Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

WP:AE
WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331

Mkstokes

Mkstokes is indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff, broadly construed. TarnishedPath is warned to remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring. Both the topic ban and the warning will be logged as Arbitration Enforcement sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

Request concerning Mkstokes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Mkstokes (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

10 January 2024 engaged in personal attacks at Talk:Nick McKenzie when they wrote that any article that didn't specify that McKenzie defamed Schiff was on my conscience.
11 January 2024 Engaged in incivility when they passively aggressively wrote "Thank you for the correction and tacit admission that you got it wrong. I know that couldn't have been easy and it is a positive first step in restoring your credibility." after I corrected a mistake in a tempate warning that I left on their user talk regarding their behaviour at Nick McKenzie
12 January 2024 Assumed bad faith and engaged in personal attacks at Talk:Nick McKenzie when they stated that "You are continually misreading Wikipedia policies to suit your own narrative" after I advised them that WP:BLPUNDEL applied to removed material and that the onus was on them to obtain consensus for restoriation.
13 January 2024 Inserted YouTube video into Peter Schiff against WP:RSPYT when I had earlier advised them that it was unreliable at Special:Diff/1194706454
11 January 2024 Reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLP quoted in edit summary by me
11 January 2024 First reinsertion of contested material despite WP:BLPUNDEL being quoted in a previous edit summary
11 January 2024 Second reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
12 January 2024 Third reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
14 January 2024 Fourth reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
15 January 2024 Fifth reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary

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 4 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 16 January 2024.
Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic 12 January 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Firstly, I need to apologise. I could have saved much disruption if I had warned this editor of CTOP earlier and also if I had brought their disruption here earlier when it became apparent that they had no intention of listening to any guidance when informed about WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL. By not taking the correct action fast enough I have been part of the problem.

A review of Mkstokes contribution history indicates that between 28 Dec 2006 and 27 Sep 2014 they only edited on 13 occasions. The overwhelming majority of their edits since 21 December 2023 (after a long break in editing) have involved either Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff and have been aimed at inserting Nick McKenzie's part into a lawsuit that Schiff ultimately won regardless of whether secondary sources mention McKenzie at all or just in passing. They have alternatively argued between attempting to use court transcripts and unreliable sources regardless of WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSP and using reliable secondary sources which only mention McKenzie in passing, and do not mention that he defamed Schiff regardless of WP:OR. When I've removed material per WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL and advised Mkstokes of this they have sought to sidestep the onus on them to obtain consensus prior to re-inserting the material by assuming bad faith at my end. Mkstokes is clearly a WP:SPA, their behaviour highlights WP:TENDENTIOUS at best and a desire to WP:RGW. TarnishedPath^talk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note Special:Diff/1196612026 in which Mkstokes makes further personal attacks. TarnishedPath^talk 02:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1196136230

Discussion concerning Mkstokes

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.

Statement by Mkstokes

A review of my contribution history is not dispositive and can easily be explained by the fact that not a single one of my previous edits was disputed. Thus this is my first experience in dealing with contentious topics. So I'm not even sure why this needs to be a case.

As to my aim to insert data related to Nick McKenzie, deciding that a news source mentions the subject's name "in passing" is an editorial opinion, not a fact. The fact is that I've noted at least 2 secondary sources that mention his name while not determining whether if it's in passing or not because it is not my place to make that determination. One source says "...compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer..." and the other source says "Schiff's lawsuit, which was filed against Nine, The Age Company and McKenzie and other reporters including Charlotte Grieve, claimed the October 2020 broadcast, titled 'Operation Atlantis’ defamed him by implying that he "facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people” by assisting customers to commit offshore tax fraud."

The RfC associated with the Nick McKenzie article poses the following question: "Should this material be removed such that the established consensus becomes that this subject matter is not covered in any way in this article moving forward until such time that alternative consensus is established?" Then, without obtaining consensus for this question, the person creating the RfC removed or updated the article. I've only just learned now that the user shouldn't have asked to obtain consensus for removal, but given the context of the RfC it is clear that I was trying to stop an editor from going forward with unsupported edit.

The other editor has seemingly created their own restrictions on reliable secondary sources. These are as follows:

Any secondary source must say that McKenzie defamed Schiff. If it does not, then the source can't be used. This is strange because the section is "Court cases and shield laws" and this is unquestionably a court case that involves McKenzie.
Despite a reliable source saying "...the episode and its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie..." he says the only controlling text is"...its accompanying news articles, compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie..." This is strange because I keep providing him the full quote and he keeps misquoting it.

I was not notified that the video source was unreliable. Rather, the other editor said YouTube videos MUST come from "a verified account of an official news organization." The WP:RSPYT policy actually says "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization..." Such as means "for example," not what the other editor suggests.

UPDATE: I will accept any ban that you decide to place upon my account. I honestly don't care anymore. Do as you wish. Mkstokes (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mkstokes

