Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive322

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

CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

Less than one month ago, Fowler was brought to this noticeboard for behavioral issues. At the time, they promised to improve their behavior, and the report was closed without action.

In that report, I had brought up their edit warring, especially when the edits are not exactly in line with what they want [1]. That pattern is repeated here. In these edits, Fowler has made reverts ignoring the 1RR restrictions on the page due to their disagreements with the material.

1. [2] First revert today
2. [3] Second revert today, in violation of 1RR restriction on article

A separate set of violations, see caveat in additional comments.

1. [4] Also, first revert on 12th
2. [5] Second revert in violation of 1RR restriction
3. [6] Third revert in double violation of 1RR restriction

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Warned in October 2022 for "personal attacks and incivility" involving WP:ARBIND.

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

• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

For context, my involvement began when I made an edit to the article, to substitute a word in the lead that could be easily misinterpreted, to a wording supplied by a third editor. Fowler objected, and despite there being little to no grounds, I accepted their request for giving them time till the 16th of August. In the meantime, Fowler continued to revert sourced material others inserted in other sections, insisting on maintaining their preferred version. When asked to discuss their reverts, they again asked to wait till the 16th, and I was fine by it. See Talk:2020 Delhi riots#Inaccuracies for context.

Since then, Fowler has been making multiple edits on several pages, however, has chosen not to reply to the discussion that they had help up with requests of additional time. I reinstated the clearer wording today, due to Fowler's failure to discuss. They reverted me again in violation of 1RR, saying they had discussed enough (they had not discussed any further after asking for more time), accused me of edit warring, and threatened me with "A trip to the wood shed". These actions are in stark contrast to their promises for good behaviour on this thread when they were under the threat of sanctions.

In most of these reverts that were made in violation of the 1RR restriction, they used marked them as good-faith edits - Therefore they cannot use the argument that these were exempt from 1RR under WP:NOT3RR. As full disclosure, the second set of edits includes edits of an editor by a sock; However, The sock was not indicated as being so at the time, and Fowler did not make any indication they even had any suspicions of the user being a sock. Since there is a long term behavioural issue being brought up, this should not affect the fact they reverted edits, accepting them as good faith, while breaking 1RR. Even if admins accept this line of reasoning, today's violations still remain.

In light of these recurring violations, I request a 0RR restriction on Fowler&fowler, or if the admins wish to see these violation of CTOPS restrictions more leniently, at the very least 1RR.

@Bradv and @Extraordinary Writ - Fowler seems to have doubled down instead of admitting their error; Instead of reverting their edit, they reverted another editors edit with a "self revert" edit summary, and then had to be asked again again to actually do the revert.

Their response focuses more on trying to paint me as some sort of agenda warrior than accepting their own violations; They have made several allegations without bothering to substantiate any of them, making accusations of WP:HOUNDING and WP:BAIT; A simple interaction timeline shows how laughable the first is; And to accuse me of baiting, for their own reverts breaking CTOPS restrictions after failure to discuss? Their abuse of the label "Hindu Nationalist POV editor" has been previously also noted, with attempts to escape admin action by casting aspersions on those they disagree with.

In all, their battleground mentality and failure to accept their violations of the existing page sanctions merits atleast a logged warning, if their self reversion is deemed to be enough to not be sanctioned more hashly. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[7]

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.

I wasn't really aware of the 2020 Delhi riots, until March 2, 2020, when @Kautilya3: made a post on my user talk page requesting help on that page. See here. If you scroll up in archive 23 of my user talk page, you'll see that I was busy at the time at FAC with very different kinds of subject matter (archbishops of Canterbury, volcanoes in South America, and so forth). The Delhi riots was a fraught topic area that people were afraid to edit. An editor user:DbigXray who had edited the page earlier had been outed by some Hindu nationalists and had to leave Wikipedia. That is the kind of article in which my help had been sought. I devised a strategy for editing the lead neutrally, utilizing the reports of the large number of international reporters that had been present in Delhi at the time (for an unrelated event—the visit of Donald Trump). The strategy evolved over a few weeks in the presence of a large number of editors, including several administrators and I rewrote the lead in their full view, with the help of some other editors. They were pinged when I posted the guidelines on 5 April 2020: Talk:2020_Delhi_riots/Archive_17#Fowler&fowler's:_Developing_the_article_main_body,_and_eventually_rewriting_the_lead_(in_POV-embattled_India-related_articles). As far as I am aware, the guidelines have been followed for the three and half years that have elapsed. This is not an article that I have edited much since that time, except for occasional reverts. I certainly did not remember that it had a 1RR restriction until admin @Firefangledfeathers: reminded me on my user talk page a little while ago. I immediately self-reverted.

CapnJackSp (talk · contribs), CJS hereafter, is a user with almost no history of any purposeful engagement with me on Wikipedia. The editor interaction analyser is very interesting: except on one page, Talk:Pandit Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Junction railway station, where I was pinged by @Fylindfotberserk:, CJS have followed me on every other page of our mutual editing interest. See here. My first memory of them is on Talk:Mahatma Gandhi where they appeared a few months ago. I had written the lead of Mahatma Gandhi in an admin-supervised revision some four or five years earlier. It had stood the test of time until March or April of 2023 when an editor, with no history of editing either the page or the talk page, objected to one sentence in the lead. I began to compile sources supporting that sentence. There are now some 30 of the best quality sources found anywhere on Wikipedia. My interlocutors are not satisfied. I am waiting for admin @Abecedare:'s opinion. They might have been called away by RL. See Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#F&f's_sources:_Gandhi's_last_fast_&_cash_assets_owed_to_Pakistan. That is when CJS appeared. They too had no history of editing Gandhi or the talk page. They soon posted on my user talk page, giving me advice about behavior. When I asked CJS if they had looked at the sources, they said they hadn't found the time. But have found the time to come after me with unparalleled focus and dispatch both in the previous ARE of a month ago, where they were the most prolific of the editors asking for a pound of my flesh, and now in this one. I am incredulous that they know so much about my edits for someone who has not only had no interaction with me but has not edited our pages of mutual interest beyond the barest of ritual edits. 2020 Delhi riots is another page in which they had no history of any editing. CJS seems to be following me around and looking to bait me. I request that editors I had pinged on April 5, 2020, several of whom were administrators, take a look at CJS's editing history: @Kautilya3, Slatersteven, DIYeditor, RegentsPark, Abecedare, DougWeller, El C, Anachronist, Drmies, Johnbod, and Vanamonde93: as well as @331dot:, with whom I have been interacting on the article's talk page.

• Proposal I am flat out of time for digging out diffs, but I request that these editors examine CJS's history, and if there is evidence of POV promotion, that CapnJackSp (talk · contribs) be topic banned from South Asia-related articles broadly construed. In my own view, born of a 17-year-long intuition on Wikipedia. they are very cautiously, but doggedly, promoting the Hindu nationalist POV on Wikipedia's controversial pages. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Also pinging @Courcelles: who closed the last ARE. As far as I am aware, I've been bending over backwards to be polite to other editors and to listen to their arguments. See [ But it doesn't mean that editors examine my user page for the pages I have edited and play gotcha to make a point or trap me. For example, no sooner had one new editor, Imaginie (talk · contribs) been blocked than another new user Padurina (talk · contribs) appeared and began to edit the 2020 Delhi riots in the third or fourth edit! Fowler&fowler«Talk» 00:30, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Thank you for your statement. I have self-reverted. As you state, I was using Twinkle in which the 1RR warning does not appear during the revert. I may have been aware of the 1RR restriction long ago, when I made nearly 200 edits in the article; but since April 2020, I have made but 29 of which the last 20—made during the last 18 months— were reverts. I apologize and will be especially careful from here on out. Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been involved at the disputed article for a couple years now, and I'm just now learning that 1RR and 24h-BRD are in place. Since the AE log was properly updated and the page edit notice in place, I think admins are procedurally permitted to sanction F&F. The talk page notice is not required; see WP:CT#Enforcement of restrictions, which requires only formal awareness and the edit notice.

That said, I urge that we give F&F a pass here. I, and other editors with experience in ARBPIA (where 1RR is automatically enforced), know that best practice is to inform an editor of a 1RR breach and give at least a short time to allow for self-reversion. It's a nice moment of "I disagree with you, but I get that people forget and mistakes happen". For an article like this one, where editors are less likely to be sensitive of potential page restrictions, I think the courtesy notice is doubly needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:53, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On side note: In previous ARE, I had made some points, seem still pertinent, hence I would encourage both sides to go through them again. Happen to observed instance of some digression on part of F&F -seem to have been also noted by other users in that discussion- at WT:INB#RFC- I hope and wish F&F will continue to work on avoiding digression. Bookku (talk) 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who's been around the Wikipedia block for a while (as a lowly IP editor), I finally took the plunge and made an account when I realized most pages had slammed their doors on IPs. In my short time here, I've gotten quite the crash course from Fowler&Fowler on Wikipedia policies. It's a real head-shaker when someone who practically sings the Wikipedia rulebook suddenly belts out, "Oops, wasn't aware I was bending a rule. My bad!" Time for F&F to tango with the consequences of their whoopsies – let's see those dance moves.Padurina (talk) 22:28, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CapnJackSp complained [at 08:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)] that Fowler&fowler made several allegations without bothering to substantiate any of them, but then said that Fowler&fowler has displayed a battleground mentality and that this merits at least a logged warning.^[8]

But is not CapnJackSp also making an allegation without bothering to substantiate it? I sometimes agree and sometimes disagree with Fowler&fowler; I have not noticed this alleged "battleground mentality". I am not convinced it exists.

If the extent of this alleged "battleground mentality" is what Fowler&Fowler wrote on this page, then CapnJackSp should have read Wikipedia:ANI advice before participating. I am sure that advice also applies here.

It might be best to accept that both have faults and drop this.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• The 1RR sanction does not appear to have been correctly applied to this article. While it is shown in the edit notice, it does not appear either on the talk page of the article, or, more critically, in the AELOG as required by Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Logging. In my opinion, the complaint of Fowler&fowler violating 1RR is unactionable. – bradv 16:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, I looked at the history of the edit notice, and failed to notice the earlier entry in the log. – bradv 18:39, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• If I'm understanding the somewhat complicated history here, El C properly logged the 1RR (under the article's previous name North East Delhi riots) in 2020 (diff), and Anachronist then added the forgotten editnotice in 2021. This all seems fine procedurally. That said, while the 1RR was violated, it doesn't appear to have been a willful violation (especially since Fowler&fowler was using Twinkle, which doesn't show editnotices when reverting), so I'm not inclined to sanction anyone here so long as F&f self-reverts and commits to being more careful about this issue in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I plan to close this without action in the next day or so unless any other admins want to weigh in. If either of you really has serious concerns about the other's long-term behavior, a separate report (amply supported by evidence/diffs) would be a better place for that. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Feel free, as far as I’m concerned. There’s nothing meriting a sanction here. Courcelles (talk) 09:28, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that Fowler&fowler has self-reverted I also don't see any need to issue any sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be tempted to look a little closer at the filer of this complaint and what appears to be tag-team editing on that article with two new accounts, User:Imaginie (since blocked as a sock) and now User:Padurina, which looks distinctly suspicious to me. I wonder if switching this and other articles to EC protection in the same way as ARBPIA may be a good idea. Black Kite (talk) 10:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite, good eye. Padurina is Prince of Roblox and blocked. ECP seems like a good call. Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have ECP'd the article and will be keeping an eye on the filer and possible future issues. I think this can be closed now, as there is clearly no reason for any sanctions otherwise. Black Kite (talk) 17:58, 30 August 2023 (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

Hyrcanus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Iskandar323 (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

Disruptive editing, Tendentious editing

Being new on Wikipedia I'm still not acquainted with all the rules here, but I've observed what appears to be a significant issue concerning Iskandar323's editing behavior on the "Jews" article. Iskandar323 appears to be attempting to forcibly change the lede in favor of a controversial and fringe views that emphasize Jews primarily as a religious group, denying Jewish nationhood, and attempting to deny the widely accepted connection between Jews and the Israelites, proposing instead that Judaism, rather than Jews themselves, has originated among the Israelites. In spite of numerous reversions by editors opposing these changes, Iskandar323 repeatedly introduces the same (or similar) edits to advance his own viewpoint and occasionally displaying disruptive behavior and a loss of temper.

Although "Jews" does not fall under the One Revert Rule (which may constitute another issue), it's crucial to acknowledge the sensitivity of this subject matter. Iskandar323's editing approach on this topic leans towards pushing edits that align with their own viewpoint, demonstrating a contentious attitude that runs counter to Wikipedia's collaborative principles, especially when a careful and delicate approach is required.

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

1. [9] Iskandar323 is altering the introduction to emphasize religious aspects of Jewish identity over the commonly recognized ethnoreligious definition, thereby downplaying the latter's prominence.
2. [10] Reverted by Tombah
3. [11] Iskandar323 re-adding the same view again
4. [12] Reverted by Eladkarmel
5. [13] Iskandar is pushing the same view for the third time, remarking, "this is getting silly".
6. [14] Eladkarmel warning Iskandar for a 1RR violation, possibly overlooking that this article isn't under such restrictions.

1. [15] Original lede restored
2. [16] Iskandar323 pushing his version again.
3. [17] Reverted by Tombah
4. [18] Iskandar323 accusing Tombah for "objectively f****** up the first paragraph"
5. [19] Iskandar323 re-adding the same view for the second time, claiming his POV is "breathtakingly obvious".
6. [20] Iskandar323 making another controversial edit by removing the "Jewish people" alias for "Jews," arguing that these are distinct concepts.
7. [21] Iskandar323 making another controversial edit, changing the article's short description from "Ethnoreligious group and nation from the Levant" to "Ethnoreligious group and cultural community"
8. [22] Reverted by Emolu
9. [23] Iskandar323 is adding a POV tag, only to...
10. [24] restore again his own view.
11. [25] Reverted by Tombah.
12. [26] Iskandar323 restoring his own view again.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Topic banned for one year at WP:AE. Blocked for two weeks for breaching this ban.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[27]

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.

I don't see a sanction being enforced, and I'm not sure how the editor, having not edited the page, participated on the talk page, addressed me on my talk page or otherwise interacted with me in any way, came to make this filing, but I would appreciate some clarity from any admin on whether this is an appropriate forum for complaints not related to any standing sanctions. I understand not, but I would grateful for some confirmation of the instructions in the header. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Filer has 97 edits so might be forgiven for notification not given (now given) and no complaint of disruptive/tendentious editing at talk page. Should be ANI/Edit warring not AE? Selfstudier (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Does anyone else's "there's something not quite right" alert go off when they see an AE report from a brand new editor who has never edited the article which they are reporting someone else for causing disruption on? This also happened last year, in that case the reporter was warned and later blocked as a sock. Black Kite (talk) 18:10, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It could just be that the complainant read a few filings before making their own, but there's no harm in checking if you ask me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Black Kite Please note, this. I suggest closing without consideration so not to dignify using a sockpuppet to evade an AI topic ban with our time. Courcelles (talk) 22:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user

FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – FormalDude (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Designating Montgomery Riverfront brawl an AP2 contentious topic area. [28]

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

[29]

This article doesn't seem to fall into the AP2 area and other editors have expressed similar concerns so I think it should be reviewed. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that designation is not an AE action. I withdraw the appeal. ––FormalDude (talk) 02:14, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand I’m more amused than I thought I’d be that FormalDude, having sworn he will never edit this article again because I decided full protection was a better remedy for the edit war between him and AgntOTrth than blocking them, goes and files this appeal, which really seems like the most picayune thing to appeal here. So picayune that as Extraordinary Writ notes below, it’s out of scope since the decision over which contentious topic area to classify an article under is not even an enforcement action.

If it matters, I have explained my reasoning on the article talk page. Most American racial incidents inevitably take on a political dimension.

But if people think BLP better covers this, I’m open to changing it. Daniel Case (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think I see what FD is getting at, but the request strikes me as premature. Right now, the article treats the event as part of racism in America. But it reminds me of the Columbine shooting. At the time and for years after, people thought it was about tormented teens retaliating against bullies. We discovered later that it wasn't, but at the time, Columbine was part of the cultural narrative about bullying. For years, we though high-sugar low-fat foods were less fattening than high-fat foods. Later, we discovered that there had been propaganda by the sugar industry. I see that there are concerns about original research in the article. If, after they're addressed—or after new information comes to light—the article is then about a regular crime and not politics, someone could ask again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I understand where Daniel Case is coming from, but saying that this falls under "politics in the United States" does seem to be a stretch, even taking account of "broadly construed". That said, I don't think there's anything for us to do here: the page protection wasn't an arbitration enforcement action, and the tag on the talk page is an informational notice rather than an appealable sanction/page restriction (see this discussion). If editors on the talk page don't think it applies, it can just be removed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm out of date regarding the significance of the talk page notice, but an article regarding an August 2023 brawl in Alabama with lead image "a White man attacking a Black dock worker" clearly falls under AP2. The article was semi-protected on 10 August 2023 for three days, and fully protected due to an edit war on 3 September 2023 for another three days. That supports contentious. Johnuniq (talk) 05:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Any article that contains The video of the brawl quickly went viral, drawing national attention and sparking discussions on race relations in [any location in the United States]. is going to fall under AP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 6 September 2023 (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

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:41, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

1. 25 August 2023 After I made several constructive edits to the Ariel Sharon article, he reverted all of them, without even bothering to specify which edits he saw controversial.
2. 3 September 2023 Instead of joining the discussion I initiated to gain consensus for contested edits, Dovidroth launched into ad hominem against me, and made a series of false accusations, including "petty edit-warring" for reverting unconfirmed users, "backtracking" for constructively reverting myself when convinced that my edit was not useful, and calling my concerns regarding neutrality of an article "stupid comments". He then concluded that I am "clearly not here to contribute but to do activism."
3. 3 September 2023 He has also followed me to other articles and reverted an edit on the Anti-Defamation League article, despite that myself and two other editors reached consensus on its inclusion in the talk page, one of whom who was previously opposing it completely. Dovidroth did not bother to engage in the talk page in this instance as well.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 16 April 2023 I have previously raised concerns here about the background of Dovidroth, as he clearly states on his userpage that he is an employee of the National Library of Israel, which is a state institution partly owned by the Israeli government, and goes against WP:COIPOLITICAL: "Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics." However, no action was taken against him then. Especially worrying is the fact that he often edits Wikipedia during official working hours, and considering there is a history of similar incidents on Wikipedia relating to Israel/Palestine.

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

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

User Dovidroth has demonstrated: a willingness to revert my multiple edits without distinction and followed me across multiple articles; an unwillingness to discuss these edits on the articles' talk pages; and a willingness to engage in making false accusations, derogatory comments and ad hominem. All of this combined with being an employee of the Israeli government, while editing articles exclusively related to WP:ARBPIA, raises serious concerns about quality and neutrality of Arab-Israeli conflict articles, and makes reaching a consensus on the talk page difficult by avoiding and/or poisoning the discussions. This edit-warring behavior and harassment must be stopped.

Thank you Darfrog24 for your statement. Note that as you can see in the first diff, and as mentioned above, he reverted multiple edits without distinction; which is honestly difficult if not impossible to view in good faith. It is impossible that he found none of my edits constructive.

As for the third diff, it doesn't have to be long, the removal/reversion was made after multiple users reached a consensus on its inclusion; this can also only be described as disruptive editing. The fact that he didn't check the talk page is only symptomatic of a general trend in which he doesn't engage, as seen by preferring ad hominem. He never edited the Anti-Defamation League article before, so it is unlikely to be by coincidence. He also reverted edits I made on other articles in the past few weeks including Israel, Golda Meir, David Ben-Gurion and Qibya massacre.

Being a government employee and editing contentious topics is very likely to be an issue, especially considering working hours and a history of similar events related to Israel/Palestine on Wikipedia Makeandtoss (talk) 13:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, continuation of throwing false and baseless accusations. WP:Activism is an essay not a policy. An essay which defines an "activist" as one who "put the goal of promoting their views above that of improving the encyclopedia." That applies to users who ignore talk page discussions and consensus reaching. An essay which states that the best way to spot "activists" is through hostility (I never called anyone's remarks "stupid"), removal of information (I am adding reliably sourced information not removing it), and conflict of interest (I do not work for a government).

As for the restoring edits of a banned user, you were fully aware he was banned, as I clearly mentioned in my edit summaries.

It is definitely a problem to be working for the Israeli government and have a controversial editing behavior on Wikipedia. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC) Moved from Davidroth's section. Please make comments only in your own section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:15, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing the request. I have opened at multiple opportunities talk page discussions to resolve the disputes, which were either ignored by the other user or redirected away from the content and towards ad hominem. Furthermore, I have never reverted edits despite the consensus that was simultaneously being established on the talk page. And for these two reasons as evidenced by diffs above I feel that there was an unfair equivalency in the comment regarding edit warring between myself and the other user. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[30]

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.

I apologize for the uncivil remark, but this comment in an unrelated subject to the conflict and Makeandtoss' pattern of POV editing in Israeli biographies is what, in my opinion, indicate he's coming to Wikipedia with a clear activist agenda. Regarding the previous accusation by the anonymous IP, as you can see I made the original edit that later this user restored, so the prohibition on restoring edits by banned editors clearly doesn't apply, since he was restoring me and not the other way around. And although it's true that in this case he made his revert before me, I had no idea he was a banned user at the time. Apparently he was blocked for "gaming the system", but I reverted Makeandtoss for adding a POV content in the lead without discussing first and against previous consensus by multiple RfCs in the talk page of that article. In other words, I would have restored the previous 'status quo' regardless.

I will also note that Makeandtoss' complaint that I work for the National Library of Israel was determined to not be a problem at all, not simply that "no action was taken" as he states here. Dovidroth (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've had no previous contact with either complainant or Dovidroth and to my memory have never edited the Israel/Palestine articles. I'd like to thank Makeandtoss for filing this complaint in a way that gets straight to the point.

• First diff: Dovidroth does indeed give a reason for the reversion. Dovidroth believes the issue is "Avoid redundancy, details, bad grammar and undue in lead." Dovidroth's belief does not have to be correct for this to be a good faith edit. However, the diff being reverted includes assertions that Israeli settlements were illegal (with in-text links to Wikipedia articles). I think the complainant is insinuating that that was the real reason for the revert.
• Second diff: Dovidroth accuses Makeandtoss of POV-pushing. I do indeed see the words "stupid" and "petty." This strikes me as uncivil.
• Third diff: I went back and read the whole talk page discussion. It isn't very long [31]. It's possible Dovidroth disregarded it but it's also possible Dovidroth didn't notice or know about it. Makeandtoss, was this the only time Dovidroth reverted you on other articles or is this an example of something done many times? Dovidroth says on their talk page that they like editing articles about Judaism. It's possible they're not actually following you around.

The violation I see here is of WP:CIVIL. The idea that Dovidroth is an Israeli government employee does give me concern, but it sounds like it's been asked and answered in a previous filing less than six months ago. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may be worth mentioning that Dovidroth is allready under a CTOP sanction in this topic area. From Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023#Palestine-Israel articles:

The following revert restriction now applies to Dovidroth (talk · contribs) within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area: They may not restore any edit that was made in violation of a ban or block and reverted for that reason. -- Tamzin

Within their last 50 edits there are at least these two violations:

Edit made by a sock [32] "rv banned user *" [33] reinstated by Dovidroth [34]

Edit made by sock [35] "rv banned user" [36] reinstated by Dovidroth [37]

This ANI report contains CU confirmation of apparent proxy use and sockpuppetry by the blocked account [38] and the "making whitespace edits to game extendedconfimed" behaviour matches a lot of the socks from Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Yaniv Horon. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This behavior does not seem to rise to a sanctionable level. Civility might be a problem if habitual but I see no evidence for that. Absent evidence for promotion of Israeli government propaganda, I don't see a problem with the NLI employment. The counter accusation, Makeandtoss' pattern of POV editing in Israeli biographies is what, in my opinion, indicate he's coming to Wikipedia with a clear activist agenda should be made first at user talk page, not only in response to a complaint.Selfstudier (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No comment on the filing, but since I was pinged about the revert restriction I imposed: While General Blorp (talk · contribs) was behaviorally suspicious and likely the sockmaster behind Focusinjatin (talk · contribs), they were not blocked as being a sock of anybody else, so there is no violation of the restriction for Dovid to have restored edits by them, even if Makeandtoss used the edit summary "rv banned user". I can't say it's a great idea, mind you, but it's not a violation. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Most of this seems to be a content dispute, but the edit calling someone "stupid" and "petty" leaves me less than impressed, to say the least. Since both editors' interests are in the same area, I'm not going to see the occasional overlap as support for any accusation of "stalking" or the like. However, I'm inclined to warn Dovidroth for incivility, and both editors for edit warring. I don't think we've reached the level of sanctions yet, but both of you are headed in that direction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade I’d say we could do that… or just even close this under a “no admin has seen a need for sanctions in ten days” unwritten dismissal clause. Courcelles (talk) 12:02, 15 September 2023 (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

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reintroduced "allegedly" in the two places that I removed them. Would you say that the current version is sufficient? Do I have any more obligations in your opinion to correct my 1RR violation? If I do, please inform me of them. Closetside (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Closetside (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

Arbpia

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

1. 22 September I added the words "allegedly" per the given source.
2. 22 September Removed.
3. 22 September Removed again.

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 10 September (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Despite an earlier friendly warning on user talk page not to engage in 1R, editor did so shortly thereafter. A scrutiny of recent edits at Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2023 shows a desire to tweak filers edits for little or no reason. For what it is worth, the editor is new and moved straight into the topic area having gained 500 edits. After being asked to self revert, editor made this edit which is not a self revert.

@Closetside: Please keep your comments in your own section. To respond anyway, originally, the material was added by another editor (on the same side of the fence as yourself), here and it was to that edit I added the words "allegedly" per the AP source. It seems to me that the simplest thing would be to restore the material to that point rather than the mangled POV grammatical nightmare created by yourself subsequently all with the sole intent of doing away with or downplaying the words "allegedly".Selfstudier (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: This is a discussion about 1RR not some possible subsequent dispute resolution procedure. If you wish to revert as suggested, why not just do it? Selfstudier (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From my standpoint this matter is now resolved. Selfstudier (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use == Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion ==

Notification

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.

I reintroduced the language of "allegedly" after being notified of my violation. I wrote that Israel "alleged" that and Israel backed up their "allegation." I believe the current version and the version before I violated 1RR are virtually the same. If a neutral third party disagrees with me, I'd be happy to revert back to Selfstudier's verison.

Update: I self-reverted per Selfstudier's interpretation of 1RR. I still want a neutral opinion on this because I disagree with Selfstudier's interpretation for reasons explained above. If the neutral opinion agrees with me, I will undo my self-reversion.

@Selfstudier:, pending a verdict from an uninvolved administrator, I will revert to the last version before I started editing. I will revert the IDF video sentence to your version of it. I believe the dispute’s ultimate resolution will be on the talk page. Do you agree with this plan?

Sounds like you agree. I will do it promptly. Closetside (talk) 19:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some reading, I understand I violated WP:1RR, by partly undoing @Selfstudier's contributions twice within a 24-hour period. 1RR (and 3RR) applies to any undoing of another contributor's edits. I restored the section to the state it was in before my violation. I request forgiveness from all offended parties and look forward to the positive contributions I will make to Wikipedia in the future. Closetside (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This seems resolved now. I'm okay with closing this with lessons learned. El_C 07:34, 23 September 2023 (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

ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Saintfevrier (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/COVID-19

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

1. Sep 3 Edit warring.
2. Sep 3 Edit warring.
3. Sep 2 Puffery/whitewashing.

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 2 Feb 2022 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I think that this is nearly a WP:SPA trying to whitewash an article about a fairly notorious COVID-19 um... *contrarian*. This seems to be a very slow-motion edit war, but y'all asked for us to bring examples to you, so here I am. I was alerted to this issue by Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#John_Ioannidis. jps (talk) 23:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

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.

Hello. Please note that I have limited time due to a busy real-life schedule and this is one of the reasons why it took me so long to write here. The other reason is because I was waiting for a reply from T&S regarding the Wikimania-I mailing list before I got into editing on both attacks against me (Arb & Profringe). T&S handled all my requests promptly and respectfully and this time I can say they were the best players in this mess. I will not be inserting diffs, internal links, pings etc. at this stage as frankly I don't have the time. I hope to return soon and enrich the statement with the necessary links.

• First of all: I'm a WP:SPA? That is downright outrageous! Have you checked how long I have had my Wikipedia account? Since February 2007. How many edits I have made across several Wikimedia projects (and on Greek Wikipedia), spanning a diverse range of subjects in the course of 15 years? How many Wikipedia in Education projects I have run? Is there a rule against veteran editors changing interests in the course of their presence on Wikipedia and choosing to edit specific topics?

• "it's a slow edit war": first of all it is NOT an edit war: it is an attempt on my behalf to counteract the horrific slandering of the reputation of one of the finest scientists in the world (unless he has tricked the global scientific community into being among the ten most highly cited scientists at this moment). Secondly, it is slow because some of us have higher priorities in life than editing Wikipedia on a constant basis. We may even have health issues, hospitalisation etc. If and when I have the time and stamina to edit I prefer to gather material, find references and make larger blocks of edits rather than small ones. The paragraph on Covid-19, apart from being an effort to undermine his reputation and brand him a conspiracy theorist (which he quite clearly is NOT), was highly disproportionate to the work that Ioannidis has done in other fields. So I made it my mission to bring some balance to the article.

• About Dermitzakis: I admit that the language I used was perhaps not neutral enough for Wikipedia. There is no intention for "puffery for Greek scientists". I will try to improve the article: it was rightly marked as seeming promotional and that was not my intention. However in the free time that I can allocate to Wikipedia, my priority is to set things straight on the Ioannidis article.

My next sitting at the computer will be for the "profringe" discussion, which is even more outrageous as Wikimania-I blocked my last reply to the list without warning me. I have no choice but to upload screenshots to Commons (of my own emails, i.e. no copyright issues) to let the community know the truth. It most certainly is NOT what they present it to be. Saintfevrier (talk) 08:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• apologies for exceeding the 500 word limit, I'm only doing this to offer clarifications to @El C:

  

  : in the discussion under way about John Ioannidis at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard, a user labelled me as "profringe" on the grounds of a question I had asked on the Wikimania-I mailing list. The said user has even posted a link to the thread, which I consider outrageous because 1) what validates them to bring an irrelevant issue into the Ioannidis discussion? Am I being stalked, and are my activities being pooled to direct other Wikipedians to draw conclusions about me? 2) The Wikimania-I thread is incomplete: it lacks my last reply (sent on June 29), in which I apologised for possibly offending any LGBTQ members and that was not my intention. I got a bounce reply saying I was being moderated and that my reply would either be posted or I would get an explanation as to why it was rejected. Neither happened. So when T&S reached out to me to tell me that several members of the community had requested sanctions against me for my conduct on the list, I told them about the situation with the mailing list and they said they would reach out to their contact there and ask for an explanation (very courteous of them. It's also worth mentioning that they quickly removed pedophile content that I pointed them to and that had been on Wikipedia for who knows how long). They only got a reply from Wikimania-I on Sept. 18, after two months of pressure. The reply said that the email was not published to the list because I was removed from the list. Outrageous once again, since I had no notification whatsoever of being removed. If Wikimania-I had proceeded with publishing my email, even late, now, in September, it would have been fair and I would have pointed to my reply as evidence that I am NOT transphobic, I do NOT spend any time at all on anti-trans fora, on the contrary I follow trans individuals who are also very upset with gender self-identification in gender-designated spaces. Thus all the stalking and cross-posting and name-calling against me is utter nonsense owing to lack of transparency and false notifications on the part of the moderators of Wikimania-I. Under these circumstances, I had no choice but to upload a screenshot of my last reply to the list to defend myself against all this outpour of toxicity. I had already added the file as an external link on the Fringe Noticeboard discussion but I gather that didn't help much, so I'm inserting a thumbnail here. Hope this explanation helped sort things out, thanks for your time Saintfevrier (talk) 22:20, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, this user has been largely responsible for

• Emmanouil Dermitzakis (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

which is crammed with peackock language like "leading role", "first scientist", "seminal paper" etc. all without proper sourcing. Not sure what this adds up to (Puffery for Greek scientists?) but it's not good for Wikipedia to host articles like this. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This request had been archived without closure, and has then received an in-archive reply. I have thus moved the section back here. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• ...waiting for a reply from T&S regarding the Wikimania-I mailing list before I got into editing on both attacks against me (Arb & Profringe)? I'm lost. El_C 07:27, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed

• Rosguill

• Rosguill

I have a topic restriction indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. My violation 17 February 2023 tendentious editing across multiple articles, particularly this editing spree on February 16 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8). I admit it's my fault. Half a year has passed, I did not participate in disputes, I did not violate the rules. Request to the community to remove the restrictions from me. I won't break the rules. In the last application Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. 5 admins offered me to contribute on other topics, I have corrected the situation with the contribution accordingly. I translated and created about 100 articles mainly on architecture.

Out of two thousand edits, only three of my edits were cancelled, 1, 2, 3, and one article out of 100 was deleted. Last edit I just got the wrong city in Italy. Deleted article I didn't realise the vandal had created it before, as I was told it might be a fake. I received an Order of Merit for my great contribution to architecture, 5 commendations from various contributors.

I would like to point out that two participants who participated with me in disputes, one of them is blocked indefinitely, the second one later apologised three times for his actions in the wikipedia project at the very beginning, on Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and on Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, if required I can provide diffs. Although the sanctions were only applied to me, the important thing is that the person acknowledged their mistakes and apologised for them. I don't have any questions about his edits. Here the person who argued with me says Rosguill, that I was not involved in those arguments, that he has no questions for me. On the contrary I can provide a fact where I supported him.--Товболатов (talk) 17:09, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Ochno privozhe diffy for the editor El_C 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --Товболатов (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal dated 19 September 2023. --Товболатов (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Yes I agree with you that the topic about old arguments should not be added here, I was thinking about it myself whether it should be added or not. On errors, Yes I forgot to leave a signature sorry do not judge harshly, bad intent I had no ...respectfully --Товболатов (talk) 09:29, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

El_C Sinceramente non mi piace ricordare questi argomenti, ma se insistete vi restituirò il testo e vi fornirò le prove senza problemi. Ho solo pensato che gli altri partecipanti avrebbero pensato che volessi imbrogliarli. E per quanto riguarda gli argomenti controversi, non voglio modificare il sito, volevo scrivere alcuni articoli su Grozny, la mia città natale, e sulla Repubblica Cecena. Mi sono già scusato più volte qui per i miei errori nella controversia. Dopo il mio errore è passato mezzo anno, non ho creato problemi a nessuno qui, anzi, ho dato un grande contributo.--Товболатов (talk) 16:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 Hi, it says why the Lighthouse of Lierna page was removed, there you see after the Justlettersandnumbers statement I myself supported the removal. I'm about to write the articles I'm about to write it's no secret.--Товболатов (talk) 06:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Товболат Курчалоевский (military)
• Гурда (шашка) Shashka
• Курчалой тайп Ancient family
• Берса-Шейх Religious leader
• Еврейский квартал (Грозный) Jewish Quarter
• Здание института Грознии. Institute building.
• Грозненский нефтяной научно-исследовательский институт Research Institute
• Ашкеназская синагога (Грозный) Ashkenazi synagogue

• I am mainly the author of the articles in the Russian section. Also in 2020 in the Russian section I am the author of about 20 articles on English topics.--Товболатов (talk) 07:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• And one more point at the very beginning you can see 2020, 2021, 2022 I did not argue with anyone at all.--Товболатов (talk) 07:25, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The pages I want to add they are not controversial. Everyone makes mistakes, I had a minor offence. I will not ask and apologise anymore, this is my last appeal to Arbitration. --Товболатов (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I put in with one edit was deleted in half an hour. It didn't do much harm. If I had been warned that spam mailing is forbidden I also apologised and removed everything, but I was not warned and immediately sent to the ban, you can apologise 10 times and continue editing I was not given one time.--Товболатов (talk) 08:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Decline. When was this appeal even filed? You failed to sign + timestamp it, Товболатов. I realize it's in the history, but it isn't a start that inspires confidence. Without looking, I suppose it was after Sept 16, at least, in light of the report above this one. There seems to be reoccuring competence issues relating to both the English language and Wikipedia, like arbitration committee called arbitral (wrong venue for that btw), or edits that were reverted, called cancelled. There is zero evidence for anything on the third paragraph (e.g. "apologised three times," etc). The intent behind writing a statement such as: the administrator Rosguill before that twice offered me to make edits on other topics honestly eludes me. Other examples follow this trend.

This appeal seems to expect reviewers to gain familiarity with the disputes in question, likely for naught. Even just the format — like, adding all those Special:Diff links instead of piping them, makes reading this appeal challenging; its flow stunted. I get that there's a language barrier (and hey, English isn't my native tongue, either), but that's something that I think transcends that. I don't want to be unkind, but the appeal does not seem to have been that thoughtfully put together, My sense is that greater familiarity by the user of the project would be needed before being permitted to engage in contentious material again. And if, in the meantime, they are editing uncontroversial areas fine, all the better. But it probably will take considerable time to be up to par. P.S. For the reasons stated, it's likely that this appeal would have simply been archived without comment (i.e. failed by default). Pre-emptively, let's not no good deed it! El_C 08:08, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Товболатов, you edited parts of your appeal text that I already replied to without even making a front-facing note that you did so. That is not okay. If a reviewer were to, say, read what I said about there being zero evidence for anything on the third paragraph (e.g. "apologised three times," etc), but don't see that 3rd paragraph because you had removed it entirely without such mention — what are they to think? Sorry, but I submit that, regardless of intent, an appeal isn't the place to learn these very basic things. El_C 15:12, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Uhhhhhhhhh. Huh? El_C 21:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Recommend decline. I don't see any reason to lift this ban at this time. Товболатов has not outlined why they need the restriction lifted, nor what they hope to edit if this was successful. Furthermore, their statement "only three of my edits were cancelled," (of which I think they mean reverted) does not account for an article that they started called Lighthouse of Lierna in July which was later AfD'ed. Lastly, I have no idea why Товболатов wrote a paragraph in Italian, and it makes me think that there are some WP:CIR concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. I think there may be some machine translations here explaining the weird word choices? Anyway, it's not sufficiently clear they understand what led to the sanction (just "it's my fault"), what they want to do differently and if they have the communication skills to edit in a contentious topic. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:12, 24 September 2023 (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

Prodraxis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 05:09, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marcelus (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:DIGWUREN WP:CTOP WP:1RR [40]

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

1. [41] Marcelus reverts Cukrakalnis' removal of Povilas Plechavicius's Polish name (Cukrakalnis' edit: [42])
2. [43] Marcelus' second revert within 24hrs following Cukrakalnis' revert of Marcelus (Cukrakalnis' edit: [44])

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [45] Previous AE, recieved a 0RR
2. [46] Successful 0RR appeal, which got downgraded to 1RR

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

[47]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The 0rr was previously downgraded to a 1rr before following a successful AN appeal [48]. I remember supporting his 0rr appeal as he previously seemed to understand the disruption caused by his editwarring in the past. I ran into him again while commenting on some WP:RM's (namely [49]), noticed his contributions and saw what looks like a 1rr evasion to me.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[50]

I have no comment regarding the removal of the content itself per se, but am rather more concerned about the potential breach of the 1RR here. Also, regarding the previous report - at the time, I was less mature and less experienced and I am sorry for all disruption caused by said report, and it was made in haste without considering the full background of the situation. I'm not siding with anyone here, just that Marcelus may have broken his 1RR recently. As long as Marcelus self reverts and discusses on a Talk page or something further regarding the content without any more reverts I am OK for letting go without sanctions this time. #prodraxis ^connect 14:31, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ostalgia Yeah, a 2 way IBAN seems pretty reasonable here due to a past history of Cukrakalnis and Marcelus edit warring with each other, per both the diffs Cukrakalnis provided of Marcelus breaking his 1RR on Landsberg family and per those two ANEW reports which got both parties blocked before for edit warring [51] [52]. I think that Cukrakalnis getting some sort of revert restriction or turning Marcelus' 1RR to a 0RR again might also be a good idea due to the history of editwarring. #prodraxis ^connect 00:59, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin @Piotrus The mentorship proposal seems OK with me. As long as Marcelus stops edit warring everything else is fine. #prodraxis ^connect 00:06, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am sorry that my edits were interpreted by Prodraxis as a violation of the rule, at the time of making them I had no such realization.

The first edition was simply a restoration of the well-sourced content ([53]) removed by Cukrakalnis. I immediately started a discussion about it on the C discussion page ([54]), since I didn't want it to turn into edit waring. Also, I immediately added a new source ([55]), since C had objections to one of the original two (that's why I didn't consider it revert). Then I added some more new content ([56]). C then removed the mention of the Polish name again, but giving again as the reason his objections to only one source - Tomaszewski 1999 ([57]). This seemed to me to be wrong and against the rules, so I restored the Polish name again with three sources, but did not restore the information that only Tomaszewski 1999 (objected by C) confirmed, that is, regarding the household language ([58]).

FYI: previous report on me by Prodraxis. Marcelus (talk) 08:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis: The things you say about sources used by me do not prove that they are unreliable, but only that there is a difference between them and other sources. Besides, in many places this difference is non-existent: native language is not the same as the household language, identity can be mixed (not surprising in this region), his wife's identity poses difficulties, etc. Two things can be true at the same time. This is not the place to discuss sources and content, I'm just showing that your comments are largely unfounded, and the changes I've made do not cause conflict and are not based on unreliable sources.

As for the Landsbergs: why did you change these names without giving new sources or at least a reason? It looks like disruptive editing. Marcelus (talk) 15:08, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The edits by Marcelus were not at all well-sourced, which is why I removed them in the first place. As I made clear in my edits [59], [60], the sources used by Marcelus for the person's Polish name are not at all accurate or reliable when describing his private life, because they get:

1. the person's ethnicity wrong,

2. his native language wrong,

3. his wife's name wrong,

4. his wife's ethnicity wrong.

A Polish name does not belong in Plechavičius' article any more than the translation of his name in all of the other languages he knew (Latvian, Russian, German, French, etc.), but including all of them would be absurd considering that the person was a Lithuanian, so, obviously only his Lithuanian name should be there.

This is also not the first time that Marcelus has broken the 1RR since he was allowed to revert once after the appeal. He reverted twice in the article Landsberg family within the span of 24 hours: 22:41, 5 September 2023, 21:20, 6 September 2023.

Another possible case was in the article Mikołaj "the Red" Radziwiłł, where Marcelus reverted the same edit outside the span of 24 hours: 18:24, 19 August 2023, 05:55, 24 August 2023. I leave it up to the reader to decide whether this was an attempt to evade the 1RR.--Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS: it is not true that I objected only to one of sources given by Marcelus, because certainly more than one had mistakes - T 1999 said his wife was Polish and gave the wrong name - which ruins its credibility for Plechavičius' private life; the P 2003 source called Plechavičius a "Polish aristocrat" when he wasn't - he had noble roots, but not in the Polish, but Lithuanian/Samogitian nobility, and was the son of a Lithuanian farmer. Either way, such flagrant mistakes discredit the use of such sources. Cukrakalnis (talk) 11:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the sanction applied by Tamzin is proportional to the infraction, and just want to point out that this is the nth case involving Marcelus and Cukrakalnis. Given the huge overlap between Lithuanian and Polish history, and the evident bad blood between them, perhaps a 2-way IBAN could help prevent further disruption. Ostalgia (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, I'd be happy to mentor Marcelus by answering any and all qurries they have and/or offering mediation if discussions gets heated and I am informed of the situation (I am also relatively familiar with the topic area). That said, while I am active and can answer wiki queries within a day or so, there's not much I can do after the revert except explain why it was a bad idea :P That said, I think 0RR is unfeasible and if it is applied, I'd advise Marcelus to not edit at all. Seriously, 0RR is just asking to be banned later or abstain from editing. The fact that Marcelus survived 0RR once alraedy should be enough to give him more ability to edit regularly, under 1RR+mentorship. On a side note, INHO 1RR is also better for seeing how an editor behaves, since it offers a bit of a rope that generally should not be used. Perhaps a compromise might be 0RR for the next month, then 1RR for the next few months (indef until an appeal here at 6-12 month mark?). And my early mentor advice to Marcelus would be: 1) don't revert anything without asking me first and 2) try to stay away from any controversies in the Polish-Lithuanian topics, or any controversies in general, as it is too easy to make a bad edit in such articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I accepted the downgrade to 1RR previously. This is a blatant violation, and Marcelus' comment above shows no mitigation, just an acknowledgment that he did it, doesn't see it as a violation, and thinks it was Cukrakalnis' edits that were "against the rules". I have blocked for 2 months, on the lower end of the escalating block pattern for someone whose previous EW blocks were for 2 weeks and 1 month. I see this as the minimum appropriate sanction here, though, and would like to hear from others as to whether something more is warranted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:28, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm disappointed. I thought Marcelus was making progress and I was happy to see that the restriction I imposed was lessened. As the downgraded restriction was violated but there were few problems before the downgrade, I would re-impose the 0RR. I think Marcelus still has much to offer the topic; he just needs to lay off the undo button. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I supported the downgrade to 1RR, and agree with HJ here. Courcelles (talk) 12:04, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Regarding comments on User talk:Marcelus, I am not necessarily opposed to reducing to 1 month in exchange for agreement to mentorship by Piotrus (the "hard" kind of mentorship, where if Piotrus says not to do something, you listen), but would like to hear HJ Mitchell and Courcelles' (and anyone else') thoughts. This is separate from the matter of reinstating the 0RR, which I'm inclined to support. Marcelus, regarding your email about Cukrakalnis, you're welcome to post those thoughts on-wiki, but I otherwise have nothing to say. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:58, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tamzin has Piotrus offered this mentorship? If so can I get a link for it? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:06, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: The usertalk I linked. Specifically User talk:Marcelus § September 2023. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:13, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd be willing to entertain the idea of mentorship. I think Marcelus has plenty to offer; it's his reverting that keeps getting him into trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:29, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If @Piotrus is willing to commit the time, I’d be fine with an early unblock (even now, no need to wait a month) and 0RR. Courcelles (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Piotrus is a very experienced editor, including specifically in this area. If he's willing to do that, I'm willing to let him try. I still think reimposition of the 0RR, at least for an initial period, would be necessary, but maybe with a shorter period than the standard 6 months before that can be reexamined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:10, 21 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm supportive of an unblock and 0RR restriction: if Marcelus thinks something should be reverted, they can open a talk page discussion about it and if there is consensus someone can do it for them. I disagree with Piotrus's assertion above that "0RR is just asking to be banned later or abstain from editing." 0RR doesn't mean that information can't be added or changed, it just means that others' edits cannot be unilaterally removed with one easy click of the undo button. With 0RR and mentorship by Piotrus, I think Marcelus can learn what is acceptable to remove from articles, and when discussions need to be opened on the talk page. I strongly recommend that Marcelus stay away from the articles that caused the controversies, at least for a couple of weeks or months. There are 6.7 million articles on English Wikipedia, surely there are articles outside this topic area that interest them. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2023 (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

FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Trakking (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/American politics 2

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

1. 11:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC) Accusing editors who disagree with them of being "left-wing activists" at Talk:Conservatism.
2. 16:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
3. 17:06, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
4. 18:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
5. 18:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
6. 22:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
7. 05:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Template:Fascism sidebar.
8. 08:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Trakking removes longstanding content from the lead section of PragerU without discussion.
9. 09:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring over the same content at PragerU.
10. 13:35, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring over the same content at PragerU.
11. 13:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Canvassing someone to the discussion about their editing warring at PragerU in a clear attempt to influence the outcome of the discussion, and calling another editor an "angry leftist activist".[reply]
12. 16:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Trakking claims there's "nothing to discuss" regarding their edits to PragerU and says that the "fact-check" done by them and the editor they canvassed is enough to have their edits restored.
13. 18:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC) Continued edit-warring at PragerU.

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, first on 15 January 2023 and again on 29 March 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is not all inclusive, there is likely other problematic behavior exhibited by this editor, but I've already spent a lot of time putting this together to show Trakking's consistent problems with incivility and edit-warring. They were warned about calling editors they disagree with "left-wing activists" on 29 March 2023. Their talk page shows at least six warnings for edit warring, including some by admins that could be considered a final warning. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:38, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Trakking: None of these are minor edits, though you have incorrectly marked many of them as minor despite being warned not to in August 2022. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• @Springee: Are you calling me "ForumDude" as some sort of insult? ––FormalDude (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional diffs found:

14. 17:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC) Referring to other editors as "You and your comrade".

15. 14:47, 21 February 2023 (UTC) Calling an editor "the fascist thought police".

16. 14:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC) Again accusing editors who disagree with them of being "left-wingers" at Talk:Conservatism.

––FormalDude (talk) 23:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears Trakking has implied here that TrangaBellam is "the devil". ––FormalDude (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[61]

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.

This only concerns some minor edits—nothing serious.

Yes, I called a guy a leftist activist once. Why? Because he reverted different people's edits with phrases like "another rightist who tries to change this part of the article". Fun fact: I have had friendly and fruitful discussions with this guy afterwards. I consider him a valuable partner on Wikipedia.

Two of my reverts at the template were because users mistook my edit for another edit, which they wanted to revert. One of the users apologized for his mistake while the other one has remained silent without reverting again.

Someone insinuated today that I may have canvassed a guy, but this is a false accusation, because if you follow the history, I was reverting this guy's edits on another page. He is NOT my friend.

I only made two reverts in the PragerU article. This edit was my own addition of information, which is not considered a revert. There were other users edit-warring on that article as well, but I promise to stay off it henceforth.

Andrevan: I have only listened to a few short videos from PragerU and it was years ago. I am not a fan, I believe their material is a bit silly and oversimplified. I was trying to reach neutrality on Wikipedia. Half the introduction consisted of criticism, which poorly reflected the article in its entirety. Then I agreed to keep the criticism, given that we fixed the factual errors contained within it. The discussion at Talk became quite heated, but I kept my cool. Trakking (talk) 22:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I did not call any user a leftist activist; I referred to the critics cited in the article, many of which were leftist activists. It is understandable that they are critical, and it ought to be included in the article, but it should not cover half the introduction. As per Wikipedia/Manual of Style/Lead section, the introduction should ”establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points”. Trakking (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dlthewave: I provide a lot of quality edits to Wikipedia, I receive many thanks, I have many polite discussions, I am a teacher in real life etc. Last time someone accused me of something (turned out they mistook me for another user), I read answers from random people I had never seen before, saying, ”Trakking is a trusted user.” The issues here are minor, as Springee stated. With all the craziness going on at Wikipedia—vandalism, threats etc.—this is nothing. You are wasting your time. But I promise I will never enter an edit war again. Trakking (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to point out as well, for any neutral observer, that FormalDude has been canvassing people to come here in the Talk for PragerU, knowing that they were anti-PragerU and/or opponents of me in the debate. The only neutral person here is Springee. Trakking (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@TrangaBellam: That is disgusting of you. I am a CATHOLIC and a LIBERTARIAN—which places me at the very opposite of national socialism. In every discussion on national socialism, I quoted scholar Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn as one of my intellectual heroes—a Catholic libertarian who wrote volominous books against the ideology of contemporary national socialism. Please apologize for your terrible comment and remove it. Trakking (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This seems premature. I think FormalDude is jumping the gun on this complaint. While they provided a long list of diffs, about half are from quite some time back. They make it look like Trakking has obviously violated 3RR but looking at the edit history I'm not seeing that. I see 1 original edit (08:55am) and then 3 other good faith attempts at alternative compromise wording. Yeah, it probably would have been better to go to the talk page after the first compromise edit was reverted but this isn't a simple case of someone making a BOLD edit then restoring it 3 times. The talk page comment is unadvisable since it impugns the motives of other editors however, I do think some of the talk page comments here [[62]] and revert comment like, " when Republicans became anti-truth, truth became "leftist"", while not directly attacking any editor, are not exactly bringing the temperature down either. Honestly, I think a quick close with some trout small trout for Trakking for the talk page comment and additional trouting for FormalDude bringing such a minor issue to these boards. Disclaimer: Involved in the general topic but not the specific discussion in question) Springee (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC) @FormalDude: also correcting accidental "ForumDude" to "FormalDude" with apologies Springee (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Andrevan your reply is unreasonable and given the total lack of justification it's borderline disruptive. Springee (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Andrevan, the problem is you haven't shown what you are claiming and certainly demanding a citeban would require some really strong evidence of wrong doing which hasn't been shown here. Even the TE claim is weak. Springee (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, I think in a case like this, where non-bright line edit warring is an issue, a 1RR is a very good option as it allows the editor to express their views without disruption to the article space. An andmin once told me that they always operated as if they were subject to a 1RR limit as it makes them a better editor. In my experience they are correct as it forces you to make your case vs thinking you can "win" an edit war. That said, is a "1RR-no time limit" a reasonable fix? I can see the concern with 1RR repeating every 24hr. However, a 1RR with no time limit opens the editor up to good faith violations that may be held against them. Consider a case where the editor makes a change to the second sentence of a paragraph. The change is reverted. Does that mean they can't edit that sentence two years later? Perhaps a 1RR with a clear warning to not even give the appearance of skirting the 24hr limit? Springee (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clear siteban is merited. Andre🚐 22:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Springee, I do not believe that Wikipedia should be allowing WP:TE and WP:RGW to whitewash right-wing propaganda like PragerU. This is WP:NOTHERE, a standard admin block. Andre🚐 22:26, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• [63] This user is calling other users a leftist activist in diffs provided by FormalDude today. Andre🚐 22:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• User diff[64] user also making changes to the Nazism article to make it seem less like a far-right ideology. Andre🚐 22:55, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• HJ Mitchell's proposed sanction is fair. Thebigulyaliens' aspersions are unwarranted. Andre🚐 02:41, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm active at the PragerU article but uninvolved in the current discussion. Diff #8 popped up on my watchlist and raised my eyebrows - It's not appropriate to remove all mention of criticism from the lead with some vague handwave about "leftist criticism". Diff #9 is an immediate reinstatement of the same content, 9 minutes later, without discussion. This was bright-line edit warring.

Dismissing editors in the discussion as "left-wing activists" and pinging a different set of editors (diff #1) is also entirely inappropriate, and they pull the same stunt again in Diff #11. The fact that these edits span 6 months is not a mitigating factor, rather it shows that they have not learned their lesson despite having received a number of talk page warnings about edit warring and civility during that time. It's clear that folks have had enough of this incivility and tendentiuous editing and it's time for soemthing stronger than a slap on the wrist. –dlthewave ☎ 23:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Springee, these two edits [65][66] are removing the same content 9 minutes apart with no attempt to discuss. Is that not edit warring? –dlthewave ☎ 23:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that a logged warning and possibly 1RR would be sufficient here. Discretionary sanctions allow any uninvolved admin to give such a warning/restriction as they see fit, so there’s really no need to drag this out any further. –dlthewave ☎ 17:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, Trakking first appeared on my radar back in December 2022. It might seem odd to bring up behaviour from so long ago but I think it is relevant here because it is so similar to the much more recent behaviour at PragerU (in which I am involved).

Trakking made two edits to Nazism which were both unmerited removal of sourced content, seemingly for no better reason than that Trakking disagreed with what was being said. First removing the referenced description of Nazism as "far-right" (and marking the edit minor), despite this being covered in the FAQ, and then yoinking out an entire paragraph with an edit summary that confirms a pretty extreme POV. I reverted those edits and put a fairly gentle level 2 warning on Trakking's User Talk page and got accused of trolling for my trouble. The drama then shifted to the Talk page where Trakking insulted the authors of the content accusing them of dishonesty and Stalinism and calling the paragraph "insidious". The whole wretched saga is archived here.

This establishes the pattern of POV editing that we see, on and off, to this day. The current dispute over on PragerU is similar in many ways. Trakking yoinked a chunk of text, with a dubious edit summary, and got into a small edit war, only taking to the Talk page when somebody else started a thread. A pattern of removing content for POV reasons and then not respecting consensus is well established. When things did not go Trakking's way they canvassed AbiquiúBoy into joining the fray. AbiquiúBoy is a new user who could easily have stepped on a rake editing such an article! Fortunately, AbiquiúBoy didn't step on any rakes and focused instead on trying to improve the chunk that Trