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 GalantFan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Callitropsis ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topics designation

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

1. 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC): Removing negative sourced content from Men Going Their Own Way and replacing it with positive, unsourced content
2. 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC), 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC): More unsourced changes to the article's lead without consensus on the talk page
3. 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC), 20:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC): Repeatedly changing "members" to "supporters" on Men Going Their Own Way
4. 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 17:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 18:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Edit warring; was p-blocked shortly afterward
5. Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#MGTOW communities? Members?: I know this isn't a diff, but GalantFan's comments throughout the discussion illustrate a pattern of bludgeoning and WP:NOTFORUM violations.
6. 19:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Removing a comment by another editor and starting a new section to complain that the article is non-neutral and needs more sources without suggesting specific changes
7. 20:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 21:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Edit warring to reinstate the comment added in the previous diff that was repeatedly removed for violating WP:NOTFORUM
8. 21:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Using the talk page to complain about other editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC): Blocked for a week by Tamzin for disruptive editing related to this ANI thread. Talk page access was later revoked for continued battleground conduct while blocked.
2. 18:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Partially blocked from Men Going Their Own Way for a week by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Contentious topics alert at 00:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A pretty clear-cut case of battleground conduct. I didn't take a hard look into their previous edits beyond a glance at the ANI thread that resulted in their first block. It should be noted that the editor who started that thread was an abusive sockpuppeteer, which may be a mitigating factor. — Callitropsis🌲[ talk · contribs 22:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Sangdeboeuf: Fixed, thanks. I also agree that we can AGF that the removal of another editor's comment was unintentional. — Callitropsis🌲[ talk · contribs 06:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1194228489

Discussion concerning GalantFan

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 GalantFan

1. 1 No I did not add any unsourced content. I summarized content from the history and ideology subsections in the lede.

Other editors tell me to discuss the article on the talk page and then REPEATEDLY delete my discussions of the article on the talk page.

They tell me to explain why it needs to be changed and then delete my explanation of why.

They explain that consensus needs to be reached and then tell me why they ignore everyone who disagrees with them.

They alter the POV of the article and then complain when parts of the *original* POV are restored. GalantFan ( talk) 22:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Callitropsis also deleted another editors comments about the article after Sangdeboeuf also deleted another editors comments about the article. DIFF

Previously it was proven that editor GreenCows was using multiple sock puppets to create a false impression of consensus on hundreds of articles and to camouflage hundreds of instances of white washing and POV edits. GalantFan ( talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by (username)

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

It's true that GalantFan's behavior has been obnoxious overall, displaying a repeated failure or refusal to listen to what others are saying. But I think the removal of Writ Keeper's comment (#6 above) was probably a simple edit conflict; as GF indicated on their user talk page. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC) edited 06:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Callitropsis: a bunch of the links in the evidence section point to the wrong diffs, usually the ones immediately before the edits in question, FYI. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Looking over the talk page history, I was probably too quick to remove several off-topic posts by GalantFan, which seems to have encouraged them to dig in their heels in response to a perceived attack instead of listening. I should have followed WP:TALKO and used {{ collapse}} instead of removing posts outright. I'll try to be better about that in the future. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Result concerning GalantFan

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

• As an administrative note, this editor was notified regarding the CT area on 4 January ( [1]), so we can only take AE action related to what they did after this time. There are some diffs in the report which are indeed after the notice, so I will take a look at those to determine whether action is required for those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  FYI WP:CTOP says "Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct." Galobtter ( talk) 04:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Oh, absolutely, pre-warning behavior can (and should) be considered. But there still must be a violation of some kind after it to apply CT sanctions. I think there is here, but I'm still going through the body of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Given the edit warring and other misbehavior here, I think I would indefinitely topic ban GalantFan from the subject of men's rights movements. They can then, from there, either demonstrate that they can learn to do better, or go on to harsher sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I've been considering a block because of their PAs on their own talk page. Calling editors dishonest, also this:"Regarding "consensus isn't a head count". Of course not. Consensus obviously means whoever can camp on the article the longest and delete everything that anybody else writes. Then you lied about me making unsourced edits when all I did is use the lede to summarize parts of the ideology and history. GalantFan (talk) 9:23 am, Today (UTC+0)" Doug Weller talk 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• Note: The Radish has blocked GalantFan from MGTOW for a week for edit warring. I would not object to further sanctioning for incivility, Doug. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC). reply

  I don't object to any further blocks for incivility or general battleground editing. I've been pretty under the weather and medicated so I didn't want to do anything requiring too much unclouded judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ ScottishFinnishRadish All things considered, I now think a topic ban from men’s rights movements is the best solution which will with all the issues. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I agree with Seraphimblade and Doug Weller about topic banning GalantFan, except that it might be difficult to define "men's rights movements" unambiguously. How about a topic ban from all articles in Category:Manosphere (and their talkpages)? Of course any attempt to change the categorisation in order to to allow editing of an article would be disallowed. Feel better, Radish! Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC). reply

  I think we've tried category based topic bans before, and I don't think with much success. It lets people keep nipping right around the edges. With the normal "broadly construed" topic ban, the responsibility is on the restricted editor to stay well clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Of course a gender related ban would cover it all. Doug Weller talk 21:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Good idea, Doug. Since Gender and sexuality is already a designated contentious topic (which the user has been alerted to), do you guys think we should t-ban from that? Or more narrowly? Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC). reply

  I just reviewed their edits, and I think the full GENSEX topic ban is fine, since it's not a topic they normally edit. Easier to go with the standard rather than something narrower with uncertainty around the edges. I also think, after reviewing their edits, we'll end up back here if they end up editing any other contentious topic. They have a history of this style of battleground editing on many of the articles and topics they've been involved with. Also, thanks for the well wishes, Bishonen. Feeling mostly better now. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sounds fine to me. Unless there's any objections within the next day or so, will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Request concerning CanterburyUK

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vladimir.copic ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

CanterburyUK ( 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

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

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

1. 18 December 2023 Inclusion of information regarding A-I conflict in a BLP article. Information was sourced to primary sources, WP:DAILYEXPRESS and opinion pieces and some direct quotations are not followed by citations. This seems to be pushing a certain POV regarding Jones. I reverted these edits.
2. 8 January 2024 Inserting information on the same topic regarding A-I conflict in a BLP article. Again the information is primarily cited to opinion pieces as well as primary sources and Wikipedia. Quotations are lengthy and some are without citation. There is a section about the 7/10 Hamas attack which is cited to sources which do not mention Jones at all. I reverted this.
3. 9 January 2024 Reinsertion of above information.
4. 9 January 2024 To their credit they did open a talk page discussion about this.
5. 9 January 2024 Added information about Owen Jones and the A-I conflict to a different BLP article. There does not seem to be a DUE case for this as it is cited to a primary source and an opinion piece by the subject of the article. I have now reverted this.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 28 January 2023 Indefinitely blocked from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson

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

• 8 January 2023 Informed of BLP discretionary sanctions.
• 18 December 2023 Informed of A-I contentious topic.
• 9 January 2024 Warned about adding contentious information to BLP articles.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media. The information they are including is excessively long, poorly sourced, heavily reliant on opinion pieces and direct quotations (many of which are not cited). There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV. Given the editor is blocked from Jordan Peterson, they appear to have prior issues editing BLP issues. They were also recently warned by an editor about edit warring at Konstantin Kisin. The editor appears to struggle with placing and using citations and identifying appropriate sources for BLP articles. I'm not advocating for any specific remedy, but I do not want to catch a block for reverting or similar in the A-I conflict area so I would appreciate an admin's eyes on it.

For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

CanterburyUK is continuing to edit in a way that shows a lack of understanding of DUE and sourcing. See this edit introducing an entire paragraph (possibly with copyvio) about a NYT correction into the article of the recently deceased Palestinian writer Refaat Alareer and this edit which removes RS citations and replaces it with an ill-formatted citation to Wikipedia. Vladimir.copic ( talk) 02:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning CanterburyUK

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 CanterburyUK

Apologies that I am late commenting here.

Taking item (5) first: the Brendan_O'Neill_(columnist) page

User:Vladimir.copic reverted without using the Talk page - his revert comment was: "I do not see a DUE case for this". This was not helpful - because a superficial read of the paragraph directly above the one reverted: is equally open to that criticism; yet was left intact by them. I have today now asked on the Talk page, for explanation. In the 4 days since they reverted, I have not reverted back.

(Off topic: I would prefer it if User:Vladimir.copic would use the page Talk when he reverts me in several pages. It encourages dialogue rather than what is currently feeling combative.)

(B) Items 1-4: the Owen Jones page

Off-Topic: Vladimir.copic' has not added any words to the page since at least 2018. Neither has Aquillion (unless my search was mistaken)

In December in Talk I initiated a section about lack of new content. I notice on Jan 12th that another editor raised the same issue to my December one, they wrote: "the page lacks content. I notice when edits are made to add content they are reverted, the article has stagnated...Subjects he is active on.. added by various users, result in reverts here"

I have replied there - at length and invite this Arbitration process to read that. Noteworthy is that 4 editors including me wanted to keep the Hamas section (they made small edits to it) versus only 2 against (Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic).

I request the Arbitration process to notice that I have not pursued long edit wars: I have let those two users revert my content after an initial day or two push-and-shove.

Re (1),2,3

User:Vladimir.copic writes: > This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media.

Not just me - 3 other editors were happy for that content to be there - they all made small edits to that text.

> .. many of which are not cited

Not true - checking now, only 1 was not sourced. The Editor could have reverted just that one - instead of all.

> There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV.

I myself deleted that section within 24 hours of the editor flagging it up.

Regards the WP:DAILYEXPRESS mention - the article I quoted was by a notable person Andrew Neill not an unknown or gossip or etc journalist. - so it seemed OK to over-ride the blanket ban on that newspaper.

Re (4) This claim is misleading regards date - I posted on Talk BEFORE I posted any new content, back in December, not January: Has nothing of note happened to Jones the last few years?

Yet User:Vladimir.copic did not enter the Talk page when he first reverted. It was me that took the initiative to encourage the dialogue.

I ask the process to assume good faith. I leave pages better than they were before (eg

• Owen Jones book has better coverage)
• BLP: Michael Sandel change
• Jacob_Bronowski alot of new content.

Thanks.

PS and off-topic:- 'Vladimir.copic' has said in this page 'For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account.' Which was correct re Etiqutte (Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.) Given that they follow Jones, yet they have not found anything in recent years of following Jones that is worth adding to the wiki page -given how sparse it's content is? I don't follow Jones, and yet I have done more to add helpful content to the page.

PPS: and off-topic: Wikipedia:Etiquette - Un-expert editors like myself would find it more welcoming here if the 2 editors above applied this: simple things like : in the case when reverting a block of 5 or 6 sources that clearly took the editor time to source - maybe (a) to revert with positive words first 'thanks for taking the effort to find these sources..' and (b) immediately start a section on Talk about the subject.

Quoting from the guidance: "Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages".

I have not had friendly notes from them.

And: "Avoid reverts whenever possible" Yet reverts seems to be the main activity of the editors on this page:

PPPS - Off-topic: other posts by Vladimir.copic, may fail the UNDUE test he applies to the Jones page more strictly: he created a whole heading here for just one issue:

Moved from above section

What date was his Tweet? what did he say? CanterburyUK ( talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CanterburyUK

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

• I'm very concerned with what I'm seeing with BLP editing, especially with the prior ban from Jordan Peterson. At this point, I think I would topic ban from both BLPs and the ARBPIA area, but when someone needs to be repeatedly restricted, that also leads to the question of whether they ought to continue editing at all, as often restrictions just result in moving the disruptive behavior around. CanterburyUK, if you have anything to say in regards to that, now would be the time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:45, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  As it doesn't seem CanterburyUK is going to have anything to say here, I think we need to figure out what to do given that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:23, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) This certainly falls below the care I like to see when editing BLPs, especially at the intersection with another contentious topic. My concern is, based on their behavior at Jordan Peterson, they will be unwilling to take the advice of more knowledgeable editors, and create enormous time sinks over plainly unsuitable content. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Seraphimblade, how do you feel about a topic ban on any BLP edit also covered by another CTOP? Or just a BLP topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Given that CanterburyUK has been editing since 2008, the additions to the Owen Jones article are not only a red flag from a NPOV perspective, but also regarding editing competence. How can an editor of 15 years still not be aware of WP:UNDUE ( this edit makes over 45% of the Jones article about his views on the 7 October attack), MOS:DATE and basic matters such as how to place inline citations? Number 5 7 23:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  15 years, but only 655 edits in that time. In terms of knowing the basics, someone who makes an edit per week for 15 years will often know less than someone who's been editing actively for 5 days. That's not to say that action isn't needed here; just that we shouldn't be surprised by things like issues with inline citations and date-formatting. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (they|xe|she) 23:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Given CanterburyUK's response here is just this (plus a request elsewhere to Vladimir.copic to withdraw the AE request), then I think at the very least a CTOP/BLP topic ban is appropriate. Number 5 7 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yes, at the very least. If they were merely trying to shoehorn material into Jones' article, we could even use partial blocks, but the fact that they're trying to insert UNDUE material about Jones into other BLPs (Brendan O'Neill) shows that they need to be kept away from those topic areas. To be honest, given their editing history and existing partial block, I don't think we'd be losing a huge amount with an indef either. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• My lesson learned from issuing two BLP TBANs is that if you think you need to ban someone from BLP, 95 times out of 100 what you really need is to indef them. WP:BLP represents our core content policies at their most strongly-enforced, so if someone is seriously failing to comply with it, then they are seriously failing to understand how Wikipedia works. And if someone cannot comply with the policy as written, it is unlikely that they will be able to comply with the broadest category of TBAN we have at our disposal. Reading this case and the Peterson case, I favor an indef. An unblock appeal should focus on the BLP policy and how it interacts with WP:NPOV, particularly the latter's section WP:DUE. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (they|xe|she) 18:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• CanterburyUK's response to the case, posted today, only makes me more convinced that an indef is the only solution here. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  As issues have continued since your and my comments, I have indefinitely blocked under ARBBLP. After one year this will become a regular admin block. -- Tamzin^{[ cetacean needed} (they|xe|she) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Note that CanterburyUK has replied to some of the comments here; please see their talk page. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 15:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• I'm not terribly concerned broadly as if there were a pattern of this user attempting to use Wikipedia primarily to harm reputations. The edits involving Peterson seem to be more unduly positive than anything else; it's a bit different than this complaint inasmuch as much as it was that the user was bludgeoning and adding overly positive material, rather than materially negative information.
  I'd point to some language in WP:BLPCOI that says More generally, editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all. And it seems like the editor has strong opinions about Jordan Peterson, and also about the events of October 7, 2023. But if this is the root, then the solution is to restrict editing in those areas where the user's passions run wild; a more narrowly tailored approach involves a TBAN from Israel-Palestine—not a straight indef. I think the indef proffered here is plainly inappropriate for a user who had prior only received a single partial block. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 17:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Red-tailed hawk I would have taken that view myself had it not been for the edits on Owen Jones (and other articles relating to him). They had already been tbanned from one BLP, and they would need to have been banned from this one as well. When you've got two BLP blocks and a CTOP ban, given the utility of their editing in total an indef is warranted. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 00:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'm in about the same boat as Black Kite. Ordinarily I would agree, but we're looking here at a lot of problematic editing in sensitive areas, even during an open AE request, and the statement above gives no indication that CanterburyUK understands why it's a problem to begin with. So, I think we would have reached an indef one way or the other. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Request concerning Eastern but not so Middle

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Hemiauchenia ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Eastern but not so Middle ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

1. 18:08, 16 January 2024 Editing regarding Israel-Palestine despite having been previously warned about editing the topic area as a non ECP user 09:18, 29 December 2023
2. 06:13, 18 January 2024 Restoration of previous 16 January edit.
3. 22:32, 19 January 2024 Creation of an Israel-Palestine redirect despite having been previously warned about editing regarding topic area as a non ECP user and very explicitly warned that this applied to all Israel-Palestine related content anywhere 06:34, 18 January 2024

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

Notified by me of the sanctions in this topic area on at 07:53, 29 December 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has been attempting to game ECP by making hundreds of dummy edits (see their userpage history [3], where they have made over 100 trivial edits) in an attempt to inflate their edit count. Their edits regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict have been combative e.g. [4] (made before contentious topics notification) [5] (made after being notified of the contentious topics). I really think that they lack a suitable temprament for this topic area, and I would rather this problem be nipped in the bud before they make enough dummy edits to pass the ECP barrier. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Eastern but not so Middle

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 Eastern but not so Middle

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Eastern but not so Middle

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

• Indeffed for ECP violations, EC gaming, and battleground editing. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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

1. 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.
2. 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
3. 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.
4. 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
5. 11 January 2024 Reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLP quoted in edit summary by me
6. 11 January 2024 First reinsertion of contested material despite WP:BLPUNDEL being quoted in a previous edit summary
7. 11 January 2024 Second reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
8. 12 January 2024 Third reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
9. 14 January 2024 Fourth reinsertion of contested material after WP:BLPUNDEL being cited in a previous edit summary
10. 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

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

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

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:

1. 10:52, 23 January 2024
2. 10:55, 23 January 2024

At Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh:

1. 15:41, 20 January 2024
2. 15:08, 20 January 2024
3. 11:10, 20 January 2024
4. 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:

1. 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
2. 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
3. 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
4. 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
5. 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
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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
9. 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":

1. 10:03, 22 January 2024
2. 07:59, 21 January 2024
3. 10:43, 19 January 2024
4. 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

1. 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 [6]. 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 [7]

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

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. 1 January 2024 The sentence "Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" added by a third-party user;
2. 3 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh changes "regains" to "takes" and leaves a note on the talkpage;
3. 5 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh's edit reverted, with a discussion ensuing on the talkpage;
4. 18 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh reverts back while the discussion is in progress and nowhere near reaching consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 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.
2. 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

[8]

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:

  1. did not remember making edit 2
  2. therefore did not perceive edit 3 as a revert at the time
  3. 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
• I am not eager to be hawkish on a sanction here if my fellow admins think we can get out of this without one. A suggested close:
  • Parishan is advised to request self-reversion when revert-based restrictions are violated, rather than immediately seeking admin action.
  • KhndzorUtogh is advised to self-revert when a possible restriction violation is identified (even if it's in a grey area), and cautioned that a pattern of such lapses, even with self-reverts, will result in a tightening of sanctions.
• Sound ok, @ Red-tailed hawk, Vanamonde93, and ScottishFinnishRadish? Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sounds good to me. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 03:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  LGTM. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Request concerning Napalm Guy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Firestar464 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Napalm Guy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation

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

1. 17 October 2023 First instance of the user editing the article on the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in contradiction of sourced material in the body
2. 19 November 2023 Doing it again a month later
3. 19 November 2023 Reverting an editor who reverted them for contradicting the material in body
4. 19 November 2023 They post a comment on the talk page of the article, restating their claims and ignoring the body of the article while attacking WP admins. Strongly suggests WP:NOTHERE in my opinion.
5. 10 December 2023 Comes back just under a month later, doing the same thing.
6. 11 December 2023 Again
7. 17 January 2024 Back just over a month later
8. 26 January 2024 Back nine days later

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None

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

by Ymblanter

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

What can be seen here is a pattern of slow-motion edit-warring, a refusal to get it, as well as POV-pushing. Requesting a contentious topic restriction on the topic of Eastern Europe, or at least a page ban from Ukrainian Insurgent Army.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[9]

Discussion concerning Napalm Guy

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 Napalm Guy

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Napalm Guy

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

• I've indeffed as NOTHERE as a standard admin action. Clearly here to RGW or otherwise push a POV. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

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:

1. 13:12, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 19:09, 5 January 2024
2. 18:32, 14 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:33, 14 January 2024
3. 20:14, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:12, 15 January 2024
4. 22:20, 15 January 2024 - Partial revert of 04:34, 30 December 2023
5. 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.

6. 23:23, 18 January 2024 - Partial revert of 16:33, 14 January 2024
7. 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:

1. 17:04, 5 January 2024
2. 17:38, 5 January 2024 to 18:22, 5 January 2024‎
3. 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)

I realize I am already over the limit, but may I have an additional 100 words to document some new concerns of WP:HOUNDING? BilledMammal ( talk) 01:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. Since this report has been open Irtapil has turned up at my talk page at Wikipedia Commons, to participate in a discussion on a topic that they are not actively engaged in and, as far as I can tell, have never been engaged in. I don't have any other examples where they have turned up at a discussion they could only have found through stalking my contributions, but I find this one sufficiently disturbing to mention because it is cross-wiki stalking. BilledMammal ( talk) 11:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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 & Replies

@ Ealdgyth i have shortened it e.g. here - It was stuck for a while because i honestly thought "20 edit limit" applied to statement revisions. Irtapil ( talk) 08:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ScottishFinnishRadish @ Ealdgyth @ Galobtter

It has only been about 24 hours since i asked @ user:Seraphimblade about the word limit, and i was busy with off line responsibilities for most of that time.

I really can't fairly respond to these two sets of unrelated issues in 500 words.

If you want me to start with 500 can you suggest the top priorities to address first?

I think the citation note thing is a new bad habit, i only recently noticed the "reason" flag and i suppose i over used it.

I really do not feel i have been given a fair chance to self correct this issue. I want to to fix my recent edits and improve them? If i am topic banned i cannot do this.

Irtapil ( talk) 05:23, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Previous Request

@ user:Seraphimblade I was hoping that I got up to 500 words to respond to each statement? But it seems I was over optimistic?

Could I at least have 500 words to respond to each of the main issues, please? The statements below mostly don't relate to what BilledMammal originally raised.

• 500 words to respond to the 1RR list from user:BilledMammal
• 500 words to respond to the feedback about citation notes

I think I can trim this down to something readable within that limit.

But it would also help if @ SaintPaulOfTarsus or the arbitrators @ user:Seraphimblade please removed the paragraph beginning "The user has also added citation needed tags to already-sourced information, in order to speculate…" because the paraphrasing severely misrepresents what I said, and I don't think I can properly respond to that misquote without using up a lot of my word limit. Irtapil ( talk) 02:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

But I would like to discuss this with @ SaintPaulOfTarsus on my talk page because it looks like I'm sometimes expressing myself in a way that's prone to misinterpretation and I want to prevent that happening in future. Irtapil ( talk) 02:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

ATTEMPTED FIRST 500

1RR

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

The long version user talk:irtapil # BilledMammal

• There was one revert in a span of over a week 13:12, 14 January 2024 to 10:21, 23 January 2024
• this was a multi step revert that I explained on the talk page
• This came after BilledMammal made drastic changes to every part of the page in their own 60-step edit I objected here
• Making such drastic changes to the page and leaving them pending discussion would lead to forked versions that become almost impossible to reintegrate, it was not at all appropriate to do this unilaterally.

5 January

• The newly raised edits are on a page nominated for deletion that consensus deemed needed drastic revisions.
• BilledMammal had no prior involvement in this page
• the complaint about them is vindictive and uniformed.

cite notes

• I believe this is a more genuine problem and i want a fair chance to fix it
• this is a new bad habit and I only recently started using the "reason =" field on cite notes and it seems I rather drastically missed the point of what it's for
• but some of the paraphrasing of what I wrote in it drastically misrepresents what I said.

BilledMammal

I have been worried by Billed Mammal's editing for a couple of months

• They have removed a vast amount of material from that page from that page, most of which was NOT "empty columns".
• 04:00, 19 January 2024 "BilledMammal disruptive editing" or LINK I think a topic ban might be appropriate. Today they have (so far) removed about 20% of the page List of engagements during the 2023 Israel–Hamas war without obtaining consensus. The only discussion on the talk page for the past two weeks has been me, disagreeing with them as politely as I can manage (but by I admit not always succeeding at remaining polite), and an anonymous IP agreeing with BilledMammal about one change that BilledMammal made before today. Irtapil (talk) 04:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

• I was agreeing with another editor, but the previous comment seems to have possibly been deleted?

I believe a their motive was mostly retaliation for that complaint and for that one genuine revert on 19 January that they disagreed with.

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

• They did not think it needed changing
• They said they would normally agree with it

The only plausible reason to add that non-problem to the already long list of imaginatively defined "reverts" was to make me feel threatened, overwhelmed and intimidated?

I have noticed BilledMammal threaten multiple people with disingenuous WP:1RR allegations. Often they don't male it to arbitration, but the person just decides editing is too stressful and gives up. We are losing a lot of potentially valuable editors in a "non random" pattern. This is likely to be severely biasing Wikipedia in a very damaging way at a very dangerous time to be doing that.

Finally, I’m a little uncomfortable with them posting talk page notifications about this ANI thread to half a dozen editors who I have recently disagreed on content with; it feels like they’ve engaged in WP:CANVASSING. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

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

BilledMammal, sure you can have an extra 100 words. Irtapil, the 20 diff limit is a limit of the number of diffs you can link to. It doesn't not stop you from editing your statement. Like Seraphimblade said, I would recommended trimming it a lot - sure you have a lot to respond to but I would keep it short and coherent. I tried reading it and couldn't make sense of what you were saying. One thing I will say is that 1RR has to be followed whether you are trying to do a good thing or not; this is why BilledMammal points out violations even if they agree with the edit. Galobtter ( talk) 07:26, 28 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

  This is a situation where I would normally go for a 3-6 month and 500-1000 edits topic ban to allow the editor to gain necessary experience. In this circumstance the editor has over four years and 8000 edits to their name, so I don't know that it would be effective. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Irtapil, you're at nearly 2000 words and a completely unrelated image, and as far as I can tell you haven't really addressed anything. If you can provide a statement with 500 words that actually addresses the substance and still need more, then we can determine if you need an extension. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  Yeah I don't see what else can be done here other than an indefinite topic ban. I don't think a time limited ban would help. I would recommend Irtapil ditch their current statement and write a new short one that specifically addresses the issues raised. Galobtter ( talk) 05:06, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think we're past the point of waiting for another statement at this point. After my two earlier warnings for personalized commentary I linked to above, they have yet again commented negatively about an editor's motives. Any objections to an indef topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 01:55, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

  None from me. Ealdgyth ( talk) 02:45, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• Irtapil, the word limit for responses is 500. If you need a little more than that, you would probably be granted it if you asked, but you're currently over 1600. Please do some substantial trimming. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply
• I agree that, unless the statement is radically changed, nothing in the current statement from Irtapil is keeping me from supporting an indefinite topic ban. It's not a good idea to be told on the 26th to shorten your statement, and keep editing without doing so. Ealdgyth ( talk) 18:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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

Request concerning Themodifie7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Themodifie7 ( 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/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

This user is simply a net negative within this topic, and arguably to Wikipedia as a whole. Their talk page is full of warnings for a wide range of disruptive behaviors, including copyright violation, edit-warring, promotional language, disruptive page moves, and a few others. The proximate trigger for this report are two edits ( 1 and 2) that added and then reverted in entirely unsupported content. Their edit-summaries are wholly inadequate. They are fully aware that contentious text requires sourcing, as they've previously removed content as unsourced, but don't seem to recognize that the principle applies to their own edits as well. Perusing their contributions while filing this led me to this removal (with another inadequate edit-summary) of a controversy section that, while it may have been badly written, was at least sourced. Other recent problematic behavior includes this deeply unhelpful edit to History of India; the article is very obviously about the region (including Pakistan and Bangladesh), and this addition to the lead with absolutely no explanation. This edit smacks of the same promotionalism they were previously sanctioned for, and is in very poor English to boot. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 02:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Two previous blocks for edit-warring. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 02:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

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 [10].

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Notified.

Discussion concerning Themodifie7

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 Themodifie7

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Themodifie7

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

• After checking out Vanamonde's diffs, I've blocked the user indefinitely for persistent disruptive editing as a regular admin action. Bishonen | tålk 10:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC). reply

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

Request concerning Sudhansu7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Rosguill ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Sudhansu7 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBIPA

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

1. September-January 29 It's easier to list the things that aren't wrong with this series of edits. Setting aside the wrecking ball that was taken to the page's style, these edits introduce all sorts of unreliable sources and weakly-referenced claims that don't even adhere to the sources used. Of particular note is the identification of Siyal in Odisha with Sialkot, interchangeably using sources that refer to one with sources that refer to the other, and the assertion that Siyal have Scythian ancestry, despite the fact that the only non-Raj source cited for this claim rather says that The Scythian or Saka tribes were the last pre-Islamic migrants into India. Some entered the plains through the Bolan Pass, and settled in Rajasthan which is why some Rajput, Gujar and Jat clans such as Pawar, Chauhan, Rathi, Sial and others now claim descent from there ( Dailyo, itself not the greatest source for caste information), which is not the same thing as saying that they actually are descended from Scythians.
2. January 31 Repeat reintroduction of Raj-era sources, plus the addition of this source about a Czech architectural commune named Skolka SIAL that has absolutely nothing to do with the Indian group(s) to claim presence of a Sial caste in Europe.
3. January 31 WP:OWN behavior on the talk page
4. January 31 further WP:OWN behavior

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

• CTOPS alert: diff
• My attempt to resolve on talk page: diff
• Further non-collaborative behavior from Sudhansu7: diff

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think it's clear from the above evidence that Sudhansu7 lacks the ability or willingness to adhere to best referencing practices in relation to caste topics, and may have broader CIR issues.

I agree with the decision to go straight to an indefinite block, particularly given the additional legal threat that I hadn't even noticed when filing this report. I was suggesting recommending such on the basis of the CIR concerns but decided to omit that recommendation from the original report to allow reviewing admins to come to their own conclusions.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1201392862

Discussion concerning Sudhansu7

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 Sudhansu7

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Sudhansu7

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

• Rosguill, your diffs no 1 and 2 are for edits by Citation bot, is that for some special purpose? If not, could you fix, please? The user does seem incompetent, yes — even for a caste warrior. They haven't edited their own talkpage, so I'm wondering if it's one of those cases where a user is not aware of having a talkpage. That would explain why they went right ahead with the Raj era sources after being warned about them. (Even though there's a general vibe that they would have done that in any case.)

According to Google Translate, their post in Hindi here means "Don't you know that waist and buttocks are cut separately? And if you don't delete it then you will see the article." Really? Could a Hindi-speaker clarify? Anyway, there is also a very clear legal threat in English at the same link ("Change immediately siyal caste to chamar otherwise we will sue you"). I'm going to block over the legal threat (as a regular admin action), and put a link to their talkpage into the block log, telling them to post there. That sometimes helps. Messing about with AE topic bans hardly seems worth it, IMO. Bishonen | tålk 20:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC). reply

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

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

Appealing user

Cmsmith93 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed

Topic ban from post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, imposed at User talk:Cmsmith93#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2024#American politics (CT/AP)

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[11]

Statement by Cmsmith93

Appeal of Topic Ban

I have a Topic Ban against me as can be seen on my Talk page; /info/en/?search=User_talk:Cmsmith93

"You are indefinitely topic banned from post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed"

Admin who topic banned me: ScottishFinnishRadish

Per ScottishFinnishRadish, I committed:

/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Competence_is_required /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Drop_the_stick_and_back_slowly_away_from_the_horse_carcass /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Failure_or_refusal_to_%22get_the_point%22

I would like this ban lifted because well of course the first reason is obvious, I'd like to talk in the Talk tabs of political articles (I've been very focused on the RFK Jr page recently) as I've been doing, and doing just fine, as well as make edits to those relevant pages once I've got more experience on the site. Firefangledfeathers, Black Kite, and 28bytes (I emailed him to look at the RFK Jr page) have all seen my interactions in there and I've never received a complaint or warning from any of them. If I recall correctly the only complaints I've had from editors is that back in Archive 3, maybe 4, you can see M.boli calling me bad faith. I'd say that was a hasty reaction on his part, but at the time I didn't understand what an RfC was or how they operated. And I've since learned a lot more about them. Anyways, me and M.boli have interacted multiple times since and we're usually disagreeing, yet we've always kept it good faith. The other complaints I've seen is well, Zaathras is probably sick of talking to me in there haha. We're usually having some miscommunication issues for sure. But you can see by our last interaction, I'm well aware when things are going downhill and I am capable of keeping things within reason instead of getting too heated. Scottish only became relevant when I reported the person who very clearly has been very shitty to almost everyone he's interacted with in there. I saw the topic ban and it says I can ask him questions for clarification. I went to his Talk page and asked him to quote me committing CIR, DEADHORSE, and IDHT, but he wouldn't provide me with quotes. I asked again and still he wouldn't quote me.

Since I've never received a warning or complaint from 2 admin and 1 bureaucrat who have seen most of my interactions on this site, and I have not received any particularly noteworthy complaints from any editors, and the one Admin who had problems with me cannot quote me, I ask that this ban be lifted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmsmith93 ( talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Cmsmith93

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 Cmsmith93

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

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 Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

KhndzorUtogh ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

User against whom enforcement is requested

Grandmaster ( 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. 18 March 2023 Grandmaster is placed on indefinite probation, which encourages to impose an indefinite topic ban if the user is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute.
2. 27 January 2024 Grandmaster changes "United Nations in Azerbaijan" to just "United Nations" without a consensus or explaining why, so I restored it.
3. 1 February 2024 Grandmaster reverts "in Azerbaijan" again and 10 minutes later started a talk page discussion, but there was still no consensus to revert this again in the first place.
4. 4 November 2023 Grandmaster missuses a UNHCR source to claim there are no incidents of violence against the Armenian population. The UNHCR source is referring to over a week after the offensive, as explained on the talk page.
5. 3 February 2024 Grandmaster is still making false attributions to UNHCR. Claims the report found no evidence of violence or forceful expulsion, which is a blatant lie contradicted by pages 2 and 17 of the UNHCR report (I will provide quotes below in 'Additional comments').

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 18 February 2022 indefinitely topic-banned from AA2

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

• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 18 February 2022 by Rosguill ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On page 2 of the UNHCR Observations on the Human Rights Situation report (which Grandmaster keeps referring to as a "fact-finding mission" despite it never using that phrase), it is stated: "the security and stability in and around the Karabakh region, including the human rights situation of its population, were continuously undermined ... The recent tragic mass displacement of Karabakh Armenians following Azerbaijan’s military action of 19 and 20 September 2023 should be seen in this context." And page 17 states: "the number of wounded civilians exceeded 40 persons, including 13 children, while there were 10 confirmed civilian deaths, including 5 children as of September 20. However, the Ombuds noted that information about casualties was difficult to obtain because of the paralysis of the de facto authorities at that time. The Ombuds also referred to alleged violence and signs of torture/mutilation among the reported 14 dead bodies that were transferred to Armenia".

But somehow Grandmaster is using this source to deny that the Armenian population were victims of violence and forcefully expelled. Since this is not the first time Grandmaster has quoted this source out of context to POV push false claims, as previously pointed out to them, this appears to be intentional, or at least Grandmaster does not read/understand the source states, which is also very disruptive. -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ ScottishFinnishRadish: There have now been multiple incidents of Grandmaster breaking NPOV with just this UNHCR source alone. Another example, here is how Grandmaster interpreted the source:

The Commissioner also stated that all displaced persons have the right to return to their homes, regardless of whether they have been displaced internally or across borders

Here is what the source actually stated:

The Commissioner stressed that recently-displaced Karabakh Armenians in Armenia should be given the possibility of returning in safety and dignity – even if it seems hypothetical for most at the moment

This isn't just a content dispute, it is the deliberate manipulation of sources to publish false information.

And is the removal of this sourced content also POV pushing? Grandmaster removed an accredited peer reviewed academic journal because there was "no consensus among the sources", but did not provide any reliable secondary sources with opposing views. KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 23:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I see Grandmaster is pointing to different sentence, but the full context of the UNHCR source is the commissioner was speaking hypothetically. Grandmaster nitpicked the source to imply something completely different. KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Firefangledfeathers In earlier incidents of Grandmaster misusing sources to deny the Armenian population was victim of violence, I did not open a case, I just brought it to Grandmaster's attention. [12] [13] This was the same with other users who also noticed Grandmaster citing UN sources out of context. [14] Even though it was brought to Grandmaster's attention several times that the sources weren't being accurately reflected, the POV pushing to deny the atrocities did not stop. -- KhndzorUtogh ( talk) 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[15]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

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 Grandmaster

This was my first edit, which was partially reverted by KhndzorUtogh, who said that there was no explanation for it. I rolled it back with an explanation in the edit summary, and I also started a discussion at talk. [16] As one could see from that discussion, we agreed to leave it at "UN in Azerbaijan", and I made no further reverts. So I don't think this is something worth escalating to an AE report, it was just a content dispute that was resolved at talk.

Point 4, I only quoted the UNHCR representative who literally said: "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". I don't see how accurately quoting a source could be a violation. Btw, this information was removed by KhndzorUtogh [17] without a consensus, despite an RFC on a related page resulting in an overwhelming support for inclusion of the information from the UN. I started another RFC on that page to resolve the dispute. [18]

Point 5, about this comment, indeed, neither the UN, nor CoE Commissioner confirmed any violence against civilian population. KhndzorUtogh selectively quotes the CoE source, trying to present it as something written in the CoE voice, while in reality the CoE commissioner only conveys the information provided by the Ombuds of Armenia, but makes no assessment of the veracity of those claims. KhndzorUtogh omitted the beginning of the sentence, which starts with "She (Ombuds of Armenia) reported that the number of"... The CoE commissioner came to a conclusion that Karabakh Armenian population left because they "found themselves abandoned without any reliable security or protection guarantees by any party". One can see from the discussion on renaming the article that my opinion on the proposed title was shared by other editors as well, as the discussion ended with no consensus on changing the article title to "ethnic cleansing", as KhndzorUtogh proposed. In any case, this was also a content dispute that was resolved at talk. My understanding of the outcome of the recent AE case on KhndzorUtogh is that users are advised against taking every minor disagreement to the AE.

Regarding this edit, KhndzorUtogh actually cites a wrong part of the text, and then accuses me of "deliberate manipulation". The part that I quoted is this:

the Commissioner wishes to reiterate that all persons displaced by the long-lasting conflict have the right to return to their homes or places of habitual residence, regardless of whether they have been displaced internally or across borders. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have the obligation to ensure that any return is voluntary and that they are carried out under conditions of safety and dignity. See Clause 46 [19]

Regarding this single revert, as was discussed here, there is no consensus among the reliable sources to call this event an ethnic cleansing. It should be demonstrated that "ethnic cleansing" is what the event is generally referred to by the majority of reliable sources to claim it as a fact in the infobox. Grand master 08:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

KU cites as evidence of my misbehavior his and another user's objections to inclusion of a UN mission report. I started 2 RFCs, where the community disagreed with their arguments. [20] [21] Grand master 23:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

This situation was actually discussed here: [22] I brought up the issue of stonewalling by KU (and some admins agreed that there was stonewalling), and when FFF asked about my revert, I provided my explanation. I will repeat it here. Some users objected to inclusion of UN mission reports on a related page Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. I started an RFC on whether the UN information should be included, and the overwhelming community consensus was it should be. Since Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh are pretty much the same article split in 2, I believe consensus applies to both articles. When I included the UN info in the second article, it was reverted by BM who stated in his edit summary that its place implies that it serves as a rebuttal to the claim by Manasyan, but its date is wrong for it to do so. As one can see my edit summary, I put all the sources in chronological order, added date to UNHCR report, thinking that it would address his concerns. But when the same user removed the content second time [23], I continued the discussion at talk.

The discussion was stale when I restored the content on 21 December 2023, as no one responded for about a week. The last comment by BM before my revert was on 12 December 2023, and by KU on 15 December 2023. KU claimed that the info was "dated", and when asked which Wikipedia rule requires to use only "up to date" info, KU referred to MOS:DATED, which in fact is not a rule, but a guidance on how to format articles, and it says quite the opposite, that the information needs to be dated precisely. I will leave it to admins to decide whether it was a WP:CIR situation or something else. After he was explained that MOS does not apply here, KU disappears for 7 days. On 20 December 2023 I asked if there were any objections to inclusion of the content. [24] I waited another day, no one responded, and only then I restored the content. Then on 22 December 2023 KU reappears, reverts me and states that he was objecting. In order to resolve the dispute I started a second RFC on the same source that awaits closure. [25] I believe 1 week is a reasonable time to assume that the inclusion of the content gets no objections, and I asked on talk before restoring it. Moreover, I started 2 RFCs to resolve the disputes, despite obvious stonewalling by KU. If 1 week is not sufficient to assume that my edit is not disputed, then what is the advised wait time? Grand master 09:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Statement by (username)

Clerk notes

• Grandmaster, your comment added here took you over the word limit. Since no one has responded, I removed it. Please feel free to restore a shortened version that stays under the limit, or to request a word limit extension (with an explanation of why it's needed). Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I trimmed my response to 500 words, if I counted correctly. I hope this resolves the problem. Thank you. Grand master 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  It does, and thank you. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I added a short comment, I hope it won't be a problem if it exceeds my word limit by a few words. Grand master 23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I'm granting Grandmaster an additional 200 words to respond to the additional diffs I brought up below. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Thank you. I will provide my explanation for the diffs that you presented soon. Please wait with the decision until I do. Grand master 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Result concerning Grandmaster

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

• I see a lot of daylight between no edit warring probation and a single revert days after the initial edit. This is edit warring probation, not 0RR. The rest looks like a content dispute that should be handled through the normal channels, unless there is much stronger evidence of NPOV violations not presented. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• I'm also not seeing a violation here. One single revert is not edit warring. Discussion is happening on the talkpage, and the rest is a content dispute. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• It's concerning to see KU bring an editing restriction violation case like this. Very recently, a similar case against KU was closed with no sanction, since we generally ask that editors who notice editing restriction violations request a self-reversion. I should hope that KU would extend the grace that has recently been extended to him. I would feel differently if GM had a pattern of violations, but we have not presented with evidence of that. I may have more thoughts later, still digging through some diffs. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 14:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I've almost finished digging and have some evidence I'd like to present soon. Should be up within 9 hours. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 20:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• I agree fully with FFF above. I am slightly confused as to why neither GM's 2022 TBAN nor its lifting can be found in the AE log, but I assume that if that TBAN was still in place someone would have mentioned it. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 16:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• I'm seeing a series of actions by GM that concern me.
  1. 09:45, 4 November: GM adds a statement from a UNHCR official
  2. 11:11, 4 November: GM restores the info, it having been reverted an hour earlier by another editor (this is KU's fourth diff, btw)
  3. Soon after #2, the other editor starts Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 3#United Nations Refugee Agency statement to discuss the disputed content, and multiple editors—including GM—participate over the next several weeks
  4. 09:58, 21 December 2023: GM restores the content with the edit summary "Restoring per talk"
  The talk page discussion as of #4 looked like this. Two editors (including GM) supported the content, and two opposed it, so it's not clear that consensus supported the addition. Therefore, I have some questions for the other responding admins:
  1. Is this edit warring?
  2. If so, is it too stale to enact ArbCom's suggested sanction?
  3. If so, is any other action warranted to discourage this conduct in the future?
  I'm at A) yes, B) not sure, and C) I have some ideas about if we say yes to B. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 02:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply
• I will note this comment from 20 December, where Grandmaster stated that they were going to restore the content. The user waited about a day, and nobody objected. I'm not persuaded that this is edit warring in the sense of trying to change the page through sheer number of edits, and I don't think the ArbCom suggested sanction is applicable here as such. With respect to FireFangledFeathers's question is any other action warranted to discourage this conduct in the future, I think that some cordial advice along the lines of what we gave KU in the prior thread might be the way to go. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 03:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Ok! My thought is to give advice along the lines of "Reverting more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, can be considered edit warring. Given the heavy penalty that awaits any finding of edit warring, such actions are best done when consensus is clearly in your favor." Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sounds ok, though I do have some tweaks as follows:

  When your edits in this topic area are challenged, you should continue to open up discussions on the talk page to resolve non-trivial disputes. When those discussions do not clearly attain consensus one way or the other, please be mindful that you should not make edits to enforce your preferred version, as this can be considered edit warring even when some time has passed since a discussion's start. Given the heavy penalty that awaits you following any finding of edit warring, you are advised to not make reverts that restore your preferred version in these sorts of situations, except when consensus among discussion participants is clearly in your favor.

  How does this sound to you?

  — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 04:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Sounds good. I also plan to give KU advice along the lines of "it would be great not to see you around AE anytime soon". Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Can we not get into Arbcom-style statement crafting, please? I think "don't restore an edit until there's consensus" will get the same point across. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 04:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Fine too. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Both proposals actually go a bit further than I had intended. I think it's fine for GM to boldly add or remove content, and I think it's permissible (though not great) for him to revert once when it's challenged. It's the second revert that makes it seem edit warry to me, implicating the "a series of back-and-forth reverts" and "repeatedly override each other's contributions" parts of the policy. If we're looking for brevity, I could shorten my proposal to

  Don't revert more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, unless you have clear consensus.

  Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Works for me. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 05:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• GM's most recent response (which doubly exceeded the allotted words), does not change my view here. Pinging The Wordsmith and Vanamonde93 to see if they have further thoughts, and to see if they would be okay with an "advice only" close. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 03:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  Still works for me. I'm not convinced that either party is doing the best they could to hash things out on the talk page, but it's difficult to fault someone for being bolder than they ought when their opposite number isn't engaging. Vanamonde93 ( talk) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'm also comfortable with an advisory closure here, and I'd prefer it include advice for the filer as well per your earlier statement. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 04:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC) reply

After posting on the user's talk page to clarify the edit rationale and warn the user to assume good faith, the user continued assuming bad faith ( all documented on their talk page) Superb Owl ( talk) 16:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Superb Owl: This does not seem to be an Arbitration enforcement request; did you mean to post this at WP:AN/I instead? — Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Jéské Couriano ah my bad - I will post there (my first time) Superb Owl ( talk) 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC) reply