Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
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.
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
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.
Makeandtoss:
disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground
M.Bitton:
Makeandtoss:
M.Bitton
Extended content
|
---|
|
an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution) was not met
7,797 children and 4,959 womento
15,000 children and 10,000 women. Sourced.
The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said.
Amnesty International and others have described that use of the term as weaponization of antisemitism. Sourced.
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.
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.
The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza; it is disingenuous to quote only
Hamas-run Gazaand say it isn't attributing to the health ministry.
Makeandtoss:
M.Bitton:
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)
@ 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)
@ 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.
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)
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.
relying exclusively on 3 Israeli sources for a controversial sentence is a conflict of interest( WP:QS section of WP:BURDEN).
the lack of consensus on talk pageas well as the
WP:ONUS and WP:BRD guidelines.
"Gaza Health Ministry"is not equal to the source's
"Hamas-run Gaza".
there is no need for attribution for Amnesty International, and that editors
should seek consensusfor this addition, for which there is an ongoing RFC now. Here I actually meant
WP:ONUS.
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.
explicitly mentioned in WP:BURDEN as best practice.
10:00 and 11:00 after having started the dayand/or
13:00 and 14:00 after having finished my lunch break, so this is a coincidence on different days with no deliberate editing.
False. This move
is not a revert since the article's name had been stable for 6 weeks.
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.
False. This is
not a revert as the content removed had been stable since at least 6 weeks[15].
misleadinglycited WP:BURDEN"
Falselyclaiming WP:BURDEN" => "Claiming WP:BURDEN"
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)
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)
less relevant at this point |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophiliacited to Times of Israel which itself says
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)
Seems it can't be bothWell, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 5 7 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four pointsor was this
a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments. Seems it can't be both. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 informationand 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)
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.
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
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
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)
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)
In addition, the offensive resulted in the temporary closure of the Kerem Shalom and Rafah crossings, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Kerem Shalom was closed due to the Hamas attacks, and now reopened, this is wrong and outdated.
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.
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.
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.
Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.
the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias
OP doesn't seem to know what 1RR means. Zero talk 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galamore, gaming the system Selfstudier ( talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
And the discussion Talk:Israel–Hamas war#UN changes reported casualty figures. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Background evidence: 18 May 2024 AtikaAtikawa knows how to post an edit request
Various comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war ( permalink)
Creation of Israel–Palestine conflict userboxes
Polemicizing in MfDs for the aforementioned userboxes:
The editor has eight mainspace edits. All of their mainspace edits have been made between January and September 2020. The editor has 177 total edits, of which 31.1% have been deleted. 69.7% of their live edits have been to userspace. The user is generally inactive as an editor of Wikipedia, but has increased activity probably due to interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict, but instead of resuming normal editorial activity, which would mean making edit requests for a while, the activity has been predominantly polemical. Therefore, seeing all of this user's edits in total, the user is WP:NOTHERE.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
As for the comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. I acknowledge that I failed at understanding ECR limitations when I made them; A rookie mistake that stems from the fact that I just started having interest in editing Wikipedia, and I'm still familiarising myself with the rules. In fact I was warned and I did obey. Briefly, I acknowledge my mistake here.
As for the userboxes. I hope that you take into consideration my arguments in their MfD entries. Basically, I think that Alalch E. is assuming bad faith since he is accusing me of endorsing violence and deeming atrocities as just with no basis, and I think that I actually clarified that through the documentation that the filer deemed as "apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians" when it is just a statement of a viewpoint, that is against violence from both sides.
As for the polemical comments. They were basically just answers to comments that were polemical themselves rather than referring clearly to policies that I did break. I totally understands that two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm really open to advices that concern how could I have handled this better.
As stated above, I'm well aware that I'm unexperienced, and I hope that my niche interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be somehow held against me, rather I hope for whatever answer I'll get to this to contain referrals to the rules I broke in order to be mindful to them from now on.