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

I noted yesterday when this same incident was filed as a case request (it's since been removed) that I full-protected Nick McKenzie as in my view both editors were perpetuating a revert war which started on 10 January, and have also been edit-warring at Peter Schiff over the same issue and stretching back about two weeks earlier. It did not seem to me that the content rose to the level of WP:3RRNO exemption, though I did not review in great detail, but I removed the content anyway in the conservative spirit of WP:BLP, pending resolution of a talk page discussion which was already open. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:10, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a review of Mkstokes's contribution history that I conducted yesterday when I saw the RfAR case request filed, I support an indefinite ban under CT provisions from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff for frequent and egregious violations of the biographies of living persons policy, as well as battleground behaviour. I agree with TarnishedPath that their behaviour and contribution history is disruptive and also reflects that of a single-purpose account. Daniel (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that we've got edit warring going on here. I don't think a TBAN from the topics broadly is necessitated by the edit warring (a P-block from the articles could do that), but I do have some concern about bludgeoning from the respondent that can't be resolved by a mainspace PBLOCK. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:28, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note this diff by the filer, which Ivanvector has correctly noted come fairly close to gravedancing (or at least the spirit thereof). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed by either party's behavior here. I'd probably be inclined to give both of them some time away from that article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:51, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- For me, while TarnishedPath definitely hasn't been perfect in this whole situation, I feel like they haven't been anywhere near as disruptive as Mkstokes. When you then factor in that Mkstokes is, in my opinion, a single-purpose account (167 edits total) pushing a pretty clear point of view and without the high level of sourcing required for negative BLP content, I don't think an equitable sanction is appropriate here. I'd encourage a bespoke but firm warning to TarnishedPath and, as per my view above, an indefinite ban from Nick McKenzie & Peter Schiff for Mkstokes. Daniel (talk) 23:32, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could live with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:51, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could also live with that, provided that the bespoke but firm warning is a logged warning. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Absent any objections from admins here, I plan to close this by the end of today as a topic ban from Nick McKenzie and Peter Schiff for Mkstokes, alongside a warning for the filer. I think this reflects consensus here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds good to me, thanks in advance for actioning. Daniel (talk) 06:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KhndzorUtogh

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.

Request concerning KhndzorUtogh

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

1 January 2024 The sentence "Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" added by a third-party user;
3 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh changes "regains" to "takes" and leaves a note on the talkpage;
5 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh's edit reverted, with a discussion ensuing on the talkpage;
18 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh reverts back while the discussion is in progress and nowhere near reaching consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

28 December 2023 KhndzorUtogh is currently subject to an indefinite arbitration enforcement sanction requiring them to obtain consensus before readding any reverted content in AA3 articles. They have also been warned not to engage in battleground editing.
9 January 2024 The sanction conditions were clarified to them (on their own request) just a few days ago.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KhndzorUtogh narrowly escaped an indefinite topic ban following the most recent AE request addressing their battleground behaviour, but unfortunately continues to display the same editing pattern that earned them the one-revert sanction they have just violated.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [1]

Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh

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.

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

3 January 2024 is not a revert, it is a general copyediting diff, all of the changes of which I explained on the talkpage for Ken Aeron, the user that edited 1 January 2024. Ken never replied, instead Parishan later did. The 5 January 2024 edit by Parishan (who is the un-named editor) was only a partial revert; I didn't receive a notification that I was reverted and hadn't realized that I had been. I also wasn't notified Parishan had replied to me four days later on 9 January because I didn't get an alert. By the time I noticed it on 18 January, I didn't remember a one-word change out of a much larger copyediting edit I made for a different user. Since I wasn't notified of Parishan's revert, it appeared that the word was never changed. The 18 January 2024 edit came after I posted several sources for it on the talk page, so it had seemed like a single bold edit I had made, in line with WP:BRD.

And it seems like incredibly bad faith and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for Parishan to link a discussion I had with Callanec showing several examples of me being careful to adhere to the rules, and then somehow conclude "continues to display the same editing pattern". For example, I followed the advice given here to the letter on the Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh article. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: This article had a massive amount of activity within the first few days of January (42 revisions by 13 users). I was reviewing every change and copyediting where needed, and unfortunately amid all the other changes, I forgot that I had already changed this one word. The confusion also came from interacting with two different users. After I copy edited several changes made by Ken Aeron, that user never disputed anything in my edit, so I must've made a mental note this issue was resolved. Then Parishan made a manual change; not a revert, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification. When I changed the word on 18 January, I thought I was changing it for the first time as WP:BRD allows. I wouldn't have changed the word otherwise, I'm being very careful not to get into an edit war. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By partial revert, I only meant that the 3 January 2024 edit was not 1:1 reverted by the 5 January 2024 edit; Parishan only made one change (perhaps not an undo, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification would've been a better choice of words). Of course I understand this is still a revert, but because it left most of my changes intact, didn't use the undo button (which sends a notification), and the article had a lot of recent activity, I hadn't noticed it at the time. And regarding the various 1 January 2024 edits by Ken Aeron, I remember the most alarming changes being the addition of false/unsourced claims (the part about the armed forces) and the unexplained removal of sourced information. I hope this explains why I didn't recall changing one word as clearly as the other differences. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KhndzorUtogh

