Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Important information Shortcuts WP:AE WP:ARE Please use this page only to: request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator, request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic, request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators. For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following: All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction. The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may: ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email. Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template. A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted. Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies: The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,[a] or is no longer an administrator;[b] or The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and: the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or the restriction was an indefinite block. A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction: a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE, a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN, a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA. Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped. Standard of review On community review Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption. On Arbitration Committee review Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if: the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process), the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action. ^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction. ^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator. Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state: Appeals by sanctioned editors Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may: ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision; request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org). Modifications by administrators No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without: the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped. Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied. Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions. Important notes: For a request to succeed, either (i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or (ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue. Information for administrators processing requests Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give. A couple of reminders: Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request. When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X". Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it. More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated. Closing a thread: Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days. Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct. You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages. Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log. Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

      Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240721163500-User_sanctions_(CT/A-I), 

      16:34, 21 July 2024

 (topic:ECR)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Prcc27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

KlayCax (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:CTOP

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

1. August 9th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
2. July 21st, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox.
3. June 18th, 2024 Added Cornell West to infobox without consensus.
4. May 16th, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to infobox.
5. May 13th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
6. March 6th, 2024 Added RFKJR to infobox without consensus.
7. February 27th, 2024 Discussion attempt to add RFKJR to the infobox.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. December 15th, 2023 Block for edit-warring on Joe Biden article/arbitration decision enforced.
2. October 7th, 2023 Partial block for edit-warring.
3. November 4th, 2023 Blocked for edit-warring.

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 July 27th, 2022 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits pushing for third-party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing ([6][7]). They’ve continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved [8][9]. The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the consensus for state infoboxes. We shouldn’t have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there’s no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @KlayCax: This isn’t an RfC (you claimed it was). We came up with a consensus for state infoboxes at the main article’s talk page: 5%+ polling average and ballot access. Cornell West has never had a polling average of 5%+ in Michigan. The main issue regarding you adding West to the infobox is you added someone that isn’t even on the ballot in Michigan and is polling poorly. This has nothing to do with polling consistency; West has consistently polled below 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @KlayCax: Wrong again. Your May 13th edit was made after this RfC was closed on May 12th. Nevertheless, it was clear even before that RfC that consensus was against inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @Red-tailed hawk: I believe David O. Johnson was the user that was initially planning on reporting KlayCax. But since that user appears to be busy, I offered to take over and make the report in their place. (Please see: [10][11]). Prcc27 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Regarding sanctions, I think KlayCax should either be topic banned, or given KlayCax’s disruptive actions are not isolated to only one topic, a ban that is more broad may be in order. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note to admins (@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Red-tailed hawk:): I just wanted to let you both know that I added yet another diff of @KlayCax:’s disruptive behavior pushing third party candidates into the infoboxes. A few minutes ago, KlayCax added RFKJR. to the Texas infobox, even though RFKJR. has not appeared in any Harris v. Trump v. Kennedy state polls. Clearly Kennedy fails the polling criterion per consensus. KlayCax is still ignoring WP:CAREFUL, even after I already explained to them that WP:BOLD has limits. Prcc27 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @Super Goku V: The context of my statement was to use the same criteria: polling and ballot access. Nationwide polling for the national infobox; statewide polling for state infoboxes. Never said qualifying for national infobox = qualifying for every single state infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @KlayCax: Why would we use polls that have the wrong Democratic nominee, especially when we know RFKJR does worse in polls with the correct nominee..? You may not have broken policy (this time) per se, but it is best to err on the side of caution on articles with discretionary sanctions. And I’m disappointed you decided to ignore my advice. Prcc27 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @XavierGreen: Before a few days ago, it was quite clear RFKJR failed the RfC criteria. Kennedy possibly now meeting the criteria is irrelevant to KlayCax’s past disruptions. Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

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.

Response to Prcc27's initial AE:

To summarize:

• Prcc27 is wrong to claim that my opinions violate the principle of WP: POV or that I'm pushing candidates into the infobox. On article after article, including most recently in the 2024 United Kingdom general election (I supported Sinn Féin, Reform UK, Democratic Unionist Party, and other parties being added) I have consistently have been an advocate of broadly displaying the candidates within election articles within the infobox. Differences of opinions among editors is normal. Particularly when it involves controversial subject matter such as the 2024 United States presidential election. Talk page discussion in these instances is a good thing. A look at the edits in question shows it was a good faith attempt to reach consensus. Not an attempt to overturn the RFC.

• Furthermore, I was not "attempting" to overturn an "already... resolved [manner]". At no point did I ever even attempt to overturn the RFC. It should be clear by the context that I was polling editors on whether the requirements of the RFC has been made. (As the criteria laid out has been noted by multiple editors as being heavily ambiguous and reliant on contradicting sources.) Because of this, I was clearly pinging involved editors to state that it appears that Kennedy Jr. has either met or was about to immediately meet the requirements of the RFC: being certified in a total amount of states that exceed 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. The goal of the discussion was to see whether there was now a consensus to add.

• The March 6th and May 13th edits were before this RFC or its meaning was concluded. (Added later: The RFC concluded on the 12th. Ballot petitions were seen by many as counting.)

• Both Jill Stein and Cornell West are/were polling above 5% and had either reported by WP: RS or confirmed certified ballot access at the time the June 18th edit was made, it was a self-proclaimed WP: BOLD edit, and it was on the 2024 United States presidential election in Michigan article, not the 2024 United States presidential election article. Prcc27 favored a "three poll criteria + 5%" but there was nothing in the linked source to say that this was a consensus of editors. (Even under WP: ONUS) He then removed it, it was not reverted, and I don't feel particularly strong either way or another about West or Stein being in the infobox.

• The Lukt64 and Sendpls user edits had nothing to do with discussions on whether the RFC was resolved. Rather, they were just requests to add RFK into the article, so this was not simply "spamming the same thing three times" as argued.

Finally, many editors in mid-July stated that the issue needed to be revisited. The other aspects are clearly taken out of context and not rules violations. KlayCax (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Prcc27's reply:

The RFC was this.

1.) I explained my reasoning at the time. Both Jill Stein and Cornell West have polled at or above 5% in Michigan. There was never a consensus on whether 5% should be an average or individual polls (since RFK has been the only one to get both it's not been approached at all outside of our conversations) and the matter was left to editor's discretion.

2.) At the time, local newspapers wrongly reported West's ballot access statement as a fact in their own voice, as West had stated that he had been certified w/ ballot access at the time. (The newspapers in question were of course considered WP: RS and I was working off of that.) In terms of Jill Stein, she has ballot access in Michigan as a member of the Green Party.

3.) Per WP: ONUS it was not reinstated. KlayCax (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to third Prcc27:

Not true. On May 13th, "ballot access" was seen by many editors as having "had enough petitions" (as clearly visible), it was reverted, a talk page discussion ensured, and it was not reinstated by me per WP: ONUS. KlayCax (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Muboshgu:

Muboshgu's claims that I was violating WP: NPOV in the J.D. Vance and Kamala Harris articles. In response to this:

I was not pushing any kind or sort of "left-wing" point of view in the J.D. Vance article — you seem to be arguing that I'm both violating WP: NPOV by promoting a disproportionate left (on Vance article) AND right-wing perspective (on Kamala article), and with all due respect: that doesn't make sense — by noting that he has been influenced by the Dark Enlightenment movement, a fact and description that he has also claimed and has been widely reported. It certainly does look like vandalism when it's not trimmed but removed from the article entirely. The entire notion that it is POV-pushing seems to be based on the claim that "his opinions on X or Y are unpopular so they shouldn't be in the article". That is of course not what WP: NPOV means. WP: NPOV is about reflecting the opinion of reliable sources. Not "doesn't improve or diminish their standing in the eyes of the median voter". Reliable sources have mentioned J.D. Vance's ties to the "dissent/edgy online right." It certainly does deserve mention on Wikipedia and reactionary thought is by no means too "obscure" a concept or too difficult to understand for readers.

At the time, there was already a Wikilinks for readers who want more detail. I reached out on talk - as you noted - and a majority wanted it kept.

Many American conservatives do use Marxism as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, is labeled a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it, nor "fail verification". It's also typical to list the ideology of economists in the first sentence of the article. (See Richard D. Wolff for instance.) Explanations for both edits were also given on their respective talk pages before the start of the WP: AE.

You left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The difference of the edit can be seen here showing that it was added in at the same time the diffs cited by him were. Are Marxists fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not. All of this, again, is just differing editorial perspectives that led to discussion. KlayCax (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to SashiRolls:

Edits in question.

The June 12, 2024 edit was in regards to political parties rather than coalitions. Listing New Popular Front or its constituent parties would have been WP: CRYSTAL at the time due to the notorious fragmentation of the French left. The Deccan Herald source in question states: In France, currently there are two major parties in the running, among others. The first is the ruling party, Renaissance(RE), or En Marche! as it was earlier known. The hold the majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house and the Senate... In opposition is Marine Le Pen and her party, National Rally, a.k.a. Rassemblement National(RN). RN is a right wing populist party that recently gained a large number of seats in the 2024 EU elections.

The February 26, 2024 edit was in reference to this article, which starts off by saying: In the often contentious and acrimonious debates over... (in regards to historians/political scientists over the matter.) What was being cited there wasn't the author's opinion on the matter. What was being referred was his meta-analysis of the the state of the literature as of 2023.

The October 1, 2023 edit is sourced to an online survey. That is true. However, telephone surveys have become increasingly inaccurate in recent years due to low-response rates/other factors, with the differences between online/telephone survey accuracy sharply decreasing. Partisan polling is fine as long as it comes from a WP: RS. (See WP:LDS/RS for Deseret News) I also later replaced it with this higher-quality source seen here.

Sourcing in question.

The April 21, 2024 edit sourced The Spectator (WP:SPECTATOR), a WP:MREL, and followed the guidelines for a WP:RSOPINION right-wing view, attributing the view exclusively to Jeff Fynn-Paul.

The September 20, 2023 edit doesn't make the claim. It states that the claim has been widely believed among sociologists. Those are two different claims with two very different meanings.