I acknowledge that my behaviour was suboptimal, and I acknowledge that it did stem from a potential lack of understanding the rules from my part, and I welcome any decision that comes from your part with the hope that it will serve the noble goal of making me a better editor with a better service to the encyclopedia rather than punishment just for the sake of it.— Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Technical picky point, defendant is non EC and not permitted to make statements here (or anywhere, really). An admin could/should deal with this? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Seconding Selfstudier here - the defendant is several hundred edits short of XC status anyways, so this should be a fairly textbook warning (or TBAN) for violating the ARBPIA XC restriction rather than a drawn-out AE case. The Kip ( contribs) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Alalch E.: can you remove this inflammatory comment? There are AGF interpretations of AtikaAtikawa's userbox, and these were given by Robert McClenon and Chaotic Enby. AtikaAtikawa themself wrote that the userbox doesn't support political violence, yet you still throw words like "pro-terrorism" around, and that raises the temperature. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Per a consensus of uninvolved administrators Afv12e, is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Afv12e
This user has, IMHO, had too much rope: despite numerous warnings, they seem unable or unwilling to learn our PAGs. I would suggest a TBAN, but a normal indefinite block would not go amiss. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Afv12eStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Afv12e
I apologize for the oversight regarding the image source. The image was sourced , and the copyright status is provided. I will ensure that all future images have clear and verifiable sources. The caption content was intended to summarize the image and it was taken from here [18]; (the caption reference , added here as the editor pointed out that i took image but to specify that i took reference for captions) however, I recognize the need for proper sourcing and will add references to support the information provided.
I acknowledge that the sentence was unintentionally copied. I have rewritten the sentence to better paraphrase the source. The source used describes the broader Khilafat Movement, and I have now included additional sources that specifically discuss the Malabar rebellion to support the content.
The primary source was used to provide a firsthand account of the events. However, I understand that secondary sources are preferred. I will replace the primary source with Secondary Source to ensure better adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines.
I have actively participated in discussions, as seen in [19] [20] [21]. I admit that there were misunderstandings, but I have since reviewed Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Moving forward, I will ensure all contributions are well-sourced and properly vetted.
I have taken past warnings seriously and have made significant efforts to improve my editing practices. Recent contributions such as [22] [23] demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia's guidelines and making valuable contributions.
I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, with around 300 edits and 8 months of experience. I am still learning and navigating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I appreciate the feedback and am committed to improving my contributions to the community.
Sincerely, Afv12e
Statement by 86.23.109.101I agree with Vanamonde93 that a topic ban or block is required here. A couple more examples of disruption from the last few days:
This AN thread [31] from a few days ago may be relevant here. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 21:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by BlackOrchidd
Statement by Abhishek0831996See Afv12e's edit warring on Malabar rebellion, especially this type of editing and edit summary. He is clearly not serious about what he is editing. This particularly confirms that he is editing to impose his agenda. His behavior on a recent WP:AN report was also very bad. [32] I agree Afv12e should be topic banned or blocked. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 06:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by GrabupAs far as I can see from his edits, I am convinced that he should get a topic ban. Surely, he is promoting an agenda. This Diff confirms he is pomoting an agenda. GrabUp - Talk 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Afv12e
|
Per a consensus of uninvolved administrators BlackOrchidd, is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning BlackOrchidd
His talk page is full of recent warnings for his misconduct. Capitals00 ( talk) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BlackOrchiddStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BlackOrchiddDear ArbComs
Context
Statement by GrabupI warned him not to add unreliable sources to a BLP, which appeared to be a blog site and not reliable. I also warned him not to add any type of analytics data or earnings from Socialblade. His response was not to acknowledge his mistake; instead, he said to discuss the reliability at RS. He has been warned many times for his edits. On one occasion, he was questioned by Admin BlackKite. In an edit summary, he said, “To maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), we're adjusting this article.” Where he like of misbehaved with him. He removed well-sourced material because it told the truth about Modi, providing a poor edit summary that said Hindi sources should not be used if English sources are available. I reverted that edit and said that English sources should be cited if available, but Hindi sources can also be used. Later, he had to add that portion back. I think there is a full team behind this account or accounts. Their edits are not about improving Wikipedia at all; rather, they are promoting an agenda of PM Modi. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Black KiteI'll put myself in this section as I've had a lot of interactions with them. As you can see from the history of Talk:Narendra Modi, especially Archive 21, BlackOrchidd believes that Modi's article does not contain as much positive information about him as it should do, and has repeatedly attempted to insert material that is WP:SYNTH, WP:OR or based on unreliable sources. They do not appear to understand why they cannot insert this information even when it is explained to them in detail, which is an issue of WP:CIR. I am also suspicious (as was mentioned above by Grabup) that this is an account operated by a group to "improve" Modi's article during an election. It would certainly be logical to apply a topic ban here, even if it is a time-limited one until after election - though I suspect a that time they would no longer be interested in it. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by VanamondeIn addition to the above concerns, I would note the issues with NPOV here, where they user sources discussing what officials said and present those statements as fact in Wikipedia's voice with no attribution. This is an easy error for a new user to make, but the need for attribution has been explained to them multiple times at Talk:Narendra Modi. And speaking of frivolous warnings, there was this bizarre message to me a little while ago. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning BlackOrchidd
|
Indeffed by Bbb23 as a normal admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Melvintickle16
None I'm aware of.
01:15, 29 May 2024 I posted a message to their talkpage. Air on White ( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Discussion concerning Melvintickle16Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Melvintickle16Statement by The KipIt appears Bbb23 has already indef'd the user in question for disruptive editing, so I think this case can be archived. The Kip ( contribs) 02:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Melvintickle16
|
Important information Please use this page only to:
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}}.
|
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.
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
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.
Makeandtoss:
disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground
M.Bitton:
Makeandtoss:
M.Bitton
Extended content
|
---|
|
an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution) was not met
7,797 children and 4,959 womento
15,000 children and 10,000 women. Sourced.
The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said.
Amnesty International and others have described that use of the term as weaponization of antisemitism. Sourced.
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.
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.
The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza; it is disingenuous to quote only
Hamas-run Gazaand say it isn't attributing to the health ministry.
Makeandtoss:
M.Bitton:
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)
@ 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)
@ 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.
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)
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.
relying exclusively on 3 Israeli sources for a controversial sentence is a conflict of interest( WP:QS section of WP:BURDEN).
the lack of consensus on talk pageas well as the
WP:ONUS and WP:BRD guidelines.
"Gaza Health Ministry"is not equal to the source's
"Hamas-run Gaza".
there is no need for attribution for Amnesty International, and that editors
should seek consensusfor this addition, for which there is an ongoing RFC now. Here I actually meant
WP:ONUS.
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.
explicitly mentioned in WP:BURDEN as best practice.
10:00 and 11:00 after having started the dayand/or
13:00 and 14:00 after having finished my lunch break, so this is a coincidence on different days with no deliberate editing.
False. This move
is not a revert since the article's name had been stable for 6 weeks.
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.
False. This is
not a revert as the content removed had been stable since at least 6 weeks[15].
misleadinglycited WP:BURDEN"
Falselyclaiming WP:BURDEN" => "Claiming WP:BURDEN"
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)
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)
less relevant at this point |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophiliacited to Times of Israel which itself says
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)
Seems it can't be bothWell, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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 5 7 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four pointsor was this
a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments. Seems it can't be both. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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 informationand 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)
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.
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
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
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)
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)
In addition, the offensive resulted in the temporary closure of the Kerem Shalom and Rafah crossings, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.
Kerem Shalom was closed due to the Hamas attacks, and now reopened, this is wrong and outdated.
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.
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.
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.
Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.
the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias
OP doesn't seem to know what 1RR means. Zero talk 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
For the sake of completeness, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galamore, gaming the system Selfstudier ( talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
And the discussion Talk:Israel–Hamas war#UN changes reported casualty figures. Selfstudier ( talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
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.