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

I'm looking at the talk page of 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh as it was at the time that you made this edit. I'm plainly not seeing consensus in the relevant discussion (i.e. the NPOV issues section of the talk). The guidance given by Callanecc on your talk page, particularly An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus, makes the restriction quite clear.
@KhndzorUtogh: In light of the above, would you be willing to explain why you made the edit to re-insert your preferred language of takes even though it had been reverted to regains by another editor prior to your doing so? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KhndzorUtogh: Let me lay this out a little bit more clearly, from my understanding:
1. An editor adds something to an article (Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh)
2. you change what they added (Azerbaijan takes control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh)
3. an editor (partially) reverts you (Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh)
4. You revert edit No. 3 without a consensus (Azerbaijan takes control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh, talk page does not show consensus to revert)
Am I missing anything here? Alternatively, to what extent do you not understand how Edit #3 is a revert (i.e. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part) of Edit #2, or how Edit #4 is a revert of Edit #3?
The ability to have a narrowly tailored restriction that requires one to limit one's own editing, rather than requiring more blunt technical enforcement measures to do so, (i.e. your "consensus-required"-lite restriction given on 28 December, as clarified on 9 January), rests in large part upon one's ability to understand what sorts of edits would be in that restrictions scope. If you don't understand why Edit #3 and Edit #4 constitute reverts, this very well could pose a problem going forward. Can you help me to better understand what your thought process is around what is and isn't a revert? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm understanding KU right, they are not disputing that edits 3 or 4 were reverts. I think they are saying that they:
did not remember making edit 2
therefore did not perceive edit 3 as a revert at the time
therefore knew that edit 4 was a revert, but not that it was a re-addition of reverted content
It's hard for me to reconcile that version of events with the talk page discussion, which was mentioned in edit 3, and which would have acted as an obvious reminder that there was history of dispute over "regains"/"takes". Regardless, whether it's a failure to understand, a lapse of memory, or something else, I'm not sure it matters. The purpose of the sanction is to stop KU from edit warring, and if it's not working, then we should escalate the sanction. I'd support something like a one week block. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to they are not disputing that edits 3 or 4 were reverts, the respondent’s stated above Then Parishan made a manual change; not a revert, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification (emphasis mine), referring to Edit #3. I think they may be confusing the “undo” feature with the broader concept of a revert, but the respondent can speak for themself.
The bigger problem, as I see it, is that the revert restriction is a self-limiting sanction; the sanctioned editor needs to have a decent understanding of what reverts are if they are going to avoid violating a revert restriction. And they haven’t understood that even after a pretty clear explanation on their talk page. Absent them understanding what a revert is, for purposes of their sanction, they are likely to violate it going forward even if they are willing (in the abstract) to abide by it.
I don’t want to set up an editor to fail—the editor either needs to demonstrate that they understand the sanction, or we need to move to a more restrictive one that the editor does understand. I agree that we can block one week for a first-offense violation of the revert restriction (particularly in light of the explanation/clarification posted on the user’s talk page), and I would hope that we can get some assurance from the editor that they understand their revert restriction going forward. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 14:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have the same hopes. Re the terminology, KU described edit 3 in their first response as a "partial revert". I think they get it, but maybe the got sloppy with the wording. KhndzorUtogh, it would help if you could clarify your understanding of what a revert is. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I am understanding correctly, KU is not disputing the facts of the case at all, but is saying that because, on 5 January, another user reverted a small part of a much larger edit KU previously made, and did so in a manner that didn't notify them, they didn't realize they had been reverted in the first place. I find this explanation quite reasonable given the number of intervening edits on that article, as well as KU's activity level. I don't like that we're at AE over a single word that could have been self-reverted, especially when the party being reported here voluntarily engaged on the talk page. Though this is a violation of the letter of the law, I would not levy sanctions here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I much prefer to see someone reach out at a user's talk page and explain the reverts and request a self-revert before a trip to AE. When dealing with consensus required, 1RR, enforced BRD , individual sanctions, and all the rest it is easy to make mistakes. I don't think any sanctions are necessary with a commitment to self-revert if a violation is raised and explained. A word that a pattern of such lapses, even with self-reverts, will result in a tightening of sanctions may also not be amiss. That said, as they are already under sanction, and with the explanation and talk page discussion I wouldn't object to a block if other admins believe it is called for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sakiv

Appeal declined. Galobtter (talk) 04:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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: Sakiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sakiv (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Sixth-month topic ban

Administrator imposing the sanction: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by Sakiv

There was a discussion about the Greater Palestine article that began on January 6, when I brought up the topic of moving the article that began in August. Onceinawhile promptly replied in a non-objective manner and began to personalize the discussion, always referring to me with the word “you.” The same editor had agreed to a rename to PLO and Jordan. Notice that in the history of the article, there is an IP address that suddenly entered the discussion and described me as not being there to build an encyclopedia unlike Onceinawhile. Days passed and the discussion died down for a week, specifically on January 12, when the aforementioned editor nominated the article for deletion. At the same time, as a right to save any article that one of the editors deems worthy of survival, I have attempted to develop it in good faith and constructively. After several hours, editor Zero000 comes and removes content that they find problematic without discussion. I admit that my role was not completely good, but what happened was an accumulation that the other party also contributed to. This reply was very unnecessary and is this a response that helps make the encyclopedia a place for cooperation?. On the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I acknowledge that I was supposed to notify the two editors involved, but there was a discussion that was ongoing and it was not clear what was the appropriate place - dispute resolution or a third opinion. My goal was an administrative measure not to delete texts from an article until the picture became clear. I didn't get any warnings about complaints due to my "battleground edditing". Most of my edits revolve around football and season statistics. My edits bear witness that I stay away from sharp and uncontrolled debate and adhere to neutrality.Sakiv (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received one message on my discussion page and after that I did not say anything about the topic. I am committed to the decision and the topic revolves around that article alone. There are no complaints about my contributions to other articles. I acknowledge that what I did in the Administrators' noticeboard was not what was expected, but that was the basis for the emotions that followed the heated discussion of the article and the discussion of deletion. Sakiv (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Despite this good intention and my avoidance of any disturbances during these days, it seems that there is nothing left to be said. I find it very difficult to understand this reaction. Sakiv (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I attack other editors? How will I explain to you what happened? If there is another way. Tell me instead of this type of talk. Everything I explained to you seems to be of no use. Sakiv (talk) 17:14, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Statement by Zero0000

I won't repeat everything I wrote at ANI, except to note that here again Sakiv demonstrates a serious OWN problem with that article (Greater Palestine, now merged). Every disagreement with his/her changes is taken personally no matter how much they are explained.