Final concluding notes:

I'm requesting that the closing admin go through every edit cited before coming to a AE decision. I'm happy to explain any edit that is seem as problematic if need be through private (email) or public response (here).

I do not believe that there was a violation of Wikipedia rules within the differences cited. Many of the individuals commenting have made personal attacks, false WP:SOCKPUPPET accusations, and similar things against me over the past year, but per WP: CIVILITY/WP: AGF guidelines I've been hesitant about mentioning this until now, as not sure what I can write on this outside of vague references.

I've reached the max word limit (~at 1500 albeit going slightly over) to respond to every claim but it should be clear by the above that the claims are baseless and throwing the kitchen sink. KlayCax (talk) 09:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Final concluding notes: Part II

Expected the above to be my final message but the updated August 9, 2024 "incident" is once again highly deceptive, @Red-tailed sock:.

Prcc27 unilaterally changed the infobox box inclusion criteria and then retroactively punished me for the supposed "violation". If you notice: the original "consensus" that he linked was one poll with 5% ballot access.

He then wanted to modify it so it was a "consistent polling criteria" of 3 polls above 5% with a 5%+ average. I found that permissible and even logical. (Despite it not being the original agreed upon criteria.)

Now, he reports me retroactively for violating a "criteria" that was not specified or outlined or notified, saying that only those with Harris as a candidate are valid, saying No Harris/Trump/Kennedy polling in Texas; fails polling criterion. That is absolutely astonishing as this "change in criteria" was not notified to neither me or the editors on the 2024 United States presidential election talk page and appears to be entirely retroactively applied decision. (At the very least: I was never notified of it.) I'm definitely not going to touch this topic now as I have absolutely no interest on editing the 2024 United States presidential election-related articles anymore. Zilch. Zero. Nada. I simply don't have the time or effort to respond to frivolous claims, evershifting goal posts, and intentionally boobytrapped edits.

Willing to respond to any seemingly problematic edits if a closer has a question. For now: I feel like I explained all of the cited edits and I'm completely burnt out of this conversation. KlayCax (talk) 07:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:It may also be noted that KlayCax has been warned in the past on other articles for deceptive editing and has been given a “Final Warning” by ScottishFinnishRadish. Just FYI and my two cents for the time being. Qutlooker (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been stated in the head, please disregard. Qutlooker (talk) 18:31, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Left guide's first statement) Yes, I did do that complaint. HOWEVER, I did not have the diffs of which people were talking about. So I did not open a case. Qutlooker (talk) 14:41, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Super Goku V’s second statement) Maybe it would be best to clarify that I was told if I wanted disciplinary action against KlayCax I would need to open an AE. Though, as stated, I did not have the diffs that would be needed to properly open an AE request. Qutlooker (talk) 03:30, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean has everyone said what they have wanted to say. Qutlooker (talk) 16:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to KlayCax's bulletpoint No. 5) An outlier poll does not, and WOULD NOT argue enough for an inclusion into the infobox, nor does a party "claiming" to have ballot access mean anything until it is fact-checked and proven by factual sources. Qutlooker (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to Prcc27’s comment) May it be considered that an indefinite block be done considering you have said that it is not only one topic they interact with. Qutlooker (talk) 04:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Response to KlayCax) The max word limit you were told to be under was 1000 words. Not 1500. Qutlooker (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have reckon everyone here has made up their minds on KlayCax have we? Qutlooker (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that this editor seems well-intended and mostly harmless, so I hope that his punishment (if any) will not be unnecessarily harsh. Perhaps he can simply be ordered by a Wikipedia administrator to stop attempting to add West, Kennedy, and other minor candidates to the infobox? David A (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that less than a week ago, an apparently similar complaint was lodged at an admin's talk page by a user different from the filer of this request. Left guide (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I ran KlayCax's section into the word count tool and the result was 1241 words, more than double the 500 limit. Left guide (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including JD Vance, edit warring over some obscure political views. See Talk:JD Vance#Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead? for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of vandalism when a user removed information that should have been removed, and "apparent accident deletion/vandalism from WP: SPA. (?)". They also tried to add to Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation.[13][14] See Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris from the lead for more of that discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the editor who was editing against the consensus of that RfC.[15] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with David A that KlayCax is mostly harmless but deserves some sanction. My concern is they are not adhering to WP:RECKLESS. KlayCax is being too bold in making major edits that they know will be subject to revert or controversy. As I noted here[16] they will sometimes act against established consensus due to evolving events that they deem have negated that consensus (when most others disagree). I do wish that they would acknowledge and reflect that criticism of their edits is coming from many editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my prior advocacy for leniency. I have limited engagement with KC, and am thus not in a position to comment on their overall behavior. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some confusion about the RfC that was mentioned due to how it was linked to, so to clear that up it is my understanding that the referenced RfC is "RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)" --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add, the below mentioned archived talk page discussion is relevant to this as it involved discussion on the 22nd and 23rd about KlayCax's talk page edits. There were comments that the appropriate venue was either ANI or AE. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Left guide: Yes, that seems to be from this archived talk page discussion. Qutlook said at the time, After speaking to an admin who has warned KlayCax before for disruptive editing I have been told to do this... One Problem, I don't have those diffs so I don't currently have an open AE request. Not sure why he said he was told to do so, but it is related in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Qutlook: Gotcha. I will note above that the archived talk page discussion is still relevant to this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to your earlier indefinite block comment, then I don't agree on that. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. For myself, I think that it should be noted that there was a single false SOCKPUPPET accusation, not multiple. Other than that, I think that either ScottishFinnishRadish's or Prcc27's suggested remedies would work. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to KlayCax: Just to check, do you understand the word limits as noted at the top of this page? Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. My understanding is that you get 500 words total for your statements, not 500 words per statement. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Striking given the extension request. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Prcc27: I understand the criteria at 2024 United States presidential election having Kennedy listed in the infobox, but I guess not for the other states. This is the discussion you are referring to, correct? If so, can you clarify what you meant by but I think it seems more practical to just follow the lead of the national infobox criteria then? From my reading, it seems to support adding Kennedy to the other articles. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the problem is not related to the topic area. I'm not sure I would agree that KlayCax is entirely harmless after having had to spend a lot of time cleaning up after them.

KCx is known for edit summaries which hide the nature of their edits:

• 12 June 2024 -- While the edit summary is WP:MOS, in fact it introduces POV content not supported by the source supplied. Questioned about this, KCx later provided a link to the Deccan Herald on the TP, which also did not support the sweeping statement, though he wisely refrained from adding it to the entry after two people pointed out the claim he wanted to add to the first line of the lede was nonsense.
• 26 February 2024 -- @Drmies: writes, "your edit summary makes no sense in relation to the actual edit, and your response is to repeat the same irrelevant citation, this time with a quote which also totally doesn't make your point." and four days later adds "It's just one deflection after another" further suggesting bringing the problem up at ANI for disussion of a topic ban. 2 March 2024

KCx also seems to have trouble identifying reliable sources, beyond the Deccan Herald example cited above.

• 21 April 2024: Adds back an opinion piece from The Spectator (Cf. its entry at RSN) as the second link in the lede of an entry, after it had been removed.
• 1 October 2023 adds the results of an online survey conducted on behalf of Skylight, "an initiative of the Radiance foundation". The source states: "Skylight’s mission is to use technology to help young people embrace God-centered spiritual habits.
• 1 October 2023 adds the same online survey to another top-level page, buried in an avalanche of text.
• 20 Sept 2023: inserts the claim that the religion in the US is the final "death nail" of the secularization hypothesis based on an article that argues that this claim is empirically false (without using the term "death nail" of course). When questioned on it, he says that it's a poor source (not for the claim, but in general).

Finally, KCx has a habit of creating RfC & RM that are snow-closed against the position they were promoting: Cf. here and here and insists on long discussions about RfCs past they disagree with (see the context of the 26 February 2024 diff above).

I grant some of these diffs are a bit dated, but a pattern is clearly visible over the past year...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12 June: The source KCx added didn't support their claim that the RN was one of two major political parties in France in any way. The Deccan Herald article found later is talking about one election. For context, the RN has three out of 348 senators (<1%).

21 April: the second line of the lede says "Remini... states" something. KCx's "marginally reliable" source does not mention Remini even once. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

% of KCx's edits to mainspace reverted: 12% -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 22:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC stated that any candidate who "generally has 5% in poll aggregators" and ballot access to 270 electoral college votes should be included. Myself and other editors have shown proof that he has met the RFC consensus. There are a number of editors who are vociferously commenting on the talk page making arguments that are directly contrary to the RFC.XavierGreen (talk) 21:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note to the admins reviewing this that those stating that KlayCax was editing against consensus should note that a massive dispute has now erupted in on the 2024 United States presidential election talk page and edit warring against the same RFC consensus that KlayCax was accused here of editing against.XavierGreen (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the xaviergreen account should be making contributions in the uninvolved administrators area.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have much experience with this editor. I only just now found out that they were referred to this venue. My only substantial interactions with this editor came in the history of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization last year. I don't quite remember everything that happened, but I noticed that they insisted on adding WP:OR and unsourced content to the lede of the article. They also had no respect for WP:MEDRS. From what I have observed, this editor is disruptive in many of the areas they edit in, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Scorpions1325 (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Please keep the word limits in mind and only comment in your own sections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, I'm not terribly impressed with the response to frequent warnings and blocks for edit warring being badgering and bludgeoning. This seems to be their general behavior whenever there is disagreement rather than isolated to one article or topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  KlayCax, I suggest you condense down what you have already. I can tell you I don't find Marxian/Marxist economists see capitalism as being inherently tied to class conflict (albeit this can be repressed in their views through false consciousness) and subsequent exploitation. Many American conservatives do use it as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. It is an uncontroversial and demonstrable fact that Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, he's been described as a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it in the article. It certainly does not "fail verification" and I can provide over a dozen sources on the matter. Furthermore, you left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The diff of the edit can be seen here. Are you under the assumption that Marxists are fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not.^{194 words, or 2/5 of the word limit} particularly useful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No other admins have any input? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Two things:
  1. @Prcc27: Can you explain why this was filed one week after the most recent edit that you've placed in the diff list?
  2. @KlayCax: If you would like an extension, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. But otherwise, please condense down the comment a bit.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They asked for an extension on my talk page, and I told them to try and keep it under 1000 words. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed that. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KlayCax: You're still over the word limit extension by ~500 words. Please condense it, or hat intricate details. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 10:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, have you had a chance to look this over yet? With their history of edit warring, and moving on to this IDHT/bludgeoning I'm thinking six month topic ban from the 2024 American presidential election might be the ticket. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:34, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken my chance to fully read through all the diffs yet, no. I don't think I will in the next 24 hours, either, so please do not wait on me if you have already found some narrowly tailored approach here that you believe will work. — Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 13:02, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still up in the air between a narrow topic ban here, or something broader. Considering the issues with edit warring that have led to multiple blocks and a final warning before an indef leading in to this recent behavior I'm not certain that a tightly tailored topic ban is sufficient. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:28, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm very concerned that the WP:IDHT attitude seems to have carried over from previous cases where sanctions were levied. I feel an AP2 TBAN is needed, and - given that they seem to be raising issues of candidates in infoboxes that nobody else cares about on other pages as well - possibly an infobox TBAN as well, but at the moment I'm not able to find evidence that they are aware of the infobox DS/CT regime. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see an infobox notice, so AP2 topic ban and a logged warning on infobox editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