Search CT alerts : in user talk history • in system log
Background evidence: 18 May 2024 AtikaAtikawa knows how to post an edit request
Various comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war ( permalink)
Creation of Israel–Palestine conflict userboxes
Polemicizing in MfDs for the aforementioned userboxes:
The editor has eight mainspace edits. All of their mainspace edits have been made between January and September 2020. The editor has 177 total edits, of which 31.1% have been deleted. 69.7% of their live edits have been to userspace. The user is generally inactive as an editor of Wikipedia, but has increased activity probably due to interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict, but instead of resuming normal editorial activity, which would mean making edit requests for a while, the activity has been predominantly polemical. Therefore, seeing all of this user's edits in total, the user is WP:NOTHERE.
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
As for the comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. I acknowledge that I failed at understanding ECR limitations when I made them; A rookie mistake that stems from the fact that I just started having interest in editing Wikipedia, and I'm still familiarising myself with the rules. In fact I was warned and I did obey. Briefly, I acknowledge my mistake here.
As for the userboxes. I hope that you take into consideration my arguments in their MfD entries. Basically, I think that Alalch E. is assuming bad faith since he is accusing me of endorsing violence and deeming atrocities as just with no basis, and I think that I actually clarified that through the documentation that the filer deemed as "apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians" when it is just a statement of a viewpoint, that is against violence from both sides.
As for the polemical comments. They were basically just answers to comments that were polemical themselves rather than referring clearly to policies that I did break. I totally understands that two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm really open to advices that concern how could I have handled this better.
As stated above, I'm well aware that I'm unexperienced, and I hope that my niche interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be somehow held against me, rather I hope for whatever answer I'll get to this to contain referrals to the rules I broke in order to be mindful to them from now on.
I acknowledge that my behaviour was suboptimal, and I acknowledge that it did stem from a potential lack of understanding the rules from my part, and I welcome any decision that comes from your part with the hope that it will serve the noble goal of making me a better editor with a better service to the encyclopedia rather than punishment just for the sake of it.— Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Technical picky point, defendant is non EC and not permitted to make statements here (or anywhere, really). An admin could/should deal with this? Selfstudier ( talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Seconding Selfstudier here - the defendant is several hundred edits short of XC status anyways, so this should be a fairly textbook warning (or TBAN) for violating the ARBPIA XC restriction rather than a drawn-out AE case. The Kip ( contribs) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@ Alalch E.: can you remove this inflammatory comment? There are AGF interpretations of AtikaAtikawa's userbox, and these were given by Robert McClenon and Chaotic Enby. AtikaAtikawa themself wrote that the userbox doesn't support political violence, yet you still throw words like "pro-terrorism" around, and that raises the temperature. VR (Please ping on reply) 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Per a consensus of uninvolved administrators Afv12e, is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Afv12e
This user has, IMHO, had too much rope: despite numerous warnings, they seem unable or unwilling to learn our PAGs. I would suggest a TBAN, but a normal indefinite block would not go amiss. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Afv12eStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Afv12e
I apologize for the oversight regarding the image source. The image was sourced , and the copyright status is provided. I will ensure that all future images have clear and verifiable sources. The caption content was intended to summarize the image and it was taken from here [18]; (the caption reference , added here as the editor pointed out that i took image but to specify that i took reference for captions) however, I recognize the need for proper sourcing and will add references to support the information provided.
I acknowledge that the sentence was unintentionally copied. I have rewritten the sentence to better paraphrase the source. The source used describes the broader Khilafat Movement, and I have now included additional sources that specifically discuss the Malabar rebellion to support the content.
The primary source was used to provide a firsthand account of the events. However, I understand that secondary sources are preferred. I will replace the primary source with Secondary Source to ensure better adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines.