Also, I have never deleted anything from that article without explanation so that charge is false. On the other hand, with only the pseudo-explanation "restore valuable information", this edit of Sakiv undid 10 months worth of edits. Zero^talk 03:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Star Mississippi

While I supported the topic ban in the referenced discussion, I also think their conduct post TB shows that Sakiv got off too lightly. Continuing to re-litigate the old fights is not conducive to collaborative editing and would support a broader block. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) NB: not a frequent AE editor, please re-format me if needed. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sakiv

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.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Sakiv

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

Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/the ANI thread to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. You are clearly anti-Israel). Galobtter (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on what's been presented here, I see no reason to overturn the 6 month topic ban. It might have even been too lenient, but time will tell on that one. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 03:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An appeal that is spent attacking other users is a non-starter for me. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irtapil

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.

Request concerning Irtapil

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Irtapil (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#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

WP:1RR violations:
At List of engagements during the Israel–Hamas war:

13:12, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 19:09, 5 January 2024
18:32, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:33, 14 January 2024
20:14, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:12, 15 January 2024
22:20, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 04:34, 30 December 2023
11:05, 16 January 2024 - Partial revert of 20:43, 15 January 2024
I requested they self-revert after the 22:20, 15 January 2024 edit. They did eventually revert, but not before making an additional 1RR violation at 11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it.
23:23, 18 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:33, 14 January 2024
10:10, 19 January 2024‎, 10:42, 19 January 2024, 11:11, 19 January 2024, and 12:42, 19 January 2024 - Partial reverts of 03:49, 19 January 2024
I requested they self-revert after the 11:11, 19 January 2024 edit; rather than doing so, they made an additional 1RR violation with the 12:42, 19 January 2024 edit. They still have not self reverted these violations.

Looking through a few of their edits, I see they have also violated 1Rr elsewhere, although no request to self-revert these were made, such as at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel:

17:04, 5 January 2024
17:38, 5 January 2024 to 18:22, 5 January 2024‎
19:01, 5 January 2024

From the discussions that took place on their talk page, my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but they are struggling to understand what they need to do. I've seen similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply with the relevant restrictions, but for various reasons fail to do so.

For example, I previously raised this edit with them, in which they added the claim that the Entire Population 2,375,259 of the Gaza Strip had been Captured, a claim that is both extraordinary and unsupported by the source they added which was from May 2023 and provided the population figures for the Gaza Strip.

When I warned them about it on grounds of NPOV, their explanation convinced me that they added this figure in good faith; that they believed the number of affected individuals needed to go somewhere, and they believed the "captured" column was the best of the various options. However, they should have realized that leaving it out was a better choice than introducing a serious WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V issue.

Similarly, other editors have warned them about adding content without citations alongside a "citation needed" tag. Again, their explanation convinces me that they are acting in good faith, with them intending to add sources later, but they should realize that they should add the sources and the content in the same edit - or at least at the same time.

Elsewhere, I've seen them misunderstanding where and how it is appropriate to notify editors of discussions.

To summarize; I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability - or at least, I don't have the ability to provide the guidance necessary for them to do so, although perhaps some here will be able to.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If 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 13:54, 15 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I've added diffs of the edits they reverted per request from Galobtter; I'm happy to include a written summary of what they reverted as even with these diffs it isn't immediately clear, but I will need a few hundred extra words to do so. BilledMammal (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers, I think what I said when I originally brought up the revert addresses your questions:

I note that you have since made another 1RR violation; 11:05, 16 January 2024. Making a 1RR violation while a request to self-revert a 1RR violation [is outstanding] isn't a good look; I won't ask you to revert this one because it's a reasonable change, and I wouldn't even have brought it up outside this context, but I would suggest you be more careful in the future.

Admins, this takes me over the word limit; please revert if inappropriate. 06:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

10:20, 23 January 2024

Discussion concerning Irtapil

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.

Statement by Irtapil

Questions

Am I allowed to link this discussion to other users to ask for advice?

Draft Response

a recent related discussion

Talk page discussion User talk:Irtapil # BilledMammal

There were no violations of 1RR left outstanding when BilledMammal brought this to arbitration.

For the majority of requests requests to self revert that user talk:BilledMammal made on my talk page I already responded. I usually within hours and complied with the implied self-revert request as soon as they clearly explained what they would consider a self revert. Most of the edits were too old to simply click "undo" and many were complicated, so I wanted to be sure I understood what they wanted done.

I refused to self revert one edit, made on 19 January in multiple steps.

By my interpretation this counts a one revert made in multiple steps?

For this one revert I clearly explained what I was doing as I did it

in edit summaries
and in the talk page
and in a temporary header I added to the page while I was actively working on it, including an {{in use}} box and some additional notes.

One revert in 10 DAYS doesn't violated 1RR

As far as I can tell, This is the only "revert" I hadn't already self reverted in a window of over ten days between now and 13:12, 14 January 2024 and now.

My one multi step revert came after a sudden series of approximately 60 consecutive edits by Billed mammal, most of which removed content (so they would count as reverts).

I am willing to define that as one (very big) multi step revert.

But in that case BilledMammal really had no basis to drag this to arbitration based on the series of edits I made when I reverted that 60-step revert.

Why I did that big revert

BilledMammal had deleted parts of every section of the page. They claimed it should be left deleted pending discussion on the basis of WP:ONUS, but it really would not be feasible to discuss such widespread changes in a timely manner, and I worried it would very quickly lead to forked versions becoming impossible to re-integrate if the discussion did come out in favour of keeping the version before BilledMammal did that.

They had mentioned some of the things they wanted removed on the talk page in the few days before that, but nobody agreed that it should be removed. I disagred, nobody else joined the discussion.

Why I did it in multiple steps

I regret doing it that way. What I should have done is just reset the page to the version immediately before BilledMammal started.

The reason I did it a bit at a time was I was trying to seriously consider some of BilledMammal's changes, I ended up keeping a lot of them.

I then read through her talk page comments and tried to accommodate some of her concerns by comprising on some of the things I had previously objected to.

If I recall correctly BilledMammal responded to my attempts to cooperate and comprise by continuing to harrass me with a series of alleged 1RR violations.

The other edit I didn't self revet was already a self revert

As far as I am aware, this edit was a self revert in the first place. I have asked BlledMammal whose edit I was reverting in the edit if not my own, and I've not seen an answer. That edit involves some weird politics and weirdly behaving templates, so I wanted to talk to the other editor about it if it wasn't me. But, as far as I know, nobody's was editing that section other than me. There was also a copyright bot that had me confused in that section, but i already discussed this with BilledMammal.

Questions for BilledMammal

Sorry I'm taking a while to get to some of these, those template links don't work on a lot of my devices.

"11:05, 16 January 2024. Note that this edit was only problematic due to the 1RR violation; absent that I would agree with it." Is that the one where you:

complained that I removed words identical to the column heading and identified it as an alleged 1RR violation
so I self reverted, explaining why I was doing such a weird edit in the edit summary, and identifying you as the person who wanted me to do it.
then said something like "I didn't actually tell you to revert it"

That on Earth did you WANT as a response?

Why tell me about an alleged 1RR violation if it is not a request to self revert?

You gave me a huge list of imaginatively interpreted alledged "reverts", self reversing that was one of the easiest to get off the list, and being so silly, another editor was very likely to fix it quite quickly.

If even YOU don't think that needed undoing, why list it?

How did it even count as an excessive revert? It was an edit we seem to both agree improved the page? And the result of removing the redundant words was not identical to any previous version of the page.

@User:BilledMammal The what and why aren't just rhetorical flourishes, I want actual answers,

Why did you tell me about an alledged 1RR violation if you didn't even want me to self revert it?
What DID you want me to do about it?

Irtapil (talk) 05:59, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to feedback

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I honestly appreciated your feedback earlier this week and took it on board. I do remember making some of those still unfinished edits and was I was meaning to find them and finish them or move them to my user space until they were presentable. I probably would have done that already if not kept busy and stressed by an endless stream of alleged 1RR violations. Irtapil (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC) edited a bit Irtapil (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus

I agree I got too over-enthusiastically speculative with the belligerents data that week. I have made user:space pages for unconfirmed events now, a much more suitable place for them, pending a full story in reliable sources.

Again, I honestly did take the feedback on board, but i didn't get far through checking my old edits and improving them because I was kept very busy with alleged WP:1RR errors.

Irtapil (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I am a bit confused by what you said in the linked discussion about the un-referenced belligerents.

I'm not sure why you didn't just remove it? Different editors seem to have contradictory interpretations of the etiquette and policy on that.

If your fund any old errors where I've already agreed with constructive criticism, removing them for me when you see them seems helpful? Just let me know in case I want to add unfinished stuff to my user-space, or in case I have made similar old errors elsewhere.

At least I found it now, fixing now.

Irtapil (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@user:SaintPaulOfTarsus We discussed already this week that I have been over-using or misusing {{cn}} for "follow up" notes, and I probably would have fixed a lot of them by now if I haven't been stuck on the WP:1RR stuff. BUT also Those out-of-context quotes and inaccurate paraphrasing severely distort what I said. e.g.

leaving out "might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather…" from the first one of makes it sound like a very aggressive assertion, when it was actually a very timidly phrased pondering of a thing I didn't claim any certainty about all.
and the last one has been rearranged to give an almost opposite meaning to what I intended.

Irtapil (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like this response to stay next to the comment where what I wrote has been misleadingly paraphrased, please.

@SaintPaulOfTarsus I'll get rid of the misused cite notes and/or unnecessary commentary in them, but those out-of-context paraphrasingss severely distort what I said!

Leaving out "might be worth researching some background to give this more context, as far as I can gather" from the first one makes it sound like an aggressive baseless assertion, when I was actually very awkwardly trying to describe a topic I am very unsure about. But I'll just delete it, from your reading of it I can see I articulated my point in a way that was very open to misinterpretation, and it's a misuse of a cite note anyway.
The key part of what I said in the second was "The amount of scripture K. S. Al-Aqsa quote seems incongruous with "secularism" as a core ideology" but I will delete the vague speculation, the more important point is that the reference there, like the rest of the page, is over 15 years out of date and they seem to have dissociated from the secular Fatah party since then. Reliable sources do descends them as further apart than the general "arms length" relationship between most political and militant wings, they're barely even on the same side anymore, if at all. That whole page needs a maybe update.
In the last case you've reshuffled what I said to look like I said almost the exact opposite of what I actually meant, and that comment starts with "I'm not sure if the following would help or just add more confusion?" The way to respond to that would be to say on the talk page for that article "yeah, the ISIS bit is a confusing a mess, definitely leave it out" any time in the paste couple of months, not suddenly bridging it up here when we have never discussed it previously.

Irtapil (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

This recent ANI discussion seems relevant, in particular the interaction between filer and defendant.Selfstudier (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SaintPaulOfTarsus

I feel justified making a statement because a talkpage message I authored was linked above and discussed by admins.

I have had frequent interactions with the user starting in early December, mostly in ARBPIA. I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns like those Galobtter expressed below, culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive.

20:09, 16 January 2024: addition of a section on media portrayals of the 7 October attacks (all the attacks, broadly speaking), which seems to have little direct relevance to this specific single attack.

20:45, 16 January 2024: unsourced extension of the battle date in the infobox by four days. This was discussed on the user's talk page. I didn't come away from the conversation with any idea where the alternative date came from.

08:12, 16 January 2024: unsourced addition of a new group as a belligerent in the battle. After I asked for clarity, a later edit added unsourced information (on Khan Yunis) that had no direct connection to the article's subject (Sufa). I addressed this on the article's talk page (last reply in linked section) after reverting it, but received no explanation.

In addition to what you previously read from me, the user deploys citation needed tags in other disruptive ways.

19:08, 16 January 2024: addition of a citation needed tag to a portion of the infobox reading "Al-Qassam Brigades: 3,000 entered Israel." A comment attached to the template reads "is that 3000 militants or does that include people celebrating at the destroyed fence?" I opened the cited article and found that its fourth sentence read "The 3,000 figure in the latest assessment only includes armed terror operatives and not the waves of Gazan citizens who took advantage of the enormous gaps in the fence to also make their way inside later in the day."

01:50, 11 January 2024: addition of a citation needed tag to the translated name of a military group: "Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem." In part, the user's comment reads "Please double check the citation supports that translation". I double-checked the citation and found that the second sentence of the referenced article read Its full name is 'Jaysh al-Ummah al-Salafi fi Bayt al-Maqdis' ('The Salafi Army of the Ummah in Jerusalem')."

These examples indicate a tendency to dispute content without checking existing citations. The user wouldn't have had to scroll far to have these questions answered.

The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate on whether Hamas likes Israeli Arabs less than other Israelis because they view them as "traitors", or on how often Muslims who want secular government quote the Quran, and includes commented-out speculation in articles on whether ISIS was involved on October 7, because "I've read half a dozen in depth articles on this, but i need to find them again."

Reading WP:DISRUPTSIGNS, I felt I had observed nearly all the listed examples from this user.

SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 04:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Irtapil

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

I'd appreciate if there was a link to the diffs you are saying Irtapil reverted, because otherwise it is very hard to follow sequence of reverts/verify the 1RR violations. I looked at the diffs at User_talk:Irtapil#BilledMammal too, and it's hard for me to see where the revert is, especially since table edits are very hard to follow in a diff format. But it seems like part of the issue is Irtapil will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be interventing edits turning that one revert into multiple. We already discussed this on my talk page where I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts. It seems like Irtapil could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue.

I'm more concerned about the other edits, especially adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on "know[ing] citations exist".

I'm getting increasingly concerned Irtapil doesn't have the competence to keep editing in this WP:CTOP. Galobtter (talk) 03:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irtapil, you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request.
I've warned Irtapil at least twice now about personalized commentary. Along with the example BilledMammal provided, there is also this recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement with Galobtter that they may not be net positive in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss

Makeandtoss is warned to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The user is also warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide one revert restriction.— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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.

Request concerning Makeandtoss

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:00, 24 January 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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

WP:1RR violations: At Israel–Hamas war:

10:52, 23 January 2024
10:55, 23 January 2024

At Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh:

15:41, 20 January 2024
15:08, 20 January 2024
11:10, 20 January 2024
11:00, 20 January 2024

They have previously responded quickly to self-revert requests (October, November) but they were unwilling to do so here, arguing that these don't constitute reverts. There are additional unreverted 1RR violations, but I lack the diffs to present them and they were not raised with Makeandtoss at the time.

Outside of WP:1RR they have engaged in extensive edit warring at Israel-Hamas war. They have edit warred over describing in Wikivoice Israel and the US being internationally isolated amid calls for a ceasefire:

10:08, 22 January 2024 - Israel and the United States were internationally isolated to Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire
08:01, 21 January 2024 - Israel and the United States were internationally isolated to Israel and the United States were internationally isolated amid global calls for a ceasefire
10:44, 19 January 2024 - Israel and the United States have ~~been described as~~ increasingly internationally isolated to Israel and the United States have become increasingly internationally isolated
13:01, 17 January 2024 - Israel and the United States have been described as internationally isolated to Israel and the United States have been described as increasingly internationally isolated amid calls for a ceasefire
12:47, 12 January 2024 - Israel and the United States are becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage ~~in their refusal to accept a ceasefire~~ to Israel and the United States are becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage amid global calls for a ceasefire
21:26, 6 January 2024 - ~~The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting those calls~~ to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage
14:33, 4 January 2024 - ~~The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting these calls~~ to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage
14:32, 30 December 2023 - Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated ~~on the world stage~~ to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire
10:16, 16 December 2023 - ~~The United States has sided with Israel in rejecting calls for ceasefire~~ to Israel and the United States were becoming increasingly isolated amid growing global calls for a ceasefire

They have also edit warred over whether Palestinian casualties should be led with "Since the start of the Israeli operation":

10:03, 22 January 2024
07:59, 21 January 2024
10:43, 19 January 2024
11:52, 12 January 2024

This isn't the full extent of their recent edit warring on that article; the most significant violation that I have not detailed here is over the number of paragraphs in the lede, with them being very insistent that it must be four, but I am running out of diffs.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20:45, 14 October 2023 - Page blocked from Israel–Hamas war for 48 hours for disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground.

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 11:32, 11 July 2017 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Vanamonde, may I have ten more diffs and 200 more words to address your comment? BilledMammal (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 10:55 was a revert of this edit, where an editor added a counteroffensive it called; this was modified over the next thirteen days, and was in the form a counteroffensive named when Makeandtoss removed it entirely. I believe this constitutes a revert, but if my understanding of a revert is mistaken I would welcome a correction.

Regarding the second set, at Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh:

11:00 and 15:08 involved edit warring over the use of this source; Makeandtoss first removed it at 11:00, saying removing unreliable source; Eladkarmel then re-added it in the same context at 12:23, 20 January 2024, and then Makeandtoss removed it again at 15:08, saying arms associations are not reliable sources.

There was some discussion on the talk page about this source, but I'm not seeing any consensus to re-remove the source.

15:41 is less problematic, because by that time Eladkarmel had said If you think the current paragraph is bad, I'm not against deleting it, although it remains a technical 1RR violation.

Regarding the third set, "global isolation":

This has been discussed a couple of times (1 and 2). However, I'm not seeing any consensus to include it there, with a number of editors either opposing it generally or opposing the specific form that Makeandtoss has been insisting on; while it is currently in the article, I would attribute that to persistence rather than consensus.

Regarding the fourth set, "Since the start":

As far as I can tell, Makeandtoss and PrimaPrime have been disputing this since Makeandtoss first added it, and nobody else has cared to comment on this specific aspect despite some discussion between the two on the talk page. Again, while it is currently in the article, I would attribute that to persistence rather than consensus.

BilledMammal (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen minutes after you re-removed the source Ecrusized, not Eladkarmel, said Yup, I am over 1RR so I would support if you reverted this. BilledMammal (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

16:00, 24 January 2024

Discussion concerning Makeandtoss

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.

Statement by Makeandtoss

1 The second edit was not a revert since the edit had been stable there for 13 days.

2 These were not edit wars, there was actually a friendly and constructive talk page discussion for each of the edits [2]. Furthermore, there was no way for me to self-revert since when notified to this, the article had been moved and the content was completely changed.

3 These were restorations of the phrasing that was agreed upon in two talk page discussions that I engaged in with other editors.

4 This was also a restoration of the term that was presented on the talk page.

There are no violations of 1 RR above, and the rest of the edits were restoring edits that were agreed upon in the talk page of a constantly changing article at the Israel-Hamas war. In my defense, I will admit that, although I believe the last article ban was excessive, I accepted it, learnt from it and kept it always in my mind to avoid violating 1RR again and engaging in the talk page more. This behavior is the opposite of edit warring. On the other hand, it is important to note that the filing editor has a documented history of making false accusations to get editors they disagree with in contentious topics banned:

1- They have been warned on AE in 2021 that "BilledMammal is warned that groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions". And they were blocked afterwards.

2- Editors also pointed out to this behavior of theirs just 3 days ago at AN [3]

3- They have filed another complain against another editor just yesterday here on AE, just above this discussion.

It is crystal clear now that instead of engaging on the articles' talk pages to solve disagreement and reach consensus, they have chosen instead of spend countless hours trying to find fault in other editors to get them banned. This is not about making everyone conform with WP's guidelines, this is about them continuing to edit unopposed. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: Thank you for the reasonable assessment. Please note that the second revert was not because no one responded in the talk page but because as you can see from my edit summary I was objecting to the mass reversion of my edits on the basis that I should receive permission from the editor, and that I wanted them to revert the specific edits that they objected to. After this happened there was a talk page discussion that they eventually stopped responding to. I hope what I meant is clearer now. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: It was genuinely made in good faith, I didn’t expect it to be controversial at all; my point was to allow the editors to revert specific edits so that the talk page discussion can be more streamlined instead of focusing on dozens of things. Looking back, at that moment, I was pretty upset that the hours-long effort I put into summarizing the article was reverted, so you are right, I did indeed overreact impatiently, but this is not a general editing behavior of mine, evidenced by 10 years of being on here and working constructively with everyone. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Red-tailed hawk: Thank you for taking the time and effort in reviewing this and all other cases. I realize the importance of your role in identifying and subsequently minimizing disruption to ensure WP remains a constructive place. At the same time, equally important, is to ensure that defenses are given adequate attention so that fairness is ensured. As mentioned above, it was impossible for me to revert myself, because the content had completely changed at the assassination article. As for the other edit it had been 13 day stable, so it cannot be considered a revert, especially considering that article is constantly being edited. Most importantly, on the sentence regarding international isolation, there was a constant discussion on the talk page in which consensus (the process of addressing all editors relevant concerns that involves putting compromises) was present in the talk page as you can see here and here. As noted by @Vanamonde93: there was a genuine effort to talk this through, and compromise was made several times. This is constructive and is not just repeatedly undoing other editors' works as defined at the guideline. Although I admit this should have been more thoroughly and appropriately discussed through an RFC, but I was hesitant given the high levels of activity on the article and its talk page, in which it is difficult to track who changed what and why. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to additional comments

I did not "remove" counteroffensive, I replaced it with invasion because that's what the linked Wikipedia article is called. More importantly, this was a 2 week stable edit and is not a reversion.

At the assassination article talk page, the editor who I reverted explicitly told me that he reverted me by mistake: "Sorry, I didn't notice the unreliable sources thing." And then they also explicitly told me: "Yup, I am over 1RR so I would support if you reverted this". And then in another comment: "If you think the current paragraph is bad, I'm not against deleting it". There was no dispute and thus no edit warring. On the contrary, it was an evolving consensus on what is the best way forward.

The third set, there were two discussions on the talk page. In both, there was disagreement on the phrasing of the words, but this was constantly evolving as seen above. Furthermore, the fact that this sentence remains in the article roughly reflects that there is agreement for its inclusion.

As for the "Since the start.." in the edits I added a RS from the NYT, an addition not just restoring, which is also based on the talk page discussion and trying to find what RS say about this. More importantly again is the fact that this sentence remains in the article, also roughly reflecting that there is agreement for its inclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was 2 hours after Eladkarmel told me: "Sorry, I didn't notice the unreliable sources thing." I just noticed that I might have mixed up the users Eladkarmel and Ecrusized since they have similar usernames, but that just proves that all 3 of us were working together and not reverting each other. Makeandtoss (talk) 19:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not take this out of context to settle scores, you were mass reverting my edits, claiming editors needed to take permissions from you to edit since it is a featured article; this is shown explicitly in my edit summary: "per talk page, anyone is welcome to revert any specific edits they disagree with". Furthermore, you even stopped engaging on the talk page. Makeandtoss (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Midnightblueowl

Makeandtoss has engaged in similar behaviour, namely WP:Edit Warring, at the FA-rated Nelson Mandela article, where they have sought to push additions about Israel/Palestine in recent days. After their initial alterations/additions were reverted, with a request that they abide by WP:BRD, they twice restored their edits:

08:47, 19 January 2024
15:31, 20 January 2024

This appears to be a pattern of behaviour across multiple articles, one motivated particularly on issues regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Midnightblueowl (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Makeandtoss is an excellent and valuable editor, not least because he is one of the very few in ARBPIA who can read Arabic. Just before this case was filed, I spent some time explaining aspects of the 1RR rule that Makeandtoss did not understand. For example, he thought it was ok to do a second revert if the editor he was reverting had apparently agreed to it on the talk page. In terms of his combativeness level, among regulars in ARBPIA he is around the middle, well below many others who are more careful. Of course he has personal biases but so does everyone who edits in ARBPIA. In my opinion a stern warning is a sufficient outcome. Zero^talk 00:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement from Irtapil

Please note, the accuser here is symaltaniously accusing (at least) two editors of long lists of alleged 1RR violations. (See also the section directly above this) Irtapil (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@user:BilledMammal can you please more clearly identify the edits, that the accused is supposedly reverting, and the user who made them?

Firstly it is hard to tell what is being reverted without seeing who is who?
Secondly it takes at least two people to have an edit war, who is the other side of this?

Irtapil (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Makeandtoss

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

Some parts of this complaint are concerning, others less so. I'm struggling to see how the examples in the initial complaint are 1RR violations. The edits to the Israel-Hamas war could be, but if the second edit was an obvious revert, I'm not seeing evidence of it yet. The second set as best as I can tell is a genuine example of consensus-building via editing, with multiple editors modifying each other's contributions, and with constructive talk page discussion. The other set of edits (re: global isolation) on the Israel-Hamas war are spread far apart in time, and are clearly not 1RR violations. The contested text is currently present in the article, meaning they could reasonably be seen as enforcing consensus; if there is evidence that those were edit-warring over disputed content, I have yet to see it. The edits on Nelson Mandela are more concerning to me; there's at least one too many reverts being made there. I would have preferred to see more substantive engagement on the talk page from all parties, but nonetheless that does not justify the second revert while discussion was ongoing. Makeandtoss, best as I can tell you performed this revert an hour after MBO left this message on the talk page, and a minute after your response on the talk page. I don't see how you can justify that based on a lack of engagement. At the very least more patience is expected with contentious content on an FA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, yes, length extension is fine by me (and in the interest of fairness I think Makeandtoss should get an equivalent extension for rebuttal, should they want it). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Makeandtoss, yes, it's obvious that you objected to being mass-reverted; but that does not justify a revert on your part. If you can't see that, I'm beginning to feel a sanction may be needed here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:22, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see multiple 1RR violations, not remedied after being approached on their talk page, and long term, if low intensity, edit warring over the lead of Israel-Hamas war. 13 days is reaching stability in these articles, but it's something I would hang my hat on to rebut 1RR. I don't find pointing to a two+ year old warning at AE about vexatious complaints convincing either, as the section above certainly doesn't appear vexatious, and at ANI there wasn't any consensus that their behavior was disruptive. That whole line of argument is just WP:NOTTHEM-style deflection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned that the slow-motion edit warring continued on the very same article that the respondent was partially blocked from by HJ Mitchell a mere three months ago. That the behavior is continuing makes me think that some sort of longer-term restriction may warrant consideration. The topic area is already under 1RR, and I don't think a 0RR is going to be really all that much more effective at deterring the user's edit warring here—particularly so given that the warring is already in slow-motion. This leaves the possibility of a topic ban/page ban, or alternatively a final warning before one. I'm not sure which would be more appropriate here.
With respect to the complaints about the filer raised, I agree that that, as SFR mentioned, the two+ year-old warning given to BM is immaterial here; this isn't a vexatious complaint, nor is it groundless.
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 and ScottishFinnishRadish: Would you be OK with closing this with a warning to Makeandtoss to avoid slow-motion edit warring within WP:ARBPIA? I'm increasingly thinking that a broad TBAN is not yet warranted, but I don't see the behavior as being limited to one page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk: yes, I'm okay with that. I agree with both your assessments above. I haven't commented here because I've been undecided. I think fundamentally Makeandtoss needs to recognize that they have been too free with the revert button; I'm not impressed with their reply to me. But a broader sanction feels disproportionate, and it's clear that they are quite capable of collaborating with editors of differing POVs when they put their mind to it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slow motion edit warring and 1RR, and I'm fine with that. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. I'll close this in a few hours as such so long as no other admin objects. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards