesty International and others have described that use of the term as weaponization of antisemitism. Sourced.
5. 09:55, 1 April - Removed In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophilia. Source said He also said they were given permission to rape the corpse of a girl. Also reintroduced a MOS:ALLEGED violation without explanation.

Restored unsourced content while claiming it was sourced

1. 14:10, 19 May - restored where thousands ... were massacred by the Israeli military, saying restoring sourced content that was recently removed for no good reason; also clarifying perpetrator. Source contradicts this; the Christian Phalangists who committed the massacre were Israel’s allies in the war.

1RR violations and gaming

Gaming

Israel-Hamas war (Many edit warred over or part of the RfC):

1. 13:47, 12 May (+00:56)
2. 12:44 to 12:51, 11 May (+00:03)
3. 11:16 to 12:41, 10 May
4. 14:24, 29 April (+00:16)
5. 14:08, 28 April
6. 13:08, 14 April (+01:05)
7. 12:03, 13 April

2024 Iranian strikes against Israel:

1. 10:52, 26 April (+00:17)
2. 10:35, 25 April

Al-Shifa Hospital siege:

1. 10:50, 21 April (+01:29)
2. 09:21, 20 April

Unreverted violations

Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza:

1. 12:34, 1 May
2. 11:34, 1 May

Walid Daqqa:

1. Diffs unavailable (REVDEL)

South Africa's genocide case against Israel:

1. 10:07, 10 March
2. 21:09, 9 March

Other examples and issues exist, but were omitted because of diff and word restrictions. 08:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

To partially address Makeandtoss' response; the issue was misleading BURDEN allegations. Also citing other guidelines doesn't make those less misleading.

• BURDEN #3: Source says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza; it is disingenuous to quote only Hamas-run Gaza and say it isn't attributing to the health ministry.
• 1RR #1: Five weeks, with minimal activity or views; insufficient for status quo.
• 1RR #3: 10:07, 10 March reverted 22:23, 9 March, and 21:09, 9 March reverted 19:54, 9 March.

14:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: The meaning is unchanged, just reworded for conciseness as I was 600 words over; I believe this is allowed and sometimes required here. FYI, you are 1200 over, so you may also want to reword. 15:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In full context, #2 still says you cited BURDEN disingenuously, #3 still says you restored content lacking a source. I can't find #1 in the former version, sorry. 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

May I have 200 words? I'm still 100 over; the other 100 to respond to Nableezy. FYI, word counts are out of control, making it difficult to remain within limits - enforcement may be helpful. 16:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Makeandtoss:

• 02:13, 10 May 2024

M.Bitton:

• 02:13, 10 May 2024

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

As evidenced by BilledMammal's own links above, there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points, nor was there any attempt at conflict resolution that are outlined in WP:RFCBEFORE, which considers RFC a last option due to its time-consuming nature.

What I did was simply strike through the RFC, an action that was easily reverted, and I stopped and did not take it further. It would be disingenuous to claim that I had closed it, an irreversible action. Nevertheless, I will ensure to ask an uninvolved administrator to do this in upcoming incidents, which is indeed a better course of action.

That aside, this seems like an attempt to deflect from BilledMammal's own editing behavior, as they created the RFC in non-neutral phrasing without signing it, and then went ahead to vote with a signature, which creates a misleading first impression. Not to mention BilledMammal's edit warring by reverting other editors four times within the course of two hours relating to this incident: [1], [2], [3], [4].

I sincerely hope to see the day when editors are more interested in constructively contributing to Wikipedia than taking editors they disagree with to AE every time something happens. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized BM has been banned from the article for a week for edit warring, so to add to M.Bitton's statement below, this now worryingly seems more like a Samson's death kind of situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: and @Seraphimblade: First, thanks for the concerns. To add some context in response: I was blocked from that article on 14 October 2023, back when things were heated, and back when I did not completely understand what constitutes 1RR; I also wasn't able to appeal that 48 hour ban because it had passed while I was appealing. As for the second "sanction" on that article, I was warned for "slow motion edit warring" on that article backing in January 2024; because I had edited the same sentence multiple times in the lede over a few months according to developments on the talk page. Since then I have taken immense care to abide strictly by the guidelines at the article and across the topic.

My constructive and collaborative editing at the Israel-Hamas war article almost non-stop over the past seven months is evidenced by the fact that I am the third top editor by # of edits on the article having added 50k bytes and the 5th top editor on the talk page having added 70k bytes. Editing such a high-level and sensitive article while maintaining calm is not an easy task. Of course, striking through that RFC was a trout, which I have already pledged on SFR's talk page that it would not be repeated. The purpose of AE is to remedy behavior and not to punish editors. I really hope that a more balanced view of my editing is taken and that this minor mistake is not taken out of proportion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Of course, rules indeed apply to everyone, that is why I have tried my best to abide by all the guidelines. I did not know however that striking through an RFC would be a violation, which in that case I would have never done it. Even after being reverted, I let it go and did not pursue it further, as @Valereee: pointed out about the RFC's signing. And immediately after being notified by @ScottishFinnishRadish: on their talk page, who thankfully gave a better alternative of seeking uninvolved administrators' intervention, I pledged there that this mistake not be repeated. Looking back, now that I understand the issues surrounding it, it was definitely a mistake that should not have occurred, and for that I sincerely apologize. I believe that a heavy sanction would only prevent good contributions rather than the noble and very important goal of remedying any bad. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for weighing in. My perspective regarding the previous cases can be found above at the 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) comment.[reply]

@Ealdgyth: And thank you as well for weighing in. I only became very involved in this topic area recently, but I spent most of the past ten years editing Jordan-related articles, and I am aware of best editing practices. The whole approach was indeed not ideal, in a controversial article and tricky situation, but I am determined to ensure this never happens again. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I am extremely, deeply and absolutely aware of that. Again, I sincerely apologize for that mistake and vow that it would never be repeated again, and also to do my best to avoid any similar mistakes. You have my word for it. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I really appreciate the chance to present my perspective, and @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s comment that shows their genuine dedication to handling this request appropriately.

First, note that the Israel-Hamas war article sees dozens of edits every day, and numerous discussions. Over the course of months this accumulates and gets inevitably confusing for everyone, especially as the ideas or edits are sometimes discussed in different phrasings or closely resemble one another.

• [5] Here I specifically raised doubts about the 9,000 militants killed claim since it did not fully align with the Haaretz source cited. This is different from discussing if the number of killed militants should be included or not in the RFC's second question.
• [6] This took place on 20 March, two months before the RFC on 6 May; and it related to if the number of women should be included in lede. This is a bit different from the number of both women and children and also how these numbers are presented as the RFC's third question relates to.
• [7] Indeed, here, it was related to the RFC's third question, but that month-old discussion that I had created on 29 April did not strike me at that moment as being relevant to the overall situation.

The fact that I have created or engaged in these discussions shows my good faith and collaborative approach. In summary, this unfortunate incident took place in a sensitive RFC opened controversially and in a sensitive and highly active article. I accordingly made a hasty decision, to which I apologize about and vow that it would not be repeated. A lot of lessons learnt here: to specifically never strike through or remove any RFC; and more generally, to demonstrate greater patience, to put in greater efforts to examine similar situations, and to never act in haste.

As for the separate older incident with Number57 on 1 January, I did not say in the edit summary that no discussion had taken place, but that the RFC went against WP:RFCBEFORE, which states that if a dispute is between two editors they should seek WP:Third opinion first. After I removed the RFC, another third editor agreed with Number57's edit and disagreed with mine, and I stopped and did not take the issue further. Again, I was only made aware of the issues surrounding removing an RFC only after the recent incident. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will gladly answer for whatever is brought here, but I am feeling that this is turning into something other than a request to deal with an issue and now into an open-ended request to sanction a user. In that case, I think the editing behavior of all involved users should be closely examined as well in an open case aside from this venue here. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to extended request

First, thanks to all the admins who are taking a lot of their precious time and effort to diligently examine this extended request as well and the responses.

Regarding the citing of WP:BURDEN:

1. [8] Yes, relying exclusively on 3 Israeli sources for a controversial sentence is a conflict of interest (WP:QS section of WP:BURDEN).

2. [9] Misleading. My edit summary also cited the lack of consensus on talk page as well as the WP:ONUS and WP:BRD guidelines.

3. [10] Yes, according to the "Gaza Health Ministry" is not equal to the source's "Hamas-run Gaza".

4. [11] Misleading. My edit summary stated that there is no need for attribution for Amnesty International, and that editors should seek consensus for this addition, for which there is an ongoing RFC now. Here I actually meant WP:ONUS.

5. [12] Yes, here the controversial sentence was only sourced to an Israeli reference, contravening WP:QS of WP:BURDEN, and in the same edit summary I cited a source saying that these torture confessions were questionable. This removal came immediately after being reinstated following an initial removal by another editor, showing clear lack of consensus.

Alleged violation of WP:BURDEN

1. [13] The sentence that Palestinian refugees were massacred in Sabra and Shatila massacre is a universally sourced fact. I meant to say that the IDF helped facilitate, not perpetrate. After being corrected, I didn't pursue this further and did not restore, which is explicitly mentioned in WP:BURDEN as best practice.

Alleged "Gaming"

As seen in my timecard, my most common edits either take place on 10:00 and 11:00 after having started the day and/or 13:00 and 14:00 after having finished my lunch break, so this is a coincidence on different days with no deliberate editing.

Alleged 1RR violations

1. False. This move is not a revert since the article's name had been stable for 6 weeks.

2. False. I had written most of the Walid Daqqa article and as evident by the still existing (6) edit summaries [14], these reverts were made against non-confirmed users.

3. False. This is not a revert as the content removed had been stable since at least 6 weeks [15].

While I am assuming good faith and I am sure that BilledMammal is nobly seeking all editors comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, it is important to note that they have been warned by AE in 2021 that "groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions," with one admin then commenting that "It is time for a more robust pushback against the use of this page to knock-out opponents."

I genuinely hope that this large extended request, which suddenly came after the original request was reaching its conclusion, is not one of these vexatious incidents, as there is clear lack of assumption of good faith, as well as cherrypicking parts of edit summaries and decontextualizing the circumstances behind these edits and away from the talk page, not to mention the multiple false claims made. These are edit disputes which are discussed on talk pages and not violations of guidelines.

I am certain that the experienced admins here are able to identify between editors who spend their time contributing to improve Wikipedia, and editors spending their time tracking others over months to use at AE, in which they inevitably create a harmful culture of battleground. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I kindly request that you promptly revert your recent far-reaching changes to your participation in this discussion by reinstating the original phrasing that both myself and others have relied upon to formulate our arguments. These retroactive changes violate WP:REDACT: "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." I feel that this is an unacceptable behavior and urge administrative intervention to restore respect for everyone's invested time and efforts here. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BilledMammal, it seems this is even further misleading to claim that the meaning is "unchanged", given that everything has been changed, and to cite only three examples:

1# "remove WP:BURDEN" => "misleadingly cited WP:BURDEN"

2# "Falsely claiming WP:BURDEN" => "Claiming WP:BURDEN"

3# "Restored content in violation of WP:BURDEN" => "unsourced content"

Below WP:REDACT further elaborates that: "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption."

@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Valereee: @Newyorkbrad: I respectfully request your kind intervention to remedy this situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already explained the close when asked by ScottishFinnishRadish, so I won't repeat it here. I also wasn't involved in any of the discussions that led to RfC. Frankly, this report raises more questions than answers: if BilledMammal was really interested in SFR's advice, then why did they ignore it and why did they ignore the question that SFR asked them (about how to best formulate the RFC)? Someone who's starting a RfC for the benefit of the project would have no issue with what SFR suggested (working with others), but I guess that wasn't what they were after. Approaching me four days later with an ultimatum doesn't strike me as very constructive, especially considering the fact that I chose not to report them for violating 1RR multiples times. Bringing it to AE after raising it with SFR is just plain forum shopping. M.Bitton (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it was a good idea to shut down the RFC. But on the process, if a user is blocked from a page for edit-warring, are they allowed to pursue dispute resolution related to that page while blocked? Or is that not similar to an editor violating a topic ban by making a report about the topic? nableezy - 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC) [reply]

The way I see this is that BM attempted to have basically a first mover's advantage here. He created an RFC that had not had any input from anybody else, he left the prompt unsigned, and then he answered that RFC immediately. Other editors who had differing views would not have been prepared with sources and arguments the way he was to present his view. And given how RFCs attract views from uninvolved users who may not be as familiar with the universe of sources available as the editors involved in the dispute but rather often rely on the RFC arguments to formulate their view, he was giving himself the advantage of both framing the dispute and further presenting his own views unchallenged to any editors who were brought to the RFC through the normal means. The very least that should be done there is to inform others of the fact that the framing and the initial, prepared in advance, argument offered are by the same person. nableezy - 16:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this getting exceedingly unfair, this supposedly was about an RFC being closed out of process. It has now turned to a user being allowed to dig through diffs over literal months in an attempt to sanction another user. That is something more suited to an actual arbitration case than it is to one user presenting a case against another user in a forum where any single administrator can institute a sanction, largely without examining the full context, that is the behavior of all involved. nableezy - 00:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The added diffs are largely content disputes, and the characterization of them as disingenuous is, to me at least, quite disingenuous itself. Just looking at this one, the material that was replaced, lowering the number of children killed, was later clarified by the UN to be only about those fatalities who have been fully identified by the Ministry of Health. Many of the others is BilledMammal pretending like a claim by Israel should be treated as fact, such as this one which said In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophilia cited to Times of Israel which itself says
Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations. BM themselves re-added that material, falsely claiming that it was attributed when it was not. If anything is disingenuous it is BM's edit summary there and their description of the edits here. BM took a source that says that an "apparent interrogation" released by a combatant in an armed conflict, a combatant with an established history of engaging in deceit and propaganda, and then simply said that in an interrogation somebody said this. If youre going to start adjudicating content disputes as BM appears to be asking that you do, maybe look at the entire story and not just one user's self-serving characterization of it. All the above is to say this forum is not suited to this type of request, and if anything should be done here it is should be to open an arbitration case where all party's actions may be reviewed. nableezy - 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My sole contribution to the RFC was to add the comment "+1. Not signed either." to Makeandtoss rejection of it, the RFCbefore being unspecified as well as a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments that had not produced the desired outcome from the openers perspective, awkwardly lumped together in a single RFC. I sympathize with the frustration that led to its untimely closure and frankly think that complainant should devote some effort to figuring out ways to spend less time at this board. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seems it can't be both Well, it can, I speak as someone familiar with the article and its history, what I mean is that those prior discussions were nowhere apparent at the RFC or even on the talk page, it being usual to specify an RFCbefore detailing them. I can try to locate the multiplicity of them in the talk page archives if desired, I assume OP knows where they are? Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion? That's the point, it is valid and that's why editors taking part in an RFC need to know about those discussions, generally I would link them as part of an RFC(before) Not all editors are aware of prior discussions of which there may have been several.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement? From where I'm sitting, which is quite frequently on the opposite side of the table from complainant, that thought is one step removed from what I see as the actual source of the problem, namely the opening of that particular RFC in that particular way in the first instance, then persisting with it when three editors came out strongly against the process. I would not personally have closed out the RFC but I don't disagree with it either, I think complainant should have done so themselves and we wouldn't be here, not for this at any rate. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question was put:

If this is a complete list of topic area closed RFCs then

there were two RFCs opened by complainant in that category, Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell#RfC on infobox image on 1 March, plus the current example.

In the current RFC category, taken from here, there is Talk:Israel–Hamas war#RFC: Primary title and alt titles in :the lede opened on 12 April.

The other two were also not signed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: (and @Seraphimblade:), there is a current discussion about the signing/not signing thing Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Signing an RfC Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)´[reply]

It should not set a precedent, but given all the circumstances, I suggest treating the RFC close as procedural in this particular instance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Makeandtoss was imo correct to say that there had been no discussion in the sense of an RFCbefore, the RFC just came out of the blue and did not reference any prior discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was this RFC, then there are some more diffs and now, here are even more diffs. Was any of this raised at the user talk page at any point? As was done with respect to complainant's editing at User talk:BilledMammal#RSN. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Now there are diffs about diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While BM is technically correct that an RfC does not have to be signed, when one of the principle disputants on a topic starts an RfC with their own preferences highlighted it is at least a very bad look if they refuse to have their name on it. And I mean "refuse", since BM twice deleted a signature that was added using {{unsigned}}. If there is a positive explanation for that I didn't manage to think of it. Zero^talk 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying...WP:Signatures says "Typing five tildes will convert to a date stamp with the current date and time, without adding your signature". So, while it is true that five tildes are permitted in an RfC, it is arguable whether that counts as a signature for the purposes of TPO. Zero^talk 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In this instance I am uninvolved in the RfC (and am largely uninvolved in ARBPIA). I wanted to draw attention to BilledMammal's using their own !vote in their own RfC as evidence that it should remain open, which I take to be a rather peculiar argument. Of the other two !votes, one largely resisted the way the RfC was framed, while the other did accept the framing but only answered two of the four RfC questions.

So to me, BM's argument amounts to an assertion that the way it is framed makes sense to them (though others evidently disagree) and that they have voted in it therefore it must stay open. To insist on this, in spite of the lack of RFCBEFORE and quite evident flaws in the RfC's construction, strikes me as an attempted deployment of bureaucratic proceduralism unworthy of BM or of enwiki in general.

To then "seek justice against one's enemies" (Plato, not a wikipedian) in this forum, after having been banned temporarily from the Talk page in question, seems to me like a failure of judgement given the overwhelming lack of support for BM's framing of the RfC in the first place. The only likely outcome of that RfC, given the responses to it on Talk and on SFR's Talk, was a "malformed RfC" outcome, and I don't see how devoting photons and editors' time to hashing out that outcome would have served anything but BURO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ealdgyth - "seek justice against one's enemies" was an allusion to Plato. I'll try refactoring to make this more clear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the uninvolved admin: BilledMammal has now expressed the intention od continuing to create RfCs without signing the RfC (and then presumably to !vote on them with a signature, thus obscuring the relationship between the RfC question and their !vote).

Therefore, to head off future disruption, I would appreciate clearly expressed opinion about whether it is appropriate to do so or whether this choice can be appropriately understood as disruptive. Comments to date have leaned towards BM's no-signature strategy being potentially disruptive (at least by my reading), but it would be great to have some more formal consideration before the next time a related confrontation occurs. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this edit summary, I have read it several times, and I am unable to interpret it as disingenuous. I read "points" in the summary as meaning "proposals" and I don't see how any of the proposals received an appropriate RFCBEFORE. For any that did, it seems to me that it was up to the person filing the RfC to document the BEFORE, in any case, so the interpretation that "these points/proposals did not receive a prior discussion that satisfies RFCBEFORE" strikes me as entirely reasonable even if others read the situation differently. I certainly don't see anything "disingenuous" about the summary, even though of course nobody INVOLVED ought to he closing anyone's RfC but their own. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a view on this particular situation, but for context, I thought it would be useful to flag up that I have also experienced Makeandtoss shutting down an RfC after others have commented (see here). Number 57 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing an RfP this way seems rather disruptive (per WP:RFC, An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be). Usually users unhappy with an RfC would !vote Bad RfC and explain their reasoning. Why couldn't it have been done in this case? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a complex RFC from the get-go, and seemingly not prompted by sufficiently rigorous prior discussion so as to actually warrant such a complicated RFC (the only linked discussions are a couple that appear to have simply petered out). RFCs are by nature time consuming for the community, and can also hamstring routine discussion and editing but putting a freeze on any topic covered by the RFC until complete. It is not in the project's interest to have a proliferation of badly scripted, overly complex RFCs floating around, and closing such examples down is quite sensible from a WP:NOTBURO perspective. There aren't many other avenues open for nipping bad RFCs in the bud. If everyone just attends and votes "bad RFC" then that's time-consuming participation. Alternatively, editors could try to petition the admin noticeboard for an admin to strictly enforce WP:RFCBEFORE, but if this is a routine action, it's not one that I've observed, even though WP:RFCBEFORE is in principle quite strict and, one might think, enforceable. This close was a no-nonsense attempt to strictly adhere to WP:RFCBEFORE, and perhaps recourse to the admin board would have been a better option, but the intentions appear reasonable. It feels like the best way to deal with an RFC that fails WP:RFCBEFORE is actually a bit of a grey area, and one that perhaps needs better clearing up. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Makeandtoss' reminder that sanctions are too prevent not punish, and I see little merit in punishing them for this very one-off and unlikely to be repeated episode involving an RFC. It is not clear that anything here forms part of a pattern of abuse, and the dust has now settled on this incident. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Seraphimblade: I would also second Vice Regent's exhortation to consider Makeandtoss' conduct in the context of their total contribution to the project. To sanction them would be punitive and with little merit. I certainly don't see how it would be preventative given both the one-off nature of this particular set of circumstances in this dispute, or given the comparative rarity of their disorderly conduct relative to their output. It would only punish the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that RFCs shouldn't be closed so early by involved editors. However, on seeing the closure, I was glad it helped us avoid another heated discussion on that very Talk page that was extremely unlikely to produce anything resembling consensus. BilledMammal was right to write that perceptions of the editor who opened the RfC may influence how editors perceive the RfC, and so given their rather contentious editing history in Palestine-related topics, they decided not not to sign their name. Yet we were at it again. When going through the questions, I was disappointed (but not surprised) to find out how POV the structure was – it concerned adding inline attribution to the internationally accepted numbers of Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion (inline attribution is not normally necessary and suggests an opinion, not a fact – our policy requires it if there is a disagreement between sources) or contrasting these numbers with Israeli-provided numbers of supposedly killed militants, even though the latter are widely considered unreliable and few media carry them. Judging from the past discussion history on that article and the POV split of the most active editors, this RfC was not going to end up in a consensus.

So, as much as the close was procedurally wrong, I'm of the view that it ultimately befitted that article and the wider readership. A trout for everyone, as Valereee wrote, and move on. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of verbiage above but it's a simple issue. RfCs are not to be closed by involved editors. Involved editors who do so should get sanctioned, for this is a contentious topic area and there needs to be extra efforts made to enforce the rules, and I don't mean "trout slaps." Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: and @Seraphimblade: as you consider sanctions, I'd like to add that Makeandtoss is exceptionally productive. They are one of the very few users I see regularly creating new articles or significantly expanding existing ones in the Arab-Israeli conflict area. They have an impressive User:Makeandtoss/DYK record (many of them in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area), with some DYKs of articles they created still active (eg Killing of David Ben Avraham). They helped promote articles in this topic area to GA status (eg Battle of Karameh, Black September, Hussein of Jordan etc). Just last month, they wrote the entire History of Palestinian journalism article. I've also seen them create useful stubs (eg Mohammad Hyasat of the Jordanian Air Force, who helped defend Israel from Iranian attacks).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish can you clarify the topic you are considering for a ban? Is it "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed"? If so, might you please consider something narrower like "Israel-Hamas war broadly construed"? I suggest that because I have not seen any problematic behavior by Makeandtoss when making excellent contributions to Jordanian and Palestinian history, but "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" covers most of the history of those two nations.

I recall in the WP:ARBIRP case, the arbs tailored a topic-ban[16][17] that was narrower than the scope of arbitration to take into account a user's productive edits in the topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Although I don't think the RFC formulation is great, based on my experience as a closer, the formulation is not disruptively bad. There has been a significant amount of discussion on some of the points in the RFC, and there's something to be said for just heading to an RFC when it's obvious there will be no consensus through plain discussion. Editors thoroughly involved in a topic area should only be shutting down an RFC, closing discussions, or removing discussions when the material is plainly disruptive or in violation of WP:PAGS. Not following the advice on an information page to the letter, for me, does not meet that threshold. I have been approached by editors on several occasions about closing down RMs/RFCs that are retreading topics, but I'm loath to step in on such discussions because they are part of our formal dispute resolution. Involved editors should be even more reticent to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy, not like a topic ban. Normally the edit warring is in article space and I'll block just the article so they can only engage on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Was there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points or was this a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments. Seems it can't be both. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier, what I mean is that those prior discussions, so there was prior in-depth discussion? Those talk pages are fast moving, and the archives are already huge. If the discussion happened a couple months ago, does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Selfstudier, I don't want to make this seem as if you're on the hook for anything here as you simply made a comment at the RFC, so take this as a hypothetical. Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also, rather than a bunch of involved editors edit warring and violating TPGs over this, why did no one seek to remedy any issues with the RFC on BMs talk page, or ask an uninvolved administrator to do so. User talk:BilledMammal#Talk:Flour massacre#Requested move 28 April 2024, for example, is how this could have played out. To me, this is just more evidence of battleground editing in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy, there were a bunch of involved editors, there was edit warring, and there were WP:TPG violations. All of that could have been avoided, except for involved editors, if not for pervasive battleground behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Vice regent, I wouldn't be opposed to something narrower like the current conflict or post 2000. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the expansion of word limits back and forth was the wrong call, since now we're getting far beyond the original complaint and into arbcase territory. With the battleground editing going on anyone could pick 50 not great diffs of any of the active editors in the topic.

  To restate, I think that the behavior after a block and a warning demonstrates a need for a forced time-out from the topic area. The disruption caused by the battleground editing is evident because it's still causing a disruption, after my talk page and after a trip to ARCA, and now here. However my judgement isn't the final arbiter and I wasn't comfortable taking unilateral action, so here we are.

  Let's try and focus on the report and if the behavior reported, in light of prior sanctions and warnings, requires action.

  If administrators believe this requires Arbcom case level word and diff allowances maybe we should just refer it to Arbcom. If any editor believes that this needs Arbcom intervention they should feel welcome to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm a bit concerned about the "trying to avoid scrutiny for the RfC" bit highlighted by Zero0000. BilledMammal, why did you do that (twice)? If I'm submitting an RfC, I want my name on it so that people can discuss it with me. It all seems very ... I don't know, underhand? Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Newimpartial - did someone say "seek justice against one's enemies" or did you use quotes for some other reason? I'm confused as to why that statement is in quotes - if someone (on either side of the dispute) is saying that about the other side that's not good. If it hasn't been said, it's not really helpful to throw that around like it IS a quote from someone, it just confuses uninvolved admins (like me) and, in my view, just ups the heat in the topic area. I'm going back to looking into this as my time permits ... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks - I was forced to read Plato in university but... I try REALLY hard to forget it. Still reading - I read SFR's plea for help in this area and am trying to formulate something to say that I think might help things (not that I think I'm going to have much luck with this but ... hope springs eternal) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • SFR (and others) sorry I haven't been weighing in here, I've been busy outside wiki and trying to read more about this topic area. I'm good with a time-limited topic ban for Makeandtoss. It's not so much the single edit but the whole approach. Frankly, I think there are a lot of editors who might consider whether or not they should try to edit outside this topic area so that they aren't quite so burned out and fall into really bad battleground behavior. When all you see is one very contentious topic, you're going to think that battleground behavior is the norm on the project, but most non-contentious topic areas are not this filled with bad behavior and habits from editors. Getting outside the topic area would help editors regain some perspective about their own editing behavior and what best editing practices are. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no intention of weighing in substantively on this request beyond a few thoughts that I had when this was at ARCA. In a talk page like this one which is active and with a lot of peristent editors, a lower threshold for how much discussion is necessary before starting an RfC can, in my judgement, be appropriate. The reason for this can be that there is a local consensus that is at odds with a project wide consensus and so lots of discussion would lead to a false consensus (and even accusations of bad faith RfCs that "relitigate" things already decided in discussions). It strikes me as incredibly important that we are very cautious before closing a major dispute resolution method to an editor, especially one who has demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. An RfC for information that is in the lead also strikes me as more appropriate than RfC for information in the body of an article precisely because of the visibility/importance of having consensus there for me. Now it can also be true that someone who has repeatedly shown that they are at odds with project consensus about a topic can be disruptive in starting new RfCs. In looking at the last half dozen or so RfCs it did not seem like Billed Mammal fell into this second category but it's entirely possible there is better evidence out there on this front. However, given the evidence as I understand it I continue to take that "dim view" of editors using procedural means to potentially enforce a local consensus and perhaps even to seek sanctions against someone attempting to ascertain what the project consensus is through the written dispute resolution system. As for the signature bit I believe I start all my RfCs with ~~~~~ because who started the RfC should be irrelevant and WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows it as an equally valid choice to ~~~~ . I have no idea if date/time sig rather than full signature is normal or not for BM and I hope the uninvolved administrators assess that - there are no shortage of RfCs started by BM - before judging the intent. If this was out of practice for BM that clearly signifies trouble but if it's normal for BM to operate that way - as it is for me - that sends a different signal. Now if someone were to change an RfC sig I started from 5 ~ to one that included my name (and I think this has happened once), I wouldn't do anything about that because let's have a sense of perspective about things. But I would be annoyed and I would think it a violation of WP:TPO given that editing of signatures is only allowed If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information and TPO is clear that editors may ...not modify the signature on others' posts for any other reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy I wasn't going to respond to your ping because I mean it when I say that I want the uninvolved admin to be making the call here. But your this edit to your comment goes too far for me. WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows for ~~~~~ and so the comment was appropriately signed, based on Wikipedia norms and practices. As such you were not fixing an unsigned signature, but instead (as I understand it) trying to make a point that the RfC was not neutral and were working to have the statements attributed to BilledMammal in order to help advance that point. I have offered no comment on the neutrality or not of the RfC. But trying to raise problems with a non-neutral RfC is not the same as a neutral fixing/improvement as allowed by the talk page guidelines, in my view. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Nableezy: I'm not commenting on BM's comment move because that wasn't part of my analysis at ARCA and I'm not interested in substantively weighing in things at AE beyond what was discussed at the ARCA given that ArbCom is where the rare AE appeal goes; I expect that other uninvolved administrators will weigh that when determining what sanctions, if any, are appropriate to levy for this incident. Frankly I'm a bit flummoxed why you're continuing to debate with me - and attempting to shift the focus of discussion in this last comment. I have explicitly refrained from saying that your adding the unsigned template was wrong. That too goes beyond the analysis I've done. What I am saying that if it is BM's practice, as they've stated and so far no one has contradicted with evidence, to open RfCs with 5 tildes that this is supported by practice and norms. In that case their action is not a behavioral problem and so you cannot justify your actions based on the talk page guidelines. I have offered no opinion about whether your adding the unsigned template could be supported on other grounds. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there's plenty not to love here. I am definitely not enamored of "anonymously" starting an RfC—if I'm coming to an RfC, and an editor involved in the discussion is the one who started it, I want to know that. It looks to me like RFCOPEN is more saying that the bot is able to recognize timestamp-only signatures, rather than actually endorsing that as a good practice. In any case, since it's clearly controversial, I would very much prefer not to see that done in the future here, but it's not actually against policy. What is against policy is to start an RfC instead of discussing a matter, rather than after a discussion has been held, and "open discussion on the matter first" should not be considered optional. An RfC is a significant investment of community time and should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary. RfC is often the result of such a discussion reaching an impasse, but if there's a plausible case that the result of the discussion was a "local consensus" that the wider community wouldn't support, it's appropriate to hold an RfC to call in people from the wider community who haven't been involved and I would not criticize that as being "re-litigating" or forum shopping. I think we've all seen cases where a small number of "owners" try to enforce something that the wider community wouldn't approve of, and bringing an RfC is a good way to draw attention to that and put a stop to it. But, whether an RfC is appropriate or inappropriate, involved editors shouldn't be shutting it down. So, I think in this case, trouts all around—the RfC was premature, the "anonymous" nature of it needlessly fanned the controversy, and even with that said, people involved shouldn't have closed it. If lessons can be learned from that without bringing out any bigger sticks, that's of course the optimal solution; if we find the problems reoccurring, then we'd have to evaluate that at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to pretty much agree with all of this. I don't object to an RfC being unsigned if it's inarguably neutrally worded. This is on the edge for me. I don't object to an RfC being opened in contentious topics possibly slightly early if there's been some discussion. Again on the edge. I do object to edit-warring over signing; once it's been objected to, just let it go. I do object to involved editors closing an RfC early. Trouts all around. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It's worth noting that Makeandtoss has already been warned for edit warring in the topic area and blocked from this article for battleground conduct. To me, we're past the level of a trout in this instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've got no problem with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the interests of moving this along. I know you're generally not a fan of time-limited topic bans, but I think this topic area is one that can benefit from time-limited topic bans, allowing a cool down for an editor, and hopefully a cool down for the real world circumstances. At the least it can allow for some firming up in sources on the issues that are being discussed. Would you be amenable to 90 days in this circumstance? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  This might be a case where I'd be okay with it. Makeandtoss certainly has provided plenty of positive contribution in the area, but everyone has to follow the same rules, and especially in CT areas. I certainly hope they will return to doing the good work afterwards, minus the downsides. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Valereee, you're the only other one who gave any opinion on possible sanctions. Any thoughts on a 90 day topic ban for Makeandtoss, as they've been both blocked and warned for behavior in this topic area recently? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A time-limited t-ban...okay, I guess. I don't like them, I think they're both punitive and not very productive. But if that's what you and Seraphimblade think works, I won't object. Valereee (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hold on, hadn't seen NYB's post. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Unless I am missing something, the complaint against Makeandtoss is based on a single edit, made two weeks ago, of a type he has specifically agreed never to make again. If that is the case, I oppose any topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After a partial block from the page for battleground editing and disingenuous edit summaries they closed an RFC on that page out of process, with a disingenuous edit summary. I guess you could call that "one edit" if reviewing the behavior in a vacuum.

  That the report has been here for 10 days, after the behavior was reported soon after the close was made, just demonstrates what I was saying at the request for clarification, AE isn't attended well enough to work. That a report has been open without significant administrator input is the default here, and 2-3 weeks is common for non-obvious cases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not negating the prior issues, but no one has identified more than the single problematic edit by this user in, let's say, the past three months. That is what I mean by referring to a single edit. I'm also not sure why you consider the edit summary disingenuous. More than one person above seems to agree that the RfC did not satisfy "RFCBEFORE", even though others feel differently. The edit summary was disputable, maybe even erroneous, but I see no evidence that it was "disingenuous" in the sense of knowingly asserting something one does not actually believe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Now I'm waffling again. @Makeandtoss, do you understand that admins are extremely likely to find anything that comes anywhere near repeating this very unamusing? Valereee (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Created a discussion with about the count of militants killed, specifically mentions the lead [lede] in the discussion
  • Took part in a discussion about including the number of women killed in the lead
  • Created a section on women and children casualties in the lead
  • Closed an RFC asking Should the number of militants that Israel has stated they have killed be included? Should we describe the number of women and children killed as... with a summary of no discussion has taken place about these points.

  Those threads are just a few from the most recent archive. That is disingenuous. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given their fullthroated response, I'd be willing to just warn. They sound sincere. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If we're considering some kind of final warning here instead, I think we need to be crystal clear that it is very final, and anything else like this is going to mean sanctions. "But they also do good stuff" cannot remain an excuse indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Makeandtoss: Please respond briefly in your section to ScottishFinnishRadish's last post above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  +1 Valereee (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's also worth noting Number 57's diff where Makeandtoss closed another RFC with a third party response after taking part in a discussion. WP:RFCBEFORE doesn't require anything, and doesn't suggest extensive discussion, only that a discussion should take place. If it is obvious that a consensus isn't forthcoming there is no need to continue in circles for a certain number of words. No one involved in a discussion should be closing any but the most malformed RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @BilledMammal: The extension request is granted. @Makeandtoss: You are granted an extension of the same length if you wish to respond to what BilledMammal posts. We should try to wrap up this thread within the next couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• (placeholder comment) I'm at a family event today and will review the recent posts and comment here either tonight or in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I understand ScottishFinnishRadish's view that the extension has allowed this thread to run far afield, though I do think it's helpful to evaluate the edit that led to the thread being opened in the context of the editor's other contributions. I adhere to my view that that original edit, of a type that the editor promised not to make again and indeed has not made again, does not warrant a sanction. With regard to the broader array of diffs cited by BilledMammal, while I do not personally agree with all of those edits or edit summaries, Makeandtoss appears to have a good-faith explanation for them. Given the ongoing disagreements about the facts (let alone causes or implications) of what is happening in Gaza, it is to be expected that editors will disagree about what should be contained in these articles and what the best sources for them might be. I would stress the need for everyone to be on their best behavior in this topic-area (including in edit summaries), difficult though that might be, but I would impose no other sanction at this time. Leaving the thread open, although hopefully not for too much longer, for other admins to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, M.Bitton hasn't even been mentioned in this thread since he responded to the OP, so clearly no action needed against him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:20, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, so we're at:

    • Newyorkbrad - no action
    • Valereee - very final warning
    • Ealdgyth - topic ban
    • ScottishFinnishRadish - topic ban
    • Seraphimblade - topic ban or very final warning

    Seraphimblade, looks like it's hinging on you between a very final warning or a topic ban. Do you have a preference one way or another? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ScottishFinnishRadish, I certainly would not be too comfortable treating this as a vote. That said, when there's substantial disagreement, I would tend to err on the side of the less harsh option, so a final warning with very clear understanding that any more problems will almost certainly lead to a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:26, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't call it a straight vote, but if I were an uninvolved closer I would have called it no consensus despite there being consensus for some action. Just wanted a bit of clarification to see where you came down. I agree that erring on the less harsh side is wise. Assuming that Ealdgyth is fine with a warning as a lesser included result, I think that's where we're at. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ecrusized (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

Removing referenced statements & replacing with original research
Gaza Health Ministry
1. 15:12, 13 May 2024
Rafah offensive
2. 09:55, 9 May 2024

General 1RR violations:

Rafah offensive
1. 09:55, 9 May 2024 - Referenced sentence removed
Palestinian political violence
2. 17:19, 8 May 2024 - User revert
War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war
3. 08.13, 25 April 2024 - Referenced sentence removed
Gaza–Israel conflict
4. 17:56, 24 April 2024 - User revert
Zionism
5. 21:05, 21 April 2024 - User revert
Israel and apartheid
6. 15:38, 21 April 2024 - User revert
Palestinian political violence
7. 14:35, 21 April 2024 - User revert
2024 Israeli strikes on Iran
8. 16:58, 19 April 2024 - User revert
9. 09:25, 19 April 2024 - Reverted to a previous version
10. 08:25, 19 April 2024 - Sentence removed without edit summary

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11:20, 14 April 2024
• Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I typically don't mind trivial 1RR violations if they were made in good faith. However, it struck me that the user had made hundreds of copy edits, from 20 to 31 March 2024, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed protection. Subsequently, they solely began editing controversial ECP articles in an aggressive manner. Additionally, it concerns me that the user was previously blocked for not disclosing their paid editing. Ecrusized (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the names of the articles above their diffs, if that is what you meant. User was warned about previous 1RR violations and enforcement. I have not warned them about their latest reverts since those edits have already been undone by other editors. Ecrusized (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:20, 14 April 2024

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

Hi, everyone My name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on Perplexity.ai (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it. Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much. I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me. If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars. When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides. Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity.

On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? Galamore (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the WP:OR concerns:

At Rafah offensive they removed:

In addition, the offensive resulted in the temporary closure of the Kerem Shalom and Rafah crossings, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

In their edit summary they said Kerem Shalom was closed due to the Hamas attacks, and now reopened, this is wrong and outdated.

The first part of their claim appears to be correct; the source provided for the content says:

But Israel closed the Kerem Shalom crossing after a Hamas attack on Sunday killed four soldiers in the area, then mounted an incursion on Tuesday that closed the Rafah crossing along the border with Egypt.

At Gaza Health Ministry they changed the lede from:

The GHM's casualty reports have received significant attention during the course of the Gaza–Israel conflict. GHM's casualty reports are considered credible by two scientific studies published in The Lancet.

To:

The casualty reports issued by the GHM during the Israel–Hamas war have been subject to significant scrutiny. While some advocate for their accuracy, others cast doubt on their reliability.

This change appears defensible based on the body which includes claims that the figures are reliable alongside claims that they are unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.

They appear to have attempted to self revert this violation, with 07:52, 14 April 2024 - however they self-reverted the wrong edit, 07:09, 14 April 2024 rather than 07:36, 14 April 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Selfstudier has linked it and it relates to two of the editors involved here, this comment, which was made by Ecrusized, wasn't appropriate in my opinion:

the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias

It only adds heat to the topic. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OP doesn't seem to know what 1RR means. Zero^talk 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of completeness, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galamore, gaming the system Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion Talk:Israel–Hamas war#UN changes reported casualty figures.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Ecrusized, can you break the 1RR violations down by article, and have they been warned about or asked to revert any 1RR violations? I don't see any engagement about that on their talk page. No comment yet on possible OR issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite and Drmies: just making sure you're aware this thread is here. The reported 1rr violations don't seem to be violations, but I am concerned about the edit warring over content that socks and editors banned and tbanned by Arbcom had been edit warring over. I try not to judge content choices unless there is a clear issue, and the edits to the lead are a summary of parts of the body. I think NPOV is a bit lacking, but it's not flagrant and I'm not sure if that alone is enough for action. Combining that with the history of the content being edit warred over brings me a lot closer to a sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• What I said at the AN/I thread: Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. jp×g🗯️ 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  JPxG, are you at all concerned about their continuing an edit war primarily edited on one side by socks and people banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing and proxying? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  On the issue of the sanctioned topic in its own right, I defer to the judgment of persons such as yourself. jp×g🗯️ 08:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't had the chance to dig into this yet (though I will try to over the next couple of days), but I will say that such guidelines should not be treated like black-letter law which can have "loopholes". We can take an extreme case, say that an editor makes an account, waits thirty days, and then runs a script which adds and then removes a single character from their sandbox 500 times. It is perfectly valid, in such a case, to say "That is not what we meant, and that doesn't count. Make 500 real edits before you start editing in this area." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, if it is literally somebody adding and removing a period from their sandbox that is one thing, but if it's five hundred non-deleted, non-reverted edits that improve the articles they're being made on, we have to accept that this was what we told people to do. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As I mentioned at the AN posting about this, I saw the edits when they started editing in ARBPIA, and they looked constructive enough where I didn't take any action then. Those types of edits combined with immediately leaping into a long-term edit war that has been pushed by a sock, and had been supported by editors banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing/proxying is more concerning, and I think that is where we should focus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Noting that I have indefinitely topic banned the filer of this report, which doesn't actually clear up my concerns about Galamore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Seraphimblade, I'm thinking a topic ban of 6 months and 500 edits in this circumstance. That forces more out-of-topic contributions, gives them more experience, and puts them further from any sock/proxy/canvass concerns. I'm also okay with no action if you're not convinced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't see doing anything time-limited here. If you're going to do any sanction, I think it ought to be indefinite, but very much in the "indefinite need not mean permanent" vein, and that constructive edits in other areas would likely be viewed favorably at a future appeal. I also don't think they've been previously warned, so unless I'm wrong about that, another thing to consider would be a logged warning, with a clear understanding that further issues will all but certainly result in a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Logged warning for what, though? The NPOV stuff wasn't out of the norm. For me it really comes down to concerns about resuming an edit war where socks and canvased editors were originally taking part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I would think for that? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A warning to not look suspicious? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I'm confused. I thought you meant for the edit warring; we can certainly warn someone for that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:28, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

אקעגן (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – אקעגן (talk) 15:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

1 week block for ECR violations

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only made a change to a talk page, which is usually the way I can make my opinions known on a locked or protected page. The notice that it was only for extended confirmed users was on the top of the section, and not on the top of the page, so I missed it. I believe a week block is fairly severe under this circumstance. I have read through CTOP and ARBECR, and will abide by these rules to avoid this in the future.

I told them You could also read the information that was provided about the WP:CTOP designation on the Arab/Israel conflict and WP:ARBECR and demonstrate that you understand and will abide by the sanctions in the topic area in an unblock request and yet we're still here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like a demonstration that they understand, rather than simply stating they understand. In my experience a lack of demonstration leads to further blocks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad, I've read and understand everything. I also didn't read the block message that explains unblock requests. This is why I require a demonstration that they understand. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, actually explain how their edits violated the sanction, what is covered by the sanction, and how they'll avoid future violations. The same general gist we expect of all unblock requests. See WP:GAB which is linked in the block template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that the block expired and I have blocked them for a month for ECR violations after the one week block expired. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

אקעגן said that they have read through CTOP and ARBECR, and will abide by these rules. I think that's good enough for an unblock. If they abide by these rules, and not WP:GAME ARBECR, we should be fine? Don't make 100+ trivial edits to reach 500 edits. starship.paint (RUN) 14:45, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Selfstudier: - you have made a mistake, this is not a complaint, this is a block appeal. starship.paint (RUN) 15:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Selfstudier: - you linked to a complaint at WP:ANI, but this is not a complaint. Editors are allowed to appeal their blocks, even if they have violated WP:ARBECR. In fact ScottishFinnishRadish copied over this appeal from אקעגן talk page, so if it was not allowed, I am pretty sure ScottishFinnishRadish would not have done that. starship.paint (RUN) 15:12, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ScottishFinnishRadish: - what demonstration can an editor make when still blocked? starship.paint (RUN) 15:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, אקעגן should do what ScottishFinnishRadish said. starship.paint (RUN) 16:15, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Complainant per WP:ARBECR has no standing to even make this complaint and it should be dismissed with prejudice. See, for example see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive356#Selfstudier "As a non-EC editor, you essentially have no standing to make edits related to the topic. You can make an edit request, but any other editor can remove it, even without providing reason. Further, making a complaint against another editor as a non-EC editor in the WP:ARBPIA area is fully not allowed." Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: WP:ARBECR limits editors to edit requests at article talk pages, no exceptions. Blocked for ARBECR breach, complaint not allowed. Selfstudier (talk) 15:09, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Starship.paint: No, because this is merely an ARBECR continuation, the editor has no standing to do anything in relation to the topic area except make edit requests. Selfstudier (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I don't object to an editor being permitted to edit in non CT areas, in fact we are trying to encourage that with ECR restrictions. Then, for the future imposed sanctions for ECR breach should be such that no appeal is permitted, time limited tbans? Selfstudier (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question for אקעגן. You were notified of the ARBPIA restrictions on 2024-03-20, and by convention, the assumption is that you read it because you removed it. You then made 9 edits to Portal:Current events/2024 to include content unambiguously within scope of the restrictions over a period of a month or so. Why did you think that was okay and what could have prevented it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier's reasoning is interesting. Not sure I buy the "this is not a complaint" idea. It is a complaint against something, an admin action, the severity of the action, and it's a block appeal. It can be both. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad and Seraphimblade: this is ready for closure, given that the block being appealed has expired. You may want to note the new violations and new block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The ECR violation appears to have resulted from a good-faith misunderstanding, and the appellant indicates he now understands the issue, so I would grant the appeal. It's worth bearing in mind sometimes that ECR is a major change from how Wikipedia usually works, and that the nuances of the rules surrounding it are not inherently obvious to editors who don't spend much of their wikilives on the arbitration pages. @ScottishFinnishRadish: Based on reading the user talkpage, I think the appellant did not understand that your suggestion of "an unblock request" was a different process from an AE or AN appeal, especially since the appeal contains the same substance you suggested for the unblock request. @Selfstudier: The block prevents the editor from editing not just IP topics but Wikipedia as a whole, so there is clearly standing to appeal it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The original block was clearly justified, but I believe it is now very clear to this editor what is and is not allowed (as to some side discussion above, appealing a sanction is a longstanding exception to being a violation of that or any sanction, so of course blocked or otherwise sanctioned editors are permitted to appeal). So, at this point I would essentially reduce it to "time served". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

FortunateSons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

User has a pattern of edit warring, incivility and NotForum violations, including but not limited to:

1. 1 January 2024 improper use of Zionist and Soapboxing
2. 14 February 2024 inappropriate use of “Zionist”, having received multiple warnings on their talk page; also Soapboxing warning by @ScottishFinnishRadish
3. 28 March 2024 edit warring (most recent example)
4. 26 April 2024 uses quotes by Yahya Sinwar on user page, removes them after inconclusive AN thread and request by Admin
5. 27 May 2024 NotForum on Leo Frank, warned by @Acroterion @Doug Weller (see talk page)
6. 29 May 2024 NotForum and two personal attacks, including against @BilledMammal
7. 31 May 2024 Improper close followed by incivility
8. Beans

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Blocks 1 day in 2015, 1 Week in 2023 (both for edit warring in I/P area) by @Mike V and @Daniel Case

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [18] by @Doug Weller

• 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

Issue is generally apparent on topics regarding I/P, with at least one occurrence in topics regarding Judaism. This is my first AE filing, so apologies for any errors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JDiala&diff=prev&oldid=1227053862

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

1. The issue of the userpage quotes was brought up on WP:AN in this thread. The discussion was inconclusive. Two people on that thread arguing against me are proven or suspected sockpuppets (Galamore and ElLuzDelSur). Excluding them, far more people than not viewed the complaint as frivolous. Despite the inconclusive result, I voluntarily removed the quotes. Is this not indicative of my desire to be cooperative?
2. A note on alleged edit-warring. The 28 March 2024 allegation of edit warring cites an allegation by SelfStudier without corresponding diffs. This is meritless. I admit there were three 1RR violations in November 2023. This was my first month following a near-decade WP hiatus. I don't think in recent months 1RR has been an issue for me.
3. The issue of Leo Frank was an honest mistake where I mistakenly assumed that the sources for a particularly strong claim re: scholarly consensus came from a single CNN piece. Rejoinder to Red Rock Canyon: There are two citations in the lead, but the first has an unusual form "[n 1]" which struck me as a footnote. An honest error.
4. The discussion on edits prior to 2016 is not fair. There needs to be a statute of limitations. FWIW I was born in the year 1998. I was a minor during those years.
5. On the the self-closed RfC, this was an honest mistake, as I indicated in the AN discussion, based on a strict reading of WP:RFCEND which failed to take into account cultural norms regarding RfCs in contentious areas.

Update 06/05/24: In response to The Wordsmith's comment regarding recent diffs, I will say that while my tone was not the best, I think each case ultimately reflected a desire to cooperate and contribute meaningfully. I was not being uncivil for the sake of being uncivil. In this case it is true that I made an uncalled for comparison between closing an RfC and Israeli settlements. But the actual motivation here is to cooperate and accept that the community decided my RfC (and my closure) were not good and started a new one. In this case, I will concede that my tone was poor. The claim "[other] states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" could be perceived as bigoted towards Israelis, and I should have worded it better in retrospect. I apologize to those offended. However, if one can get past the initial gut reaction that my comment was ridiculous, there was a legitimate underlying motivation. Other editors were questioning why other countries did not have war crimes in their leads, but Israel does. I responded with what I considered a policy-based reason for this: that WP:RS for Israel tends to disproportionately focus on war crimes (narrower focus), whereas for some other states (Russia, China) the RS discuss things more broadly ("richer"). That said, I will be more mindful of tone in the future if given a second chance.

Note: to stay within the 500-word limit after the update, I significantly shortened the points I wrote earlier.

JDiala (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After posting a message on the admin noticeboard regarding this issue, I saw that there is already a discussion here. So reposting it here (shortened): The Israeli–Palestinian conflict, what is known here as ARBPIA, is a very sensitive issue. My personal opinion, as someone that the conflict also concerns his personal life (I am Palestinian :)) One should deal with the issue carefully. I would like to raise the issue of one editor - @JDiala's behavior that, as I see it, not only harm's Wikipedia's objectivity, but also harms the chance of a peaceful life in our area. Here are some examples:

1. In the past, they featured quotes from Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar (who, no matter how we define him, is probably one of those responsible, along with Netanyahu and the extreme right from Israel, for the ongoing war) on their talk page [link], meant to praise Sinwar [link]. They were removed only after a lengthy discussion on this page.
2. They currently have a quote on their talk page [link] that can be understood as a justification for the murder of Jews by Palestinians. I think that any quote that starts with "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y" should not be acceptable on Wikipedia.
3. A few days ago, they closed an RFC that they themselves opened, which raises a question of integrity [ongoing discussion: link].
4. Recently, they stated that Israel is a rough state of the same level of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan [link]. In the same message they wrote that "For Israel, war crimes are a sine qua non, a core aspect of its existence", and stated that, unlike Israel, "Other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies, with large economies, deep histories.", a weird comment.

I saw that editors have been asking them to moderate their language many times before. [link - 2014], [link - 2015], [link - January 2024], [link - February 2024].

The editor even received a week-long ban in December for violating 1RR. [link]

As a Palestinian, whose life is affected daily by the conflict, with my criticisms of Israel, I find this behavior problematic for Wikipedia. We have to stay objective. I think JDiala should be asked not to deal at all with a topic that clearly arouses their anger. Their edits hurt the project, and ultimately the Palestinians as well.

Please don't add fuel to the fire. Rajoub570 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think both FortunateSons and JDiala are assets for ARBPIA. Very different kinds of assets with very different tones. This conversation shows how hard it is to build bridges and find common ground in ARBPIA. It would be good if JDiala could find a way to live with and adapt to what they regard as tone policing in the topic area. It's unfortunate that, in my view anyway, ARBCOM constraints accidentally create a selection pressure that give a fitness advantage to quiet, nearly invisible, highly motivated sockpuppets over noisy editors like JDiala.

Regarding "X do not go out to murder Y because they are Y", quotes from award winning Israeli journalists like Amira Hass are normally acceptable on Wikipedia. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding The Kip's objection to the (evidence-free) labeling of someone as a suspected sockpuppet, this seems all well and good, and is consistent with AGF etc., but for me, it's another example of the fitness asymmetry between sockpuppets and noisy, undiplomatic editors like JDiala. Editors can't cast sock-related aspersions at AE, but undetected/unreported ban evading sockpuppets can make statements at AE. And as history shows, in the WP:PIA topic area, AE attracts socks. This seems problematic and difficult to solve. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:35, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what the views would be here if JDiala had never posted any personal views to a talk page and only made content edits. Is the issue what an editor believes or what an editor says in discussions? If it is the latter, couldn't there be a PIA remedy between a warning and a topic ban that formally promotes WP:TALKPOV from a guideline to a policy for an editor as a step before a topic ban. That kind of WP:TALKPOV-as-policy remedy is effectively already enforced for non-EC editors posting to PIA talk pages. Comments that are just personal opinions about the real world have a near-zero survival rate. Sean.hoyland (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While certainly not raising to the level of an immediate block, the continuous low-lewel disruption by JDiala, evidenced above, has been annoying enough to many editors, including to me, that a temporary TBAN feels like an appropriate response. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very BATTLEGROUND-y in a way that is disruptive. I'd support a TBAN. On the user page quote: though I find the quote disgusting, and my interpretation of its presence on the user page is, to say the least, not positive, I don't believe in trying to interpret editors' views when it comes to making decisions about how to treat them, nor in sanctioning editors for their apparent views—I think sanctions should only be practical, and I think everyone has the right to whatever expressions and whatever impressions they desire (out of article-space). But I understand I'm in a serious minority there (right?). Anyways, that's all irrelevant. This user is disruptive and clearly doesn't edit with the care and spirit of collaboration that this topic area demands. Zanahary (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Doug Weller’s 2014 comment—

Oh my god. I thought JD was a new editor! This is obviously unacceptable; I am now twice as convinced that they ought to be banned from this topic. Zanahary (talk) 03:44, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I'm at least slightly involved now as I have expressed dislike of JDiala's tone during the current RFC. As Kashmiri notes, it's not vandalism or one big blowup, but tiny bits of pecking away. The RFC close was absolutely atrocious; rather than see an unusually sparsely attended RFC on what is normally a well-attended topic, JDiala took it upon themself to close their own RFC in favor of their own proposal in an extremely contentious area. Between the quotes that ended up at ANI and the constant pushing of the singular subject as far as civility and stretching WP:NPOV like taffy, JDiala's a net negative in this area. Justifying their extreme one-sided behavior towards Israel by saying that there are "other states like China and Russia, while awful, are significantly richer and more interesting societies" and then comparing the idea of having a proper RFC to Israel's response when settlers' war crimes are alleged, is just more gasoline on the fire. Real WP:BATTLEGROUND stuff here. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And they're now bludgeoning Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation to the best of their ability. This is getting absurd. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 01:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think in recent months 1RR has been an issue for me isn't accurate. Just glancing through their contributions I see they violated it when trying to implement their close:

1. 16:56, 25 May 2024 (reverted 09:39, 14 May 2024)
2. 21:18, 25 May 2024 (reverted 19:53, 25 May 2024, which reverted 16:56, 25 May 2024)

BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith, the first one is a revert because it undoes BillyPreset's rearrangement of the sentence. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BillyPreset moved from human rights organizations and United Nations officials from the end of the sentence to the middle; you moved it back to its former position at the end. That is a revert. As reverts go, not overly concerning, but it is a revert - and your second revert, edit warring to try to enforce an out-of-process close, is very concerning.

FYI, vandalism has a very specific definition on Wikipedia. Reverting the implementation of an out-of-process close does not meet this definition. BilledMammal (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(This was in reply to this comment, which JDiala has now removed BilledMammal (talk) 04:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]

I've had little to no direct interactions with the user in question prior to today - I believe the closest I've come was voting to overturn the questionable RfC closure on account of it being a self-close in a CTOP. Upon interacting with their talk page (in a notice to move their comments in other users' sections above), I personally don't believe dismissing RSes as wholly unreliable due to being "sourced from Israel," nor referring to above complainants as "opponents," is indicative of one who will contribute constructively and cooperatively in the area over the long term; there certainly seems to be a considerable WP:BATTLEGROUND mindset at play. The Kip ^(contribs) 05:28, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Upon reviewing their statement here - with the multiple admissions of "mistakes," "errors," "misunderstandings," and such, I'm wondering if an "indefinite does not mean infinite" TBAN may be the ideal solution here. It would give them a chance to edit away from the topic area for a little while, learn to avoid these mistakes/work around these sorts of misunderstandings rather than letting them spiral into disputes, moderate their tone/rhetoric, and otherwise hopefully develop the cooperative skills necessary to constructively edit. If those conditions are met, an appeal sometime down the road shouldn't be difficult.

As an aside, and despite their own ongoing AE concerns/case above, I'm not keen on the labeling of Galamore as a suspected sockpuppet due to a six-month-old case, in which a CheckUser found such allegations unlikely - while not quite a PA/aspersion, it feels uncomfortably close to one. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland it’s unfortunate, but it’s just the reality of sockpuppets - they’re nearly impossible to detect unless they out themselves via behavior or outright admission. Not much that can be done beyond continued vigilance. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in this case, but I saw this user's edits on the Leo Frank talk page. [19] is a lie, since even the line in the lead had another source right before the CNN one. It is not credible that they somehow missed it. And this [20] is worse. I see that this editor was already warned for these comments, but I think the warning is insufficient. They should not be allowed to edit any article that has anything to do with Jews. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 11:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a couple of differences with this editor but over content only. Should really dial the rhetoric back a couple of notches or a sanction is a foregone conclusion. Selfstudier (talk) 17:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These additional diffs from a few days ago leave a lot to be desired on WP:NOTFORUM and WP:CIVILITY. Longhornsg (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have dealt with JDiala and they were very open to discussion on the talk page. Over the past few months I have personally witnessed firsthand how quick they improved their behavior as soon as they were notified about a guideline or policy that they had not been aware about. I think it is a learning experience for them and so far they have shown no disruptive behavior of the sort that requires anything beyond a notification or a warning. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that I'm staying out of this since some of the recent stuff deals with their response to my close of the close review at AN and their behavior on my talk page. Although I don't see myself as INVOLVED since it looks like there's some engagement from other uninvolved admins it's probably best to let them handle it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the diffs presented above demonstrate a pattern of deeply inflammatory, battleground behavior in this topic area that unfortunately, wouldn't be solved by just a temporary topic ban. The recurring use of problematic language over the past decade, throughout the past few months and even in this very discussion, suggests the need for a reset, focusing on positive contributions elsewhere. I believe this would improve the current state of this topic area, which, at the moment, suffers from significant battleground behavior and neutrality issues. ABHammad (talk) 07:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can the admins maybe stop dragging their feet and do something here? It's almost enabling at this point. Arkon (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt that I should point out that JDiala has made significant, enduring contributions on the mainspace, particularly at Israel-Hamas war, that have made the article better as a whole. Their edits on that page remain 93% un-reverted. Whatever other issues exist with their conduct, I don't think it could be said that JDiala is here only to argue, or use Wikipedia as a battleground or forum. They are clearly invested in the project, and perhaps some leniency is justified on those grounds. Unbandito (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A few of the diffs presented in the initial complaint seem to be malformed, but I think I get the context. Looking over these issues, they seem to be things that JDiala was already warned or blocked for, so I'm not sure why we're here. Regarding the userpage quotes, I find them distasteful but the community did not find that they were against policy, and the user removed them when asked. It looks like the RFC was already overturned at WP:AN, and there didn't seem to be any real apetite for sanctions based on that.It gives the impression of seeking another bite at the apple. Regarding the diffs presented by BilledMammal, only the second one looks to be an actual revert.

That said, there are definitely issues with tone and civility. I'm not sure a full topic ban is needed here, but a warning to tone down the rhetoric might accomplish the desired goal. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:15, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at the more recent diffs, there does seem to be an issue of rhetoric that's unhelpful if not outright hostile. I'd like to hear what JDiala has to say about them, but at this point a topic ban might be necessary. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This sort of behaviour goes back at least December 2014 when I warned them over a statement they made that seemed a breach of the sanctions {"perverse, POV Zionist narrative" which he then struck through}. Looking at that I found this post to an editor who is no longer around.[21] See the whole paragraph starting with "Classic Jewish supremacism." I don't think this will change and would support a TB from the s-i area. Doug Weller talk 11:37, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bludgeoning at Talk:2024 Nuseirat rescue operation#POV title plus an unnecessary link to an X thread includin extremely toxic comments has convinced me that a topic ban is required. I'll implement it in the next few hours unless another Admin objects. Doug Weller talk 11:07, June 9, 2024‎

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

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

1. User_talk:Sentaso#Introduction_to_contentious_topics In this discussion I have advised them of what existing consensus is at Nick McKenzie
2. 10:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Sentaso edits the archives of Talk:Nick McKenzie to insert a thread that never happened in the article talk. In their thread they make accusations that editors have "vandalizing this page" in reference to the talk archive without providing evidence. Additionally they have stated that JML1148, who closed an RFC, broke WP guidelines and again without providing evidence. Finally they have claimed that "It appears several Australian WP editors with possible conflicts of interest re. Mckenzie are attempting to whitewash his WP page". They have not provided any evidence for their claims of bad faith.
3. 12:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC) Editor stated in a response to myself "You were dishonest with your initial reply stating "Consensus was determined to be that the material should not be covered at all" when the consensus was the opposite"". Editor has not provided any evidence for claims of my bad faith.
4. 7:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor has reverted Talk:Nick McKenzie/Archive 1 to reinsert a discussion in there that never happened at Talk:Nick McKenzie
5. 8:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor is WP:BADGERING me on my talk page in relation to Talk:Nick McKenzie by repeating to ask a question which I'd previously chosen not to answer because it is aggressive and meaningless.
6. 8:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor is casting WP:ASPERSIONs in regards to my editing at Nick McKenzie. Once again evidence is not provided for the claims being made.
7. 10:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC) Editor has reverted my talk page restoring a post that I archived after I [[Special:Diff/1226872000|specifically told them to never, under any circumstances, post on my talk page again. Post was in regards to Nick McKenzie.
8. 10:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC) continued to post of my talk in violation of my request to not post on my talk page. Again post was in regards to Nick McKenzie.

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

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 02:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor had edited Nick McKenzie to insert material which RfC determined should not be in the article. Upon being advised by myself of consensus (as determined by RfC close) and what they could do if disagree with the close, editor has sought to misinterpret WP policy and engaged in casting WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:ABF. Editor appears to be a WP:SPA who is editing to WP:RGW. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the diffs to include a revert that the editor just performed to re-insert a discussion into Talk:Nick McKenzie's archives which never occurred in the article talk. TarnishedPath^talk 07:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sentaso, I have moved your comment to your section. Please write any comments you have in your section of the notice. TarnishedPath^talk 09:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1226739756

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

2. @TarnishedPath: JML1148 in their own words stated "numerical majority against removing the content" and then claimed there was consensus to remove the content.

- Yes, yourself and others related to this appear to be Australian as per your Wikipedia profiles. Mckenzie is Australian, and there's seems to be a commonality of those in favor of removing content related him are also Australian. Certainly potential for Conflict_of_interest

3. Evidence was in point 2 above re JML1148 comment.

4. I didn't reinsert anything, I don't know why you're making things up that WP history shows to be false. I added to the discussion highlighting it had been prematurely closed. I've also asked who/when the discussion was deemed over and with what authority, which you didn't answer. If yourself and associates had followed WP best practice there would clear sections on the page detailing why the page would be archived. The page has been blasted with text claiming the discussion is closed, but there appears to be no grounds for closure. I've asked you several times if you could source why this page was archived, which you've ignored, likely because you cannot.

5. As per comments on their Talk page (which he keeps removing) it appears TarnishedPath does not understand some aspects of WP:BLP.

A quote of yours from the Mckenzie archive "if McKenzie is not named, then what is the material doing on a WP:BLP about McKenzie? TarnishedPathtalk 00:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)"

BLPs do not always need to explicitly mention the subject's name as long as the information can be clearly and unambiguously attributed to the subject

6. Duplicate content, see my point 2 above.

7. You don't understand BLP, one should be grateful I highlighted your misunderstanding on your talk page

8. Duplicate content

Sentaso (talk) 09:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding comments below, these references to talk pages are a red herring. The real issue is why the Mckenzie discussion page was archived, the sham RFC and why BLP is not being followed correctly for the Mckenzie page. Tarnished Path falsely suggested that BLP need to name the person which is incorrect. I did him a favor by raising this issue on his talk page and he gets aggressive and removes the content. Why not focus on the main issues instead of the number of edits a user has? Unhelpful Sentaso (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I see one edit to the article, and some snarky discussion that displays they don't understand BLP. If they can demonstrate some understanding of WP:BLP I'd be willing to let this to with a warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:06, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest that editing Tarnished Path's talk page four times after they'd been asked not to post there, included reverting Tarnished Path's own edits, is suggestive that they don't understand a lot more than BLP. (They've edited the article seven times, incidentally). When you also take into account the insertion into a talk page Archive of a discussion that never happened at that page, together with casting aspersions at other editors of COI and whitewashing (same diff), I'm unconvinced that an editor with 87 edits and this much disruption is a net positive at all. Black Kite (talk) 13:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Sentaso, they're not a red herring, they're persistent poor editing behaviour and are a large part of your very limited editing history. Most good-faith editors amass hundreds if not thousands of edits without even one of those issues coming up, let alone multiple ones. He told you to stay off his talk page. You didn't, because you think you know better (" I did him a favor by raising this issue on his talk page"). You don't. What you need to say here is what you're going to do better in the future. Black Kite (talk) 17:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The 87 edits is why I'd let this go with a warning if there was a demonstration that they understand the issue and will remedy it. I'm not opposed to something more substantial, however. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely. I do not see this from their comments here, however. Black Kite (talk) 07:13, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Black Kite, most of their editing has dealt with this conflict. Are we going with a topic ban on BLP topics which doesn't address the talk page behavior but may get the point across, or are we going with a block? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm thinking a final warning for incivility, and an indefinite topic ban on BLPs. If there is no objection in the next day or two I'll close with that result. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I'd go with that, since they haven't responded. Black Kite (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Sentaso's edits at Nick McKenzie (now a total of 11) don't seem unusually bad but the clueless engagement at Talk:Nick McKenzie/Archive 1 and unhelpful comments here and at User talk:Sentaso and User talk:TarnishedPath lead me to support the proposed close by ScottishFinnishRadish above. I note that the article talk page has had no substantive comment since 11 March 2024 whereas the current dispute relates to edits more than two months after then. To spell that out, both participants should have used article talk. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Stephan rostie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 15:35, 4 June 2024
2. 16:02, 4 June 2024

Skitash reverted me at two different times in the same contentious topic article at two different unrelated sections, one in the lead and the other in another section. After his first revert i added a new content in unrelated section in the same article but he reverted me for the second time. After each of them i opened a talk section regarding his reverts, he didn’t reply in the to the first talk section about his own revert despite mentioning him, in the second talks section about his second revert i notified him about his 1RR violation following his second revert where he replied but seemingly ignored what i said about the 1RR violation.

• I did notify him in the talks where he replied to me that he had made more than one revert, but he didn’t revert himself and seemingly completely ignored what i said regarding his violation. Stephan rostie (talk) 16:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish I didn't realize initially that I had violated the rule, and I also seem to have overlooked the part in Stephan rostie's message that mentioned a potential WP:1RR violation. I could self-revert if that solves the issue, but I'm uncertain whether this is necessary, considering that this edit dispute took place over 48 hours ago. Could you please clarify if the rule still applies in this case? Skitash (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skitash seemingly not aware so posted notice. OK, so not officially aware and no opportunity on users talk for self revert, so free pass this time. Complainant, ensure awareness and allow for self revert before filing future complaints. Selfstudier (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that both parties violated WP:1RR here. Stephan rostie violated it with:

1. 15:18, 4 June 2024 (partial revert of 09:28, 1 May 2024, among others^[a])
2. 15:35, 4 June 2024 (revert of 15:34, 4 June 2024)
3. 15:50, 4 June 2024 (partial revert of 15:38, 4 June 2024)

Skitash is already documented. BilledMammal (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Stephan rostie, did you give them an opportunity to self-revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Generally I'd expect something a bit more than lastly, i wonder if skitash had violated the WP:1RR of the article for requesting a self-revert. I'll wait for Skitash's response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also see that they just got their ARBPIA notification, so unless there's some evidence they were aware of the CTOP we'll just be at a warning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Skitash, it still applies, yes. What I would like to see is a return to the version from before the edit war started, and then no one touches the contested prose until there is consensus on the talk page.

  Other than that, I think a warning to Skitash and Stephan rostie to mind 1RR and to follow BRD is all that is neccessary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

I was topic banned from Lithuania, broadly construed.

Administrator imposing the sanction

Barkeep49 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

Proof that Barkeep49 was informed by me about this appeal.

Hello, I was topic banned from Lithuania in early January 2024 (see: HERE) due to my expressed opinion in a discussion (see: HERE) in which I stated that the Holocaust in Lithuania was executed by Nazis (who occupied Lithuania) and Lithuanian Nazi collaborators, but not by the State of Lithuania, which at the time was occupied by Nazis. The request to sanction me (see: HERE) did not include any of mine changes in English Wikipedia's articles, so I was sanctioned purely for expressing my opinion there, but not for POV pushing in any articles. Moreover, I was never before sanctioned for Holocaust-related changes in articles/discussions and as far as I remember I was not even reported for that during over 13 years of participation in Wikipedia before this. I was previously sanctioned quite long time ago for wrongly describing other editors mass removal of content from articles as "vandalism" (and reverting it) and for personal attacks against a user with whom I did not agree in topics not related with the Holocaust (I still have active interaction ban with that user, which I did not violate).

For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania (see examples: HERE) I was recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic (see: HERE, the other identically recognized editor is sysop Renata3).

Over 6 months had already passed after this sanction was applied to me and I did not violate it. However, my aim in English Wikipedia always was to contribute high-quality content about Lithuania and with this broadly construed sanction active I simply cannot contribute anything to English Wikipedia in a field where I have exceptional knowledge of information and sources (due to my extensive capability to research Lithuanian language sources, etc.), so for me this sanction is equal to a total block in English Wikipedia and I believe that it is too strict given all the circumstances. Sadly, with this broadly construed sanction in Lithuania's topic active I plan to quit Wikipedia completely.

Consequently, I appeal this sanction and request to reconsider it and to allow me to again contribute exceptionally high-quality content about Lithuania. I would like to stress that I never had plans to POV push malicious content about the Holocaust in Lithuania and I fully condemn horrific crimes which were committed against Jewish people in Lithuania (including those that were committed by Lithuanian nationality representatives). If Barkeep49 and other participants of this request procedure think that I am not trustworthy enough to edit articles related with the Holocaust in Lithuania, I request to at least narrow this broadly construed sanction to "anything related with the Holocaust in Lithuania" because per report this imposed sanction is not associated with other Lithuania-related topics (e.g. Lithuanian sports, culture, etc.). -- Pofka (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that this sanction was placed by me, acting on behalf of ArbCom acting as its own AE. As such I think it can be appealed and considered as any other AE placed topic ban would be. A major factor here was what had occurred after a previous topic ban was lifted. Beyond that while I'm happy to answer questions, I'll leave it to uninvolved administrators to consider the appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Pofka used contribute nearly endless HIGH QUALITY EDITS in the Lithuania topic and was OFFICIALLY RECOCGNIZED as a FINEST EDITOR in this topic. Banning him from the same is a contradiction. Since 99% of his overall edits happened to be in the Lithuania topic, of course this is the topic where any type of conflict could appear at all.

Banning him from his topic of expertise equals like a global perma ban to him. Obviously, this punishment is way too harsh, and his finest editor status was not considered in the first discussion.

(see)

In this almost automatic process, nobody defended pofka's position in the first discussion.

I hope we can get a different result this time. MKW100 (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm generally favorable to loosening the tban to the holocaust in Lithuania, but I'd like to hear a bit more from people with more familiarity with the situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm in the same boat as SFR. I see that at least one Arb considered narrowing the TBAN to Holocaust topics, but they rejected that option given that the full TBAN's successful appeal had been approved partially on WP:ROPE grounds. If we grant such a narrowing here, I'd want it to explicitly note that it's based on similar grounds, meaning that future problematic edits or comments in the broader Lithuania topic area would likely result in a restoration of the full TBAN or a site block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I am mostly uninvolved with Lithuanian topics, and I remain concerned about this editor's appeal. The whole tone here is that "I got topic banned because I voiced an opinion" which is not how I read the conversations about the topic ban. I'm not seeing anything about how they are going to change going forward to avoid the issues that originally came up. And I'm also a bit concerned about the whole "For contributing exceptionally high-quality content to the English Wikipedia about Lithuania ... I was recognized in 2022 as one of only two best editors in "Lithuania" topic..." which award is actually one of Gerda's "precious" awards which are not "officially recognized" awards of any kind. They are just Gerda's view of something. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did mostly gloss over that puffery. I think their point about being sanctioned for expressing their opinion at ARCA, as opposed to being involved in any problematic article editing, is correct. As far as I can tell, they were sanctioned because their opinion was broadly held to be incorrect, and distastefully so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I also agree with ScottishFinnishRadish: I am not prepared to lift the topic-ban entirely at this stage, but I agree it may be overbroad. As an analogy, if an American editor proved unable to edit neutrally about some aspect of American history, we might topic-ban them from that aspect or conceivably from American history as a whole; it is less likely we would topic-ban them from "articles concerning the United States, broadly construed." Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]