I have actively participated in discussions, as seen in [19] [20] [21]. I admit that there were misunderstandings, but I have since reviewed Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Moving forward, I will ensure all contributions are well-sourced and properly vetted.
I have taken past warnings seriously and have made significant efforts to improve my editing practices. Recent contributions such as [22] [23] demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia's guidelines and making valuable contributions.
I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, with around 300 edits and 8 months of experience. I am still learning and navigating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I appreciate the feedback and am committed to improving my contributions to the community.
Sincerely, Afv12e
Statement by 86.23.109.101I agree with Vanamonde93 that a topic ban or block is required here. A couple more examples of disruption from the last few days:
This AN thread [31] from a few days ago may be relevant here. 86.23.109.101 ( talk) 21:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by BlackOrchidd
Statement by Abhishek0831996See Afv12e's edit warring on Malabar rebellion, especially this type of editing and edit summary. He is clearly not serious about what he is editing. This particularly confirms that he is editing to impose his agenda. His behavior on a recent WP:AN report was also very bad. [32] I agree Afv12e should be topic banned or blocked. Abhishek0831996 ( talk) 06:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by GrabupAs far as I can see from his edits, I am convinced that he should get a topic ban. Surely, he is promoting an agenda. This Diff confirms he is pomoting an agenda. GrabUp - Talk 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)Result concerning Afv12e
|
Per a consensus of uninvolved administrators BlackOrchidd, is indefinitely topic banned from India, Pakistan and Afghanistan, broadly construed. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning BlackOrchidd
His talk page is full of recent warnings for his misconduct. Capitals00 ( talk) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning BlackOrchiddStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by BlackOrchiddDear ArbComs
Context
Statement by GrabupI warned him not to add unreliable sources to a BLP, which appeared to be a blog site and not reliable. I also warned him not to add any type of analytics data or earnings from Socialblade. His response was not to acknowledge his mistake; instead, he said to discuss the reliability at RS. He has been warned many times for his edits. On one occasion, he was questioned by Admin BlackKite. In an edit summary, he said, “To maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), we're adjusting this article.” Where he like of misbehaved with him. He removed well-sourced material because it told the truth about Modi, providing a poor edit summary that said Hindi sources should not be used if English sources are available. I reverted that edit and said that English sources should be cited if available, but Hindi sources can also be used. Later, he had to add that portion back. I think there is a full team behind this account or accounts. Their edits are not about improving Wikipedia at all; rather, they are promoting an agenda of PM Modi. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by Black KiteI'll put myself in this section as I've had a lot of interactions with them. As you can see from the history of Talk:Narendra Modi, especially Archive 21, BlackOrchidd believes that Modi's article does not contain as much positive information about him as it should do, and has repeatedly attempted to insert material that is WP:SYNTH, WP:OR or based on unreliable sources. They do not appear to understand why they cannot insert this information even when it is explained to them in detail, which is an issue of WP:CIR. I am also suspicious (as was mentioned above by Grabup) that this is an account operated by a group to "improve" Modi's article during an election. It would certainly be logical to apply a topic ban here, even if it is a time-limited one until after election - though I suspect a that time they would no longer be interested in it. Black Kite (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by VanamondeIn addition to the above concerns, I would note the issues with NPOV here, where they user sources discussing what officials said and present those statements as fact in Wikipedia's voice with no attribution. This is an easy error for a new user to make, but the need for attribution has been explained to them multiple times at Talk:Narendra Modi. And speaking of frivolous warnings, there was this bizarre message to me a little while ago. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning BlackOrchidd
|
Indeffed by Bbb23 as a normal admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:33, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Melvintickle16
None I'm aware of.
01:15, 29 May 2024 I posted a message to their talkpage. Air on White ( talk) 01:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Discussion concerning Melvintickle16Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500
words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Melvintickle16Statement by The KipIt appears Bbb23 has already indef'd the user in question for disruptive editing, so I think this case can be archived. The Kip ( contribs) 02:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC) Result concerning Melvintickle16
|