O.maximov (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:ARBPIA

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

On Aug 3, O.maximov reinstated one of ABHammad's edits. (ABHammad received a 0RR restriction at Jul 31 20:52, see #ABHammad.)

• O.maximov Aug 3 edit 1 at Israel
  • O.maximov changed were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fled to were expelled or fled due to various causes with the edit summary last consensual version of this before weight changes
  • However, this is not the "last consensual version." In this edit, O.maximov reinstated an edit by ABHammad June 23 that introduced the various causes language, changing were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and later its military, an expulsion known as the Nakba to were expelled or made to flee due to various causes. This edit was changed by Nableezy on Jul 31 15:34 to were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fled from the territory Israel would come to control.
  • There has been discussion about this line since May at Talk:Israel/Archive 105#Nakba in the lede, and a pending RFC at Talk:Israel#RFC: How should the Nakba described?
  • The "due to various causes" language is whitewashing via WP:WEASEL words, an example of Nakba denial. "Various causes" is a dogwhistle for debunked theories like "they left voluntarily" or "their leaders told them to leave," intended to distract from the actual cause, which is violence by the Yishuv.

Other similar issues:

• O.maximov Aug 3 edit 2 at Israel
  • Changes Israel has established and continues to expand settlements... to Israel has established settlements, removing and continues to expand, with edit summary This can be trimmed without changing the meaning
  • Of course, it significantly changes the meaning, again whitewashing that settlement expansion continues to this day (e.g. AP News July 3, 2024: "Israel turbocharges West Bank settlement expansion with largest land grab in decades")
• Jul 24 (combined diff) at Israel
  • Jul 24 11:39, edit summary More on media
    • removed that Israel is behind Qatar
    • added positive content about Israel (Israeli media is diverse, reflecting the spectrum of Israeli audiences.)
    • added that Al Jazeera is Qatari
  • Jul 24 11:41, edit summary One time event, wp:bold
    • removed negative content about Israel seizing journalists' equipment
  • Jul 24 11:50, edit summary reasoning
    • added that Israeli officials accuse Qatari Al Jazeera of promoting antisemitism and terrorism
• Tag-team edit warring at Israeli–Palestinian conflict: ABHammad Jun 24, O.maximov Jun 24, ABHammad Jun 28 - note these are such "blind reverts," that they even change "https" to "http", a sure sign that people are pressing the undo button without paying attention to what they're undoing
• At Zionism in June-July (same "colonization" edit-war I've posted before that was the catalyst for #ABHammad filing; these are just the O.maximov/ABHammad edits): ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, ABHammad July 21
• At Genocide of indigenous peoples: ABHammad May 24, O.maximov May 27 (ABHammad June 23, and again)
• At 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses May 19-20
  • "Some" to "Numerous"
    • O.maximov May 19 - changing Some prominent pro-Israel figures have described the protests as antisemitic, ... to Numerous antisemitic incidents, characterized by hate speech, violence, and discriminatory behavior targeting Jewish students, were documented during the protests.
    • ABHammad May 20 - Allegations of antisemitic incidents were documented during the protests, ... back to Numerous ...
  • Removing see also link to Anti-apartheid movement in the United States: O.maximov May 19, ABHammad May 20
  • O.maximov May 31 removed content about violence by pro-Israeli protesters with edit summary One case is undue. However, they added (or expanded) content about single instances of violence by pro-Palestinian protesters on May 19 here (literally begins the line with In one instance...), here, here, and here.
  • O.maximov also May 19 - changes allegations to incidents
  • Another, same day - changes ethnic cleansing of Palestinians to displacement of Palestinians

My first complaint was at ABHammad's talk page (O.maximov was pinged): User talk:ABHammad#Enough already. My second complaint was at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive336#Nishidani in July, which I notified O.maximov about on their user talk page. My third complaint was at #ABHammad (O.maximov was pinged).

Aside from the tag-team edit warring, the edit summaries are not accurate, and the edits push a pro-Israeli POV. Levivich (talk) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions AFAIK, but multiple user talk page threads: User talk:O.maximov#March 2024, User talk:O.maximov#May 2024, User talk:O.maximov#WP:1RR at 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses, User talk:O.maximov#June 2024, User talk:O.maximov#prior accounts, User talk:O.maximov#Editing against a clear consensus

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

alert, response

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Vanamonde93's question about talk page edits:

• Israel and the Nakba/"various causes" edit: 2021 discussion predates the account; no participation by O.max in the March or May discussions. O.max did vote in the RFC back in June, but otherwise no talk page comments about this issue (though there are talk page comments about other issues).
• Israel and the settlement expansion edit, or the Jul 24 media-related edits, I don't see any relevant discussion on the talk page by O.max or anyone else
• Israeli–Palestinian conflict: no talk page edits
• Zionism: three talk page edits in July:
  1. Jul 3 10:42 - arguing for "re-" establishment, and "I will be adding this factual information shortly", which was followed by the Jul 3 edit diff'd above, which is just repeating the same edit that O.max previously made on June 11 (and ABHammad on June 10, July 2, and July 21, plus other editors on other dates)
  2. Jul 3 11:16 - Agreeing with 916crdshn that there is no consensus for "colonization" and arguing WP:ONUS
  3. Jul 3 11:46 - calling for WP:AGF w/r/t 916crdshn (now CU blocked as compromised account)
• Genocide of indigenous peoples: O.max voted in the RFC the day after making the revert Special:Diff/1226134653; no other talk page posts
• 2024 pro-Palestinian protests on university campuses: no talk page edits

Something else I noticed today. I initially skipped over these diffs because of the innocuous edit summaries, but on further look, at Israel lobby in the United Kingdom on Aug 1, O.max basically rewrote it to turn it into a conspiracy theory -- as in, the existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory: 1, 2, 3; there are more edits, but those three are indicative. Search the article (any revision) for "conspiracy" and note that the sources do not even come close to supporting this notion. It's a complete misrepresentation of sources and some of the most blatant POV-pushing I've seen, even in the context of the blatant POV-pushing I've been complaining about lately. Levivich (talk) 16:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeleYoetz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (CTOP alert Jun 21) has repeated the "O.maximov Aug 3 edit 1" diff'd at the beginning of this report. This is their first edit to the article, no edits to the talk page. Levivich (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK49: That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory, i.e., that the lobby doesn't actually exist. By analogy, there are lots of conspiracy theories involving Freemasonry, that doesn't mean the Freemasonry is a conspiracy theory, or that they don't actually exist.

We would not tolerate someone changing the short description for the Freemasonry article to Alternatively a conspiracy theory or group of fraternal organizations, but that is what O.max did at the Israeli lobby article in this edit.

The Freemasonry article mentions conspiracy theories in the last lead paragraph, it does not mention conspiracy theories as the first thing in the lead sentence. But O.max changed the lead of the Israeli lobby article from this:

The Israel lobby in the United Kingdom are individuals and groups seeking to influence the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in favour of bilateral ties with Israel, Zionism, Israel, or the policies of the Israeli government.

to this:

The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories regarding a "Jewish plot" to influence Britain are individuals and groups and alternativly refers to those seeking to influence the foreign policy of the United Kingdom in favour of bilateral ties with Israel, Zionism, Israel, or the policies of the Israeli government.

These edits are, if not POV-pushing, at least a serious misapplication of WP:DUE. Levivich (talk) 22:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BK: I agree that "The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories" is not, in and of itself, a conduct problem. And if that was all there was, I wouldn't have brought it up. But when you put that change -- putting the "been used to raise conspiracy theories" right up front -- together with the short description edit ("Alternatively a conspiracy theory or [a lobby]"), and then the comment here in this AE ("Many sources use the word conspiracy also ... Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby ... I wanted to show both sides ... The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby ... Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead."), this shows, I think quite clearly, that he thinks there are two views of the Israel lobby: (1) it's a conspiracy theory, it doesn't exist, and (2) it's a real thing that exists. That is not a content dispute, that is -- take your pick -- POV pushing to suggest that there isn't such a thing as an Israel lobby (that would be a moon-is-made-of-cheese level falsehood), a reading comprehension problem (because no source questions whether the Israel lobby exists, and no source says that its existence is, itself, a conspiracy theory), or a total lack of understanding of WP:DUE (because the fact that the lobby has been used to raise conspiracy theories is, by no means, the very first thing that should be said in the article, under any reasonable application of WP:DUE, even an incorrect, but reasonable, application would not arrive here).

So this isn't a good-faith content dispute, it's either POV pushing or CIR, both are conduct problems. The end result is that they changed the article to question whether the Israel lobby actually exists -- that's a major problem, in my view. It's disinformation, not just misinformation. It's an attempt to cover up the very existence of the Israel lobby, to cast doubt on it. If it comes from a genuine belief that maybe the lobby isn't real, it's CIR; otherwise, it's POV-pushing.

Combine that with the other edits, and I think it's pretty clear. Look at my examples, from the top, they are:

• Aug 3: changing the text from the Nakba was caused by Israel to the Nakba was caused by "various causes"
• Aug 3: removing content about Israel and media that makes Israel look bad or second to an Arab country, while adding content that makes the Arab media look bad instead
• Jul 24: eliminating content that says Israel continues to expand settlements
• Jun 24: a bunch of changes, but including changing "expelled or fled" to "fled or expelled," removing a line about Palestinian right to resist; adding attribution of Palestinian justifications to Norman Finkelstein (a particularly controversial figure, but by far not the only person who has said what is attributed to him), while expanding Israeli justifications in wikivoice
• Jun 11 and Jul 3: removing "colonization" from the lead of Zionism
• removing mention of Israel of the indigenous genocides article
• on the campus protest article, changing "some" to "numerous," and removing violence by pro-Israelis but adding violence by pro-Palestinians
• Recasting the Israeli lobby in the UK article to say it's maybe a conspiracy theory, and doubling down on that interpretation at AE

Anybody got an example of O.max making a pro-Palestinian edit? I suppose YMMV but it's pretty clear to me. Levivich (talk) 17:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1238598820

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.

Levivich, I respect different thinking. You must respect that I think differently. If your purpose is for me to say that Palestinians fled or were expelled then there is no problem. I have no problem saying this and other stuff. It is a problem that you post on my page just a link and expect me to press the link. It is a problem that first thing I get from Nableezy is that he asked me if I have prior accounts. The answer is no. I don't know why you behave like this. You have a problem with a person, you speak to the person. I invite you to my talk page to discuss things. I saw Levivich posted stuff on 1RR. Bro, you are a senior editor. You know it's not 1RR. I also did my best to kindly explain to Unbandito who posted it why it's not a 1RR violation. All the warnings you posted are really unrelated. Nableezy asks me if I have another account. I told him - no. Here someone says I edited against consensus, I say - look at the page! You see many people are saying different things! You posted a message I got because I was not writing encyclopedically on Economics, I understood and improved my writing. But Levivich, why don't you post on my talk page and explain? Nableezy can you explain which edit I did is against consensus and which consensus (You posted discussions)? I have no problem talking, look at all my talking in Israel and in other articles. I have no problem to talk. If you wish to collaborate as I do, you should treat others with respect, and this does not help to improve the temperature. O.maximov (talk) 10:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93: the Israel lobby is viewed by some as a conspiracy to say there is a Jewish plot to control the UK, the British media… Many sources use the word conspiracy also:

• Claims of Jewish Conspiracy in U.K. Campaign Finance Scandal Has Local Community Worried
• Keep Talking Report (CST)
• Antisemitism and Radical Anti-Israel Bias on the Political Left in Europe (ADL)
• Resurgence of Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories (Open Democracy)
• Anti-Israel Camp Split on Zionist Conspiracy (The JC)
• David Miller: A Textbook Case of Anti-Zionism Becoming Vicious Antisemitism (Haaretz)
• What is Antisemitism (CAA)
• Debunking Myths (ENAR)
• BBC Politics: Labour Story
• Testing the Israel Lobby Thesis (Brookings)
• British Baroness Chastised for Pro-Israel Lobby Comments (JPost)
• The Guardian: Iraq Politics
• The Guardian: Labour Story
• Ynetnews Story
• BBC Politics
• Totally Jewish News Archive
• The Guardian: Liberal MEP Resigns

Others say Israel has a big and powerful lobby that influences UK politics like other countries which other sources indicate. The body had a big problem of synth and no sources to back stuff. I fixed it (it is back to the same because of the rv). The body said many things and the lead didn’t. I wanted to show both sides. It’s also what I edited in the short description. If the page is only supposed to show the real lobby I am sorry, I thought it was neutral to show both sides. O.maximov (talk) 10:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish, Barkeep49

The article talks also about British Politics, MPs and their remarks in the body. [24] [25], [26], [27] , [28] , [29], [30] , [31], [32] The article also talks about Jewish community being scared of what some say is a conspiracy theory. [33]. Here sources talk about Israel/Zionist lobby as exaggerated as a conspiracy theory. [34],

[35] the “The Power of the Zionist Lobby” subsection under the “United Kingdom” section as well as the sentence on “engaging in conspiracies about Israel’s power that draw on anti-Semitic tropes”.,

[36] , page 1,7,8

[37] talks directly about Israel lobby being used as a conspiracy and explains why,

[38] “Conspiracist antisemitism is found across the political spectrum. For every left-winger who believes there is a well-funded Zionist lobby inventing fake smears of antisemitism to prevent a socialist government, you will find a comparable right-winger who holds George Soros responsible for immigration”. ,

[39] , page 110 - 112, all relevant, specific sentence also relevant “The conspiracist element of ‘new antisemitism’ is most obvious in discussions about the existence and the machinations of what has become known as the Israel/Zionist/Jewish lobby. A common assumption of left-wing anti-Zionist critique is that Israel commits its fiendish acts with the unwavering political, military and financial support from America and to a lesser extent Britain, whose governments are in the grip of the menacing and all powerful pro-Israel lobby”. , [40] “A more recent example of how such ideas can appear in mainstream media coverage of Jews, Zionism and Israel was found in the 2009 dispatches documentary by the British journalist Peter Oborne, entitled “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” … This misses the point that using such a framework to explain Jewish or Zionist political activism relies, however unwittingly, on ideas and common understandings drawn from preexisting antisemitic conspiracy theories in order to make sense to its audience. At the very least, it was inevitable that antisemites would, and did, interpret it as an endorsement of their own conspiracy theories about Jews”. , [41], [42] pg 60, 65,66, [43] page 31 to 32 from “Within Labour” to “modern Labour politics” [44] “Labour MPs were found to have used “anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that the complaints of anti-Semitism were fakes or smears.” A case cited in the report involved former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who said “the Israel Lobby,” which aimed “to undermine Corbyn’s leadership,” was responsible for allegations of anti-Semitism against fellow Labour MP Naz Shah. Livingstone later resigned from the party. The EHRC found a further 18 “borderline cases” involving local councillors, election candidates, and branch officials. It also noted several incidents of political interference by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office in addressing complaints of anti-Semitism. ”. My mistake was not to attribute to Haaretz in the lead. I am sorry about it. I know about WP:NOR and WP:V but I thought that it was established enough without written attribution in the lead. O.maximov (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Vanamonde93, my opinion is irrelevant. Like fiveby said, the body existed before. The body had both ideas. I think there is an Israel lobby, just like every country has a lobby. Sources also say that this can be exagerated into a conspiracy theory. Therefore, both need to be in lead. That is why the body and the page before me, speaks of both Groups and individuals who seek to influence policy and alternatively a conspiracy theory. That is what sources say and that is what I wrote. O.maximov (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49

There exists groups and individuals who want to advance Israeli interests in the UK, they are called by some the Israel Lobby.

My description is: The Israel lobby is a term used to refer to groups or individuals who advance Israeli interests in the UK or alternatively to a conspiracy theory that exagerates Israeli/Zionist influence in the UK.

I am open to other ideas. O.maximov (talk) 06:45, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 Yes I am taking this seriously. Thank you for the understanding. O.maximov (talk) 11:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We had a previous consensus on this material and edit warring without a new one should result in sanctions for disruptive editing. Full stop. nableezy - 19:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish Talk:Israel/Archive 80#new paragraph on conflict for lead nableezy - 12:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Israel/Archive 102#Clarify details about explusion in lead. nableezy - 13:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also I wouldn't call the bit on violence in protests some fairly straightforward partisan editing, that is blatantly tendentious. Either you think a single instance does not belong or you think it does, but O.maximov apparently changes what they think based on whose violence is being discussed. Violence by pro-Israeli protestors, oh dear not we cant have that, violence by pro-Palestinian protestors must be included and expanded. That is, to my mind, textbook tendentious editing. The bit on the seizure of the AP equipment, an event that resulted in the US demanding its return and was covered extremely widely, is likewise textbook tendentious editing. Same for this diff with its easter egg wikilinks and the fact that the source it cites for supposed reasoning leads with "The government will not make public the details of position papers submitted by the security services saying that Al Jazeera has harmed Israeli security, following a cabinet decision on Monday to temporarily shut down the Qatari news network." They are not simply politely pushing a POV, which itself is banned. There are users that are not engaging in attempting to productively discuss content disputes with the aim of coming to some agreement or consensus on what to include, they are simply acting as roadblocks. This is one of them. nableezy - 14:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checkusers should be run on O.maximov and ABHammad.

Regarding "It is a problem that first thing I get from Nableezy is that he asked me if I have prior accounts. The answer is no." From a purely technical perspective the question seems reasonable to me. When I look at the proximity of the O.maximov account to other accounts using a variety of different techniques, I would like to understand why the closest matches are to blocked accounts with a single master, here and here, for example. Perhaps these are false positives, but if they are not, this AE report is a waste of time and sanctions will have no impact. Sean.hoyland (talk) 12:53, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "I find the calls for CU as unconvincing...". A reason to conduct a CU is that the amount of work required to process the AE report, and the effectiveness of potential sanctions are dependent on the result of a CU. It's about efficiency and the optimal ordering of actions. If an account is found to be a disposable sockpuppet account, there is no need to spend time evaluating their editing or imposing sanctions. Assuming good faith is not the optimal approach in all cases. Other approaches can have more utility. I would argue, like FortunateSons, that it should be standard practice for AE reports once the report has been accepted as worth spending time on. The potential costs associated certain actions, like edit warring, are different for socks and non-socks. So, the likelihoods of the behavior are different. Willingness to edit war is itself an indictor that an account may be a sock because the cost of sanctions to them are zero. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second time this month I have seen Levivich doing what seems like a weaponization of this noticeboard against editors who do not share their point of view based on their politics (and they are unsuprisingly joined by others). Previously, they accused me and other editors of tag teaming—a very serious allegation—without providing substantial evidence. While I received a 0RR sanction (rightfully), their tag teaming allegations were dismissed. Going over the new allegations, I don't see anything close to a sanctionable violation of anything. It's all content disputes that can and should be solved through discussions. But, I don't see any attempt by Levivich to do so, nor did they even try to discuss the issues with O.maximov personally. And the above claims about 'previous consensus on this material' are clearly false (if anything is happening on ARBPIA right now is forced controversial changes that take place without any attempt to achieve consensus). I think it might be time to consider sanctions of the WP:Boomerang sort. ABHammad (talk) 12:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the suggestion of a CU is reasonable, and really should be standard practice in any topic area as a contentious as this one once there is reasonable suspicion.

Having said that, I’m not seeing conduct that goes beyond the ‘standard’ biased editing, with decent talk page engagement and no “horrible” conduct. While I’m not inherently opposed to banning for such conduct, a ban for that might catch some of our more experienced editors too, and despite some people’s well-reasoned objections, I don’t think banning most frequent contributors and starting fresh is likely to do us any good. As such, biased editors (and this seems to be closer to bias than ‘true’ partisanship) are the unavoidable norm.

Regarding the filer, while I wouldn’t say that we are at a boomerang yet, they should be mindful about weaponising AE; considering the past talk page discussion, a sockpuppet investigation would have been the more productive avenue for this. FortunateSons (talk) 16:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Levivich, take a look at the "Politics" section for the version prior. It has Tam Dalyell's "cabal of Jewish advisers", Jenny Tonge's "financial grips", and Chris Davies' "enjoyed wallowing in her own filth" to start. I don't think you can claim that the article is merely concerned with the existence of an Israel lobby. O.max did not write that section, "the existence of an Israel lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory" is your framing and near as i can tell not his, and if not limited to 'existence' or UK there are a number of sources which will use the words "conspiracy theory".

Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish what exactly is so extremely concerning about this diff, or the other two—no doubt bad edits to a bad article—which call for a TBAN for those alone? fiveby(zero) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC) fiveby(zero) 07:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49 The best source here is probably Walter Russell Mead's The Arc of a Covenant, but it's really mostly discussed in relation to U.S. and Walt and Mearsheimer work. In my opinion those are bad edits, that politics section should probably be dialed back on the conspiracy POV, it's just the hyperbole here is unwarranted. Thanks for looking. fiveby(zero) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations of whitewashing, dogwhistles, or Nakba denial based on various causes are a stretch. Similar language remains on the current Israel page: various reasons and numerous factors. We also have a whole page examining the various causes of the exodus: causes of the 1948 Palestinian expulsion and flight. There's a consensus among scholars (today) that expulsions occurred, but not about the significance of other causes. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 05:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Nableezy, which material are you talking about? The Nakba in the lead of Israel?
  I'm seeing some fairly straightforward partisan editing, but not anything severely out of the norm in the topic. Although that is a bit concerning, I'm more interested in where their editing has violated established consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Vanamonde93 about those most recent diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fiveby, unilaterally changing the topic of an article from lobbying efforts by a country in another country to a conspiracy theory or groups and individuals seeking to influence UK foreign policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still parsing some of this; to me the distinction between tendentiousness partisanship is at least partly determined by whether the user is justifying edits on the talk page and/or otherwise engaging in discussion; I'm less happy with reverts or substantive changes in the absence of consensus without accompanying substantive talk page engagement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still struggling to wade through the morass of talk page discussions. But Levivich's recent diffs are extremely concerning, these two in particular: [45], [46]. I would consider a TBAN for those edits alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A unilateral POV change would be concerning, per SFR, but to me it's more than that; it's a unilateral change to the lead and framing, without supporting sources and without an equally substantive change to the body. The statement justifying it here at AE is bordering on a competence issue. This source (the 9th O.maximov provided, the first I clicked on) speaks of a single British MP, who claimed Tony Blair was being influenced by a coterie of Jewish advisors, and who was roundly criticized for saying so. It has no bearing at all on the claim that the Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory, or otherwise; because there is no substantive analysis of the phenomenon in the source at all. I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of an Israeli lobby; but if someone writes that it is a conspiracy theory, I expect that claim to be backed up by multiple heavyweight sources explicitly supporting that. O.maximov needs to show they can comply with WP:NOR and WP:V before they are allowed to mess around in a contentious topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your errors go a lot further than that, O. maximov. There is a profound difference between "Criticisms of UK policy toward Israel have veered into anti-semitic conspiracy theories" (which your sources support) and "The claim that an Israeli lobby exists in the UK is a conspiracy theory", which is effectively what you wrote. You appear to be unable to separate that nuance, which to me shows you have gotten too close to the material you're trying to edit. Further argument here isn't going to fix that; you need to show that you can edit within the bounds of policy, outside the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't investigated this, but presuming what Vanamonde writes is true (and I do) conflating anti-semetic conspiracy theories and Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory is more than just a failed nuance. It is, in my mind, POVPUSHING. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So I have now examined many (but not all) of the sources presented. I do find there to be support to the idea of the Israel Lobby being called a conspiracy in the UK. I think this is most clearly seen on p.10 of Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Not all the sources I looked at make the grade, but enough of them do that I feel more comfortable saying that we're in content, rather than conduct, territory with that particular piece. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Re: Levivich (cc fiveby): I agree with That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory and your subsequent freemason comparison is a good one. But in the diff you then cite it says The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories (emphasis added). I think you're focused on the italics part where as I think the bolded part is drawing that distinction - though the italics part would need to be reworded to avoid the problem you're seeing. I'm not sure this line should be in there at all, but all of this strikes me as with-in the bounds of a content discussion. Someone can be wrong/out of consensus on content in a contentious topic, even with regularity, and not, for me, cross the line into a conduct problem. To return to the first comment I made in this thread (below as it so happens), I AGF that a non-native English speaker can imperfectly walk the line of "There are conspiracies about the Israel Lobby in the UK" versus "The idea that there is an Israel Lobby is a conspiracy theory". I would expect, however, O.maximov to be a lot more careful about this distinction going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: My concern with this isn't with the content in sources dug up post-facto: whether or not an alternative description of the Israeli lobby exists in one or more of those sources is, I agree, a content matter outside our jurisdiction. My problem is that O. maximov introduced that framing into the article without any supporting source material, and then when confronted with this, produced a lot of sources that do not support his thesis either. It doesn't matter to me that one or more of the sources partially verify the thesis; the fact remains he claimed a lot of others did, when they did not. If the matter was solely a failure of attribution he should have been able to produce substantive sourcing; instead what he's produced looks very much like a list of sources talking about broader Jewish concern about people in government mentioning anti-semitic conspiracy theories. I am willing to allow that perhaps there wasn't a problem of intent here, but if that's the case then there was a problem of competence. Either way, to me a sanction is indicated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure when/if I will have time to look into the merits of the complaint here as it seems like a lot of background reading is required. However, I know enough to say that I find the calls for CU as unconvincing as I do the call for a boomerang on BM. Assume good faith matters just as much, if not more, in contentious topics. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @O.maximov does the Israel Lobby exist? Whether or not it does what would your description of it be? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @ScottishFinnishRadish and Barkeep49: It does not look to me as though we are getting more input here, and discussion has died down somewhat. If I am reading correctly, SFR and I are in support of a TBAN (by default, an ARBIPA TBAN); BK49 is hesitant. BK49, if my final argument above does not persuade you, is there a lesser option we can come to agreement on? Or are you opposed to a sanction altogether? I hesitate to impose something on a 2:1 margin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm willing to assume a touch of good faith that they were making a good faith attempt to summarize some of the conspiracy theory material in the article, so I'm also comfortable with a lesser sanction or just a warning. Most of the diffs I view in the same way I'm discussing down in #האופה. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What would you propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh geez, who knows? There's really nothing between warning and topic ban for battleground/sourcing issues, so a severe finger wagging not to do that again and be careful in the future is about all we can do if not topic banning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be much more amenable to a logged warning if O.maximov is willing to acknowledge that those edits were not compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR. At the moment I'm seeing no acknowledgement that they've done anything wrong. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I did rethink things after yours and Levivich's comments, which is why I asked the question above . I find O.maximov's answer good enough, though not excellent, and so I think I'd be opposed to anything harsher than a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  In the interest of putting this to bed I will support a logged warning, but I will note for the record that without a sharper sanction I believe issues will recur. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @O.maximov I hope you take this warning seriously; it would not take much for me to support a topic ban should you repeat some of the mistakes that led to the filing of this thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

3E1I5S8B9RF7 (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:ARBPIA

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

WP:NOTFORUM/WP:BLP/WP:NOR, Round 1, at Talk:Gaza genocide: "If dead, would Mohammed Deif be a victim of genocide?" I collapsed and archived that thread.

Round 2: "Should Hamas fighters be included in the genocide death count?" I also collapsed and archived that thread, posted a template warning and alert on the user talk page, and started a new thread about the same general topic (what is the genocide death toll according to RS), with sources, without the FORUM/BLP/NOR violations.

Round 3, in the thread I started: 1, 2; the second one is after the CTOP awareness alert.

Across all 3 rounds, they brought exactly one source (in Round 2), and that source does not contain the words "Deif" or "genocide". Otherwise, no sources. 11 out of 12 of their most-recent (Aug 3-7) contribs are the above FORUM/BLP/NOR violations.

In sum, 3E1 is persistently using this article talk page to discuss whether certain individuals/groups are innocent enough to be considered victims of genocide, without any real engagement with RS. This violates our FORUM/BLP/NOR policies.

Note that there has recently been an increase in press coverage of this article (see the press template at the top of the article talk page for links), and with it an increase in disruption, and the talk page is currently ECP'd as a result. Levivich (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No blocks or CTLOG entries, some warnings on the UTP

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

Special:Diff/1239002016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@SFR/Van: Yes, it's the only one after the ARBPIA alert. There were previous alerts in other topic areas (see their UTP); I don't know if that counts as awareness under the new rules or not. I don't see this as "the first after a CTOP alert" so much as "the 11th in a row this week." The CTOP awareness alert is the reason this is at AE instead of ANI, but otherwise it's not terribly relevant in my view. CTOP awareness is a prerequisite for CTOP sanctions, but I don't think any CTOP sanctions are necessarily merited here. This doesn't rise to the level of a TBAN or anything that serious in my view; though disruptive, it's limited to one article, and I think this is the first complaint against an established editor. While they're not listening to me, they'll probably listen to admins. Levivich (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find 3E1's comment here Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the Israel-Hamas War, but not a death toll of Gaza genocide in itself and xDanielx's comment here Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced, but this isn't entirely clear ... the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for Gaza genocide to be very puzzling, considering Talk:Gaza genocide#Death toll, the thread I started, begins with The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide ... and ends with Here are some sources ... followed by quotes from 5 sources that give a death toll of the Gaza genocide itself. They're both raising the same talking point, but the entire purpose of the thread I started is to address that exact point. I don't understand how two editors both missed this? Levivich (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just got this ping, which speaks for itself. Levivich (talk) 17:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re SFR: not sure why you picked those two particular quotes to compare and not others (you should be comparing the entirety of what both editors have written), but in any case, the first quote is about opinion and the second is about RS, which is why the first quote is a FORUM violation and the second isn't. Levivich (talk) 13:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR: sure if it was a one time thing. I'm looking at their contribs and I see 16 out of the last 17 are this foruming. In three separate threads on the article talk page and in this AE and then back on the talk page even while this AE is going. Are we supposed to just let them continue like this forever, or at some point do they have to make reference to RS? Levivich (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "Levivich and Selfstudier exposed their utter bias and inability to remain neutral, objective and rational regarding this issue.", which is in the 16th edition, is not kosher? Levivich (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1239171553

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.

My comments weren't a forum, they were relevant questions to the controversial decision in the article to include all Hamas militants, regarded as a terrorist organization by several countries, as victims of genocide, regardless if they fell as armed fighters in a battle. I can understand if this was narrowed down to only civilian fatalities, but the current article warrants a detailed explanation. I just wanted to hear a rational explanation if this can be accepted and hear other users' thoughts. My "inconvenient" question still stands unanswered; can terrorists be considered victims of genocide?--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you do agree that my original question is reasonable here? How would you anwser this question then?

The purpose of the talk page is to discuss contentious issues of an article. If users cannot pose questions revealing contradictions of some articles, then Wikipedia should abolish talk pages. Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the Israel-Hamas War, but not a death toll of Gaza genocide in itself, a term which is not universally accepted yet.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 16:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logged warning for what, exactly? This can and should be used to improve the article by pointing out the glaring contradiction (and fallacy) in it. Are Hamas militants who perpetrated the Re'im music festival massacre, and who were later killed for it, victims of genocide? Are terrorists victims of a genocide? My crime is that I pose this question. And I think it should be posed for clarification. Feel free to answer it, or if this question is forbidden, then just say it.--3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 18:01, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get that the reported editor has a beef with the article, having also initiated MR on it. That's not a license to forum the talk page, repeatedly refusing to take the hint. Think this editor should maybe stay away from the page for a while. Selfstudier (talk) 18:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx: I'm glad that you mentioned BM intervention in the middle of this contretemps, two days before the diff you have posted, here, any idea what on earth was the purpose of adding {{npov|Is Mohammed Deif a victim of genocide?}} other than to encourage the reported party in their talk page bludgeoning? How on earth is that a "content dispute"? Deif was not even mentioned in the article. Selfstudier (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

.@3E1I5S8B9RF7: See here. The simplest answer to your (and BM) pointy question. If the killings are because of who they are, rather than because of what they did, then they may be victims. That question will be answered in due course by the court. Selfstudier (talk) 11:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: The difference being that both Buidhe and myself are providing sources aimed at improving the article. Your attempting to hat them is as well rather tedious, I must say. Selfstudier (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Since you neglected to notify Buidhe, I did it for you.Selfstudier (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just a lost cause.Selfstudier (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I am at a bit of a loss to understand the thinking here, this is just straight up soapboxing, including while we are still at the boards, I don't really understand why other editors are even bothering to reply to it.Selfstudier (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't WP:NOTFORUM territory at all, since 3E1I5S8B9RF7 was raising concerns about content in an effort to improve it. Levivich closing the discussions as such seems inappropriate. It's also not WP:OR to question whether sources are being interpreted or summarized correctly. One doesn't need new sources to question the application of the current ones. While WP:BLP applies to all namespaces, in practice its sourcing requirements are not enforced to the letter outside of article space.

Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced (edit: or rather that proper sources exist and can be added), but this isn't entirely clear. BilledMammal argued that it itself involves OR, since the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for Gaza genocide. Giving a casualty figure for the war, and then a separate statement that a genocide is occurring, is not the same thing; one can believe that a genocide is occurring without sharing the view that combatant deaths are part of that genocide.

This seems like a normal content dispute, with no legitimate policy-based reason for closing the discussions or bringing it to AE. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 14:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: you provided five sources, but none of them actually provide a count of genocide victims, as BilledMammal pointed out on the talk page. A statement that X people were killed in a war, and a separate statement that a genocide is occurring, does not amount to a statement that X people were victims of a genocide. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sean.hoyland: your argument seems to be that WP:NOR was violated, not WP:NOTFORUM. "Patently false" is not an argument, and it's hard to see how flagging a perceived issue in an article could be NOTFORUM territory.

Regarding NOR, the policy does not apply to talk pages. At worst one could say that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 was suggesting a change which would have been OR had it been enacted. A NOR violation would require actually enacting the change.

It also seem impossible to keep any count of genocide victims without bending NOR, since we don't have any reliable sources providing an explicit count of genocide victims. If we're going to enforce NOR to the letter here, we'll have to remove the victim count. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 01:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"This isn't WP:NOTFORUM territory at all"...patently false and not helpful at all in my view. Rewarding easily avoided WP:TALKNO violations is counterproductive in PIA and has a cost. Editors who try to convince people that they have figured out how Wikipedia should count victims of an alleged genocide based on a personal decision procedure that makes sense to them should not be taken seriously. It's bordering on a competence issue. Buried inside 3E1I5S8B9RF7's unhelpful musings and irrelevant personal opinions there is a simple and reasonable point about statistics that could easily have been expressed by "pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies", the key word there being policies. No need to start fires to get attention. I fully support Levivich's entirely sensible actions. I'm sure 3E1I5S8B9RF7 is a perfectly decent editor, but no one needs to hear about how they think victim counting should work. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XDanielx,

• I think it's possible to understand quite a lot of the things that happen in PIA, the rule breaking, the defense of rule breaking etc., if you assume that people sometimes use an approach that can be characterized as 'the ends justify the means', an after the fact rationalization of non-compliance. But the ends don't justify the means. There's just a set of policies and guidelines that everyone has to follow.
• In this case, it seems crystal clear (to me at least) that the editor made statements that are inconsistent with talk page guidelines. There are numerous examples in that discussion where they try to get editors to discuss who can be counted as a victim and who can't etc. In general, in Wikipedia, I don't think this really matters much, but in PIA, I think it matters because there are very few knobs we can turn to try to improve the dynamics of the topic area. Strictly enforcing compliance in discussions is one of them.
• Let's assume everyone in that discussion agreed with the editor's proposed counting method. If you ask, 'Is that consensus consistent with policy?', the answer is no. So, that already tells me that, aside from being a misuse of talk pages, it is a pointless waste of everyone's time.
• To be honest, I don't really understand why so many editors behave this way, treat themselves as RS, when the alternative, just following sources and the rules, liberates editors from having to answer, or even think about, questions like 'is this a massacre?', 'is this a genocide?', 'why doesn't genocide law distinguish between combatants and non-combatants?' etc. My wife and I often argue over whether a thing is color A or color B. This happens, in part, because the mappings from wavelengths to tokens are interestingly inconsistent across languages. This is fun and all, but these kinds of discussions/disagreements shouldn't happen in PIA because we are supposed to just reflect reliable sources rather than elevate ourselves to RS-level and argue our theory of the case. We all know this. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:42, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It feels a little unfair to focus on 3E1I5S8B9RF7 when this is a problem on both sides.

The editors advocating that we count every casualty as a victim of genocide are doing the same thing that 3E1I5S8B9RF7 is, by trying to convince people that they have figured out how Wikipedia should count victims of an alleged genocide based on a personal decision procedure that makes sense to them - the sources presented in support of that claim don't say that X many people are victims, only that X many people have died in the war. BilledMammal (talk) 22:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier:, when used that way the template links to the talk page section, which at the time was titled "Is Mohammed Deif a victim of genocide?". That section was soon after closed and archived by an involved editor, which is why the link stopped working. BilledMammal (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering how that discussion has now proceeded, it would be manifestly unfair to warn 3E1I5S8B9RF7 but not other editors involved in that discussion.

For example, Selfstudier and Buidhe are now engaging in discussions about who is a protected person, arguing that Hamas members are protected. This is no different to 3E1I5S8B9RF7 arguing that they are not - neither argument is relevant, as they aren’t based on direct statements from reliable sources about how many victims there are. BilledMammal (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier: And if the discussion was not about the death toll they might be appropriate. However, it is, and so divergences into who a protected person is are no more appropriate when the argument is that Hamas members are protected than it is when the argument is that they are not. BilledMammal (talk) 18:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I posted evidence that the assumption that genocide victims are innocent and targeted for no reason apart from ethnic hatred is a misconception not found in international law. Also, that the attempted elimination of Hamas is described as part of the genocide by reliable sources. I agree with selfstudier that this is different from arguing the opposite based not on any reliable sources but only from personal opinions / misconceptions. (t · c) buidhe 19:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Levivich, so this is the sole diff from after they were given a CTOP alert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have difficulty saying that if this Should every Hamas fighter and militant be included as a victim of genocide? In my opinion, only civilians should be included, meaning a figure of around 16,000 civilians according to Israel[50] or more according to some other sources. is NOTAFORUM, that this The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide; some are about the war and don't even contain the word "genocide." I think we should base casualty counts on sources that are about the Gaza genocide specifically. Or in other words: in the WP:RSes that say it's a genocide, what do they say is the death toll of the genocide? is not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Levivich, I would say that your position is obviously the correct one (how about we look at RS and see what they say?) but their edits are still reasonably about improvement of the article. They could have been better spoken, but "We're including every death in a war, I think we should only include non-combatant deaths" isn't out of the norm for talk page discussions and it points out the very reasonable issue that RS don't support what was in the article at the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Same question from me: is there evidence of CTOP awareness earlier? The single edit SFR notes is a bit of a NOTFORUM violation, but not at a level where I would consider any action for it alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm okay with a logged warning. 3E1I5S8B9RF7, if you have concerns about the text, please raise them without any number of straw men and rhetorical questions. This cannot reasonably be construed as an attempt to improve the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Please keep your comments to your own section.) A logged warning for violating WP:NOTFORUM, and for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Levivich's comment I would be in favor of a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bluethricecreamman (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

Violating WP:1RR and edit warring at Genocide of indigenous peoples by repeatedly reinstating the same disputed content:

1. 17:49, 24 June 2024
2. 20:28, 5 August 2024
3. 13:21, 6 August 2024 (self-reverted 13:51, 6 August 2024 following talk page request)
4. 12:44, 7 August 2024

They refused to self-revert, saying that because they self-reverted 13:21, 6 August 2024 they were free to re-implement the edit. However, my understanding is that self-reverting, particularly when done only after the self-revert is requested, doesn't permit editors to ignore the most recent revert when re-implementing the edit and doing so comes across as WP:GAMING.

It is relevant that an RfC was held on including this content, which closed as "no consensus". As the content was only in the article for six weeks, insufficient to establish it as the status quo, this means it should be excluded until a consensus is found to include it and editors should not be reinstating it even when done without edit warring or 1RR violations.

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 16:29, 19 January 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

23:42, 8 August 2024

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

• a) I've explained revert then self revert doesn't count towards the counter, but BilledMammal has been harrassing me and others in talkpage to self revert. Also like... wouldn't the applicable place for this report be the edit war noticeboard? WP:AN/EW. Bluethricecreamman (talk)
• Seen some folks argue that no consensus means removal. WP:NOCONSENSUS states specifically "When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." Obviously, after that May RFC fails, we should probably keep the version of the article that had been in place since March with the included paragraph. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Response to result: Glad to have been informed, will read the AC/CT more carefully next time. Will update my behavior accordingly. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Doing a self-revert on last edit. Bluethricecreamman (talk)

I also noticed these problematic diffs, which seem to be part of a broader recent trend where disputed content is repeatedly inserted through edit warring in ARBPIA, despite being reverted multiple times. When asked to stop and wait for consensus, there are editors who reintroduce the disputed content anyway and insist that discussions should focus on whether the new content should be removed, rather than if it should be added in the first place. In some cases, they claim consensus exists, even when reverts indicate otherwise. Here are a few examples for these re-adds,leading to controversial content now appearing in the article:

• Genocide of indigenous peoples: beside Bluethericecreamman, the disputed content was also restored by others following the RFC closure as no consensus: [51], [52].
• Palestinians, where a new description as native/indigenous was introduced through edit warring: [53] [54] [55]
• Israeli allegations against UNRWA, where a scope change in all but name was introduced through edit warring, [56], [57], while a RM to move to "UNRWA and Israel" is now ongoing.
• Similar dynamics can be found also at Zionism. This is how its primary description as a "movement that ... aimed for the establishment of a Jewish state through the colonization of a land outside of Europe." was introduced, despite many reverts and substantial talk disagreement.

This seems why this may be part of the reason why Wikipedia is not pereceived as trustworthy anymore by some outside media when it comes to ARBPIA. ABHammad (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluethricecreamman: No, that noticeboard is only for normal edit-warring subject to 3RR in non-contentious topics. For edit-warring in designated contentious topics with stricter revert rules, this is the appropriate venue. Left guide (talk) 10:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All else being equal, WP:ONUS policy clause stipulates that disputed material stays out of an article unless and until there is a consensus for its inclusion:

The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

Left guide (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: 6 weeks? Where's that from? (also see Wikipedia_talk:Consensus#WP:NOCONSENSUS where myself and others aren't in agreement with your rather simplistic take on this matter). As for who started it, that would have been yourself on 5 August, a month and a half (!) after the RFc closure on 25 June? Selfstudier (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A self revert does not reset the revert counter, in my opinion. Beyond that @Bluethricecreamman: I suggest you re-read the introduction to to contentious topics given your comments as from what I read here you to need edit carefully and constructively (emphasis in the original). In contentious topics Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and so this self-evert resets your ability to do other reverts. In general your response here - including the suggestion it's the wrong forum which it's not - indicates you don't understand what it means to be a contentious topic and don't understand that norms and policies being more strictly enforced are exactly about this sort of thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given Blue's response I am ok closing this without further action. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a reminder that long term edit warring is still edit warring wouldn't go amiss, although that goes for most editors in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

PeleYoetz (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:ARBPIA

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

New three-month old account, same old edit wars.

• Zionism
  • Removals of "colonization" and similar (partial list: editors who have been sanctioned recently or have pending reports at AE): Kentucky Rain24 (KR) June 6, האופה June 7, KR June 8, ABHammad June 10 (another), O.maximov June 11, האופה June 12, ABHammad July 2, O.maximov July 3, האופה July 4, Icebear244 July 4, [fully-protected July 11-14], ABHammad July 21 (predicate edit for #ABHammad report), PeleYoetz Aug 11 - first and only edit to the article with edit summary Reverted to the last stable version ...
  • first and only talk page comment - There's clearly no consensus here ... I see 9-10 voices against the change.
    • Icebear244 Jul 4, filing the complaint against Nishidani: There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version.
    • Icebear244 later on Jul 4 clarifies it's 9, not 7: You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too.
    • האופה July 4: ... At least 7 editors clearly oppose this framing
    • Of the 9-10 editors, 3 have been blocked, 1 TBANed, 1 0RR, and 3 currently have pending AE reports
• Israel - "various causes" / "various reasons": ABHammad Jun 23, האופה Jun 23, O.maximov Aug 3 (predicate edit for #O.maximov report), האופה Aug 6, PeleYoetz Aug 8 - first and only edit to the article, with edit summary there is no consensus for this new change. No talk page posts.
• Israeli allegations against UNRWA
  • האופה Aug 7 - removes it entirely in their first edit to the article with edit summary this article is about UNRWA involvement in October 7, not the history of Israeli-UNRWA relations, removing recently added material that totally changed the scope
    • They had not participated in the talk page discussion prior to reverting
    • One talk page message immediately prior to the revert: 1; more after: 2, 3, 4
  • PeleYoetz Aug 7 - removes it entirely in their first and only edit to the article with edit summary the scope was changed without real discussion on the proposed change
    • They had not participated in the discussion on the talk page prior to reverting
    • Two talk page messages immediately prior to the revert: 1, 2

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)

July 21

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Outside of the editors I've reported to AE, in this topic area, right now, I don't believe you will find other examples of what this report shows: two editors, "Editor A" and "Editor B", where Editor B:

1. Repeats Editor A's edits, votes the same way as Editor A, or otherwise "backs up" Editor A
2. Three times at three different articles
3. At articles they've never edited before
4. Where they've also never before participated on the talk page
5. Where they contribute nothing to the article except backing up Editor A
6. Within the first few months of editing

We can even drop #6, I still don't think there's another example outside of what I've posted at AE lately. @Vanamonde93: Would it change your mind if, instead of three times, it was six times? Here are three more examples: A, B; A, B; A, B. As a bonus, here's a seventh example, this time the order is reversed: B, A. This is not normal editing; this isn't something other editors do. But if we allow this to happen, if we say this is an OK thing to do, then others will start doing it, too. Levivich (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1239832259

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.

Until recently I had no real involvement with this editor other than giving an awareness notice in July. Just to add to Levivich diffs:

At Majdal Shams, First of two edits (inconsequential second edit a minute after that) to the article, nothing on talk page, arrives 2 minutes after האופה (aka HaOfa) edit and changes the SD from Town in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights -> Druze town in the northern Golan Heights, an obvious POV edit.

At Masada myth, shows up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masada myth same day as nominated by HaOfa, no prior article edits or at talk page. Agrees with HaOfa.

Same pattern at Israeli allegations against UNRWA, no prior involvement and then consecutive reverts, HaOfa then PeleYoetz.

It is doubtful that this pattern is coincidental. PeleYoetz role appears to be as back up for HaOfa, to support their actions.

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

• I don't see what action I could reasonably take here. The ideal approach to a content dispute is for all parties to engage substantively on the talk page until it's sorted, via RfC and outside input if needed. Across the ARBPIA conflict, editors don't do this; instead are slow-moving multi-party edit-wars, and considerable stonewalling on talk pages. When this behavior becomes egregious I'm open to sanctioning anyone and everyone involved, but I don't see anything here rising to that level. A lot of users could stand to engage better on the talk page(s). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be interested to hear from PeleYoetz in light of the most recent diffs. As I've said elsewhere, agreement between parties heavily invested in the topic is to be expected; a similar pattern from editors not substantively engaged implies off-wiki coordination. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm generally addressing this at #האופה since it's basically the same report, but these types of patterns are wildly easy to find looking at anyone who is involved in the topic area. In less than ten minutes I found more damning "evidence" for two other editors active in the topic. As I said there, if we're going to sanction based on these patterns it would have to be evenly enforced and boy howdy it would be a mess. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think tag-team edit-warring is disruptive. If regulars aren't willing to not be disruptive, then yeah, they've kind of forced our hand. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

האופה (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:ARBPIA

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

Maybe presenting the diffs in a different way will make a difference. This and the other recent reports show HaOfa not just edit warring (my definition: repeating edits without consensus) but edit warring to remove from Wikipedia statements saying that:

• Palestinians are native or indigenous to Palestine
• the expulsion/flight was caused by Israel and not by "various causes"
• Israel annexed the Golan Heights, not "extended Israeli jurisdiction"
• Israel's occupation is illegal
• Israel is continuing to expand its settlements,
• Israel engaged in apartheid
• Zionists engaged in colonization
• Zionism as settler colonialism is not a fringe theory

At some articles, they edit war claiming (edit summaries diff'd/quoted in hatted section above) "ONUS", "FORCIBLY introduced", "start an RFC", "the rfc has just started, wait for it to conclude"; at the same time at another article, they repeatedly reinstate a bold change during an RFC. They incorrectly claimed "last stable version" while reinstating recent bold changes. They made changes with the edit summary "no consensus" while reinstating changes that had no consensus. Sometimes they did this at articles where they never edited or discussed before or since, like at multiple articles to reinstate a user-generated map with an unreliable source that failed verification.

In short: months of repeating their own and others' edits across multiple articles, violating WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:EW, with incorrect and contradictory edit summaries.

We don't need a panel of a dozen arbs for this. Reviewing admins can look at these diffs and say (1) yes/no do they violate V, NPOV, NOR, EW, or other policies, and (2) if so, what should be done if anything to prevent future violations. It's hard to answer the second question without hearing from the person being reported. The person being reported doesn't have a reason to say anything until the first question is answered.

If admins answer the first question as yes, there's no need to go to arbcom or anywhere else; see what HaOfa has to say about it. If the admins say no, then there's no need to go anywhere else, just close the report saying so. If admins disagree about whether it's yes or no, then it might be worth seeking additional input at another venue (although the decision of which venue should be left up to the editor(s) who intend to volunteer the time to present evidence).

As for the conduct of other editors, I strongly agree with Nableezy's comment that If an editor were to write 'Poland lost the majority of its Jewish population due to various causes' nobody would be talking about how there are two sides battlegrounding or edit-warring .... If someone can put together a list like the one above about some other editor, then they should post that to AE, and reviewing admins should answer the two questions about that set of diffs.

FWIW, from my perspective, AE has worked better than I expected so far, and I don't see why it shouldn't continue to work for this report or any other similar report. Levivich (talk) 01:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC) Edited Levivich (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a mistake to send this to arbcom, or take any action, without first hearing from the reported editors.

And if there are concerns about other editors, step one would be to file an AE case against those other editors. It'll be hard to show that the community can't resolve something when no effort has been made yet. Levivich (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Apr 17

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1239832951

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.

See also participation in this edit war [60] (same one as the case involving me above) Bluethricecreamman (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to get upfront? This is the latest of multiple reports by the same editor, where unsubstantiated claims are being expressed repeatedly in what may feel like a constant threat to potentially scare off editors with different views. A substantial amount of the diffs presented are valid attempts to restore the last consensus versions in the face of constant additions of disputed content through edit warring regardless of consensus and in violation of WP:ONUS. Although it is best to assume goodfaith, this is certainly becoming cumbersome and perhaps even humiliating for these editors. We may need to consider a potential WP:BOOMERANG in this case. ABHammad (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron, I think the reverts from the two editors are very different in substance. The lead for Zionism was recently changed to include a very controversial definition ("colonization of a land outside Europe") that has not achieved consensus. HaOfa appears to be restoring the last stable version and advocating for further discussion and an RfC on talk, while Selfstudier seems to be reinstating a new, disputed change despite considerable opposition (which, I must admit, includes me). I think this context should be taken into account. ABHammad (talk) 10:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: What's that "warned for aspersions" about, please? Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Please change the misleading diff to reflect the situation. Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 16:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: That's a pretty fair misrepresentation of what has occurred at the UNRWA allegations article, the first diff is me doing what was agreed to in talk page discussions that have been taking place over a long period of time, it wasn't a revert and no-one was objecting to it until Haofa/PeleYoetz showed up together out of the blue to revert it.Selfstudier (talk) 15:35, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Those discussions have been going on for months including prior to that and that is why there is also an RM in process to give effect to them. I am sincerely displeased that one editor has filed a complaint against two others and yet it seems that I am being put on trial by selective diff as a result.Selfstudier (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: You haven't reached this one as yet in your "content review". Look now at the developments with the UNRWA allegations article edits. The RM that I said was in progress has concluded as I wished it and the 2 reverts by these editors look now completely left field as both Levivich and myself initially pointed out. No need for an admin to decide any content issue, it has been decided.Selfstudier (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: If sanctions need to be spread more widely then so be it, but the totality needs to be examined not just selected parts of it. That my name would show up at these articles is hardly a surprise, I would be surprised if it didn't, as I have been attending these articles for years, not months. As I have specifically commented at the other related case, something is rotten in the state of Denmark.Selfstudier (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Who was I tag teaming with, please? Did you mean PeleYoetz 07:38, 11 August 2024 and Haofa 09:10, 11 August 2024? Selfstudier (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Let me just parse that. The edits on the 10th are about different material than the edits on the 11th. Of the four edits on the 11th, I restored along with Tarnished Path while the actual reported editors here claimed to be restoring an earlier consensus version. It was my one and only edit for a month or more, so the answer to my question must be that I tag teamed with Tarnished Path, who I don't know from Adam. Are there any other examples of my tag teaming with Tarnished Path? Let me now go back to June/July. I made one edit in July, on the second, tag teaming with no-one, instead I was tag teamed by Vegan (now Tbanned) and Hammad (now 0RR). So nothing there. Let's have a look at June. On 6 June I presumably tagteamed with Unbandito against KentuckyRain(indeffed) and HaOfa (reported here). That's it, 3 edits. How on earth are those 3 edits construed as tag teaming edit warring??? Selfstudier (talk) 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: A simplification at least, no tag teaming. Except that now it is said that because I participated on the talk pages I must have been aware of earlier edit warring and that my revert therefore constituted a continuation of that edit warring (which I did not participate in) over a period of two months prior. I concede that I was aware of the prior edit warring, at least in general terms, but this construction strikes me as novel, to say the least.

Should I have not reverted and instead started an RFC myself? Well, I don't think so, not in the circumstances, which can be adduced quite straightforwardly at the relevant talk page section, per my contemporaneous comments on 11 August at Talk:Zionism#Recent additions done against consensus, and request to get collaborative. As yet, of those calling for an RFC none has attempted to start one.Selfstudier (talk) 23:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seriously?? 3 totally unconnected diffs from 2022??? And a diff pointing to my opening an AFD in February this year? I really do need to get this straight. Levivich files a complaint against a couple editors for tag teaming and provides a bunch of diffs as evidence of that. I add a couple more. Then I am firstly accused of tag teaming with zero diffs/evidence of that based on a single revert that I made (my one and only edit to the article in over a month, followed up immediately on the talk page). Now, how does that work, exactly? Grateful for any coherent explanation. To reiterate, if someone wants to bring a case against me for tag teaming or for anything else, then they can do that, but not that a judge turned defense attorney attempts to find me guilty of I don't know what exactly, via selective historical diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 12:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to do this properly, let's look at this editor interaction thing, I threw myself and Iskandar into it for 1 January to date (this year, not 2022), What's to see? Well, the first noticeable thing is that a large majority of the results are talk pages. And RSN. So let's leave those alone and pick out an article instead, the first one we come to is South Africa's genocide case against Israel, that's a controversial one, so let's have a look a the detailed timeline for that. Oh wait, I made 109 edits but Iskandar only made 2, should we discard it or take a closer look at the 2? Let's see, what about Zionism article, 9 edits by Iskandar and 4 by me. There you go, I put it out there for anyone that wants to build their case against me. You could try it with others besides Iskandar, Nableezy, etcetera. I'll wait. Selfstudier (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: If tag teaming is demonstrated, it should be sanctioned. One more time, waiting for anyone that wishes to bring a case against me for tag teaming using your diffs or any others. Selfstudier (talk) 15:18, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is difficult in certain cases to entirely separate content issues from behavior, however desirable that might be in theory. There is certainly a continuity of both subject matter and editors between the two cases here (one case, really) and the Nishidani case, for example. Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The content review, the link for "On the apartheid edit..." is wrong, I think? Selfstudier (talk) 18:14, 15 August 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: That it? Selfstudier (talk) 10:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC) @ScottishFinnishRadish: Levivich and myself did discuss such a filing during the Nishidani case but it never quite got off the ground. Not sure we're quite there with this either, part of the problem is that a case ostensibly about tag teaming has, somewhat unnecessarily imo, turned into another sort of case by osmosis or something. Not hearing from the editors in question doesn't help. If the party line is that tag teaming is too difficult to pin down, let's just say that and then we know. But let's not pretend that we're sending this case (or two cases) to Arbcom. If we did want a generalized Arbcom case, this wouldn't be it in my view.Selfstudier (talk) 11:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, edits which restore the "various causes" language following IOHANNVSVERVS' comments here probably deserve a more critical view. fiveby(zero) 16:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can add this quite balatant POV-push edit [61] where HaOfa unilaterally removed the Israel Defense Forces from the infobox of Sabra and Shatila massacre. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 16:36, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Zionism article has been targeted by numerous people using deception via sockpuppetry. Examples include

• Here come the Suns, Kentucky Rain24 (NoCal100),
• ElLuzDelSur,
• Aroma Stylish, BanyanClimber, SoaringLL (AndresHerutJaim/יניב הורון)
• ManOnTheMoon92 (Tombah)

So we know a) the article is being targeted by sockpuppets, b) socks edit war and c) the costs of sanctions for disposable accounts is precisely zero. Any decisions based on the notion of balance, sides/bothsidesism etc. should presumably take this into account because "sides" can't include accounts that are not allowed to edit at all. This is another reason why accounts reported (and commenting) at AE should have checkusers run on them, to avoid arriving at a false balance. Sean.hoyland (talk) 09:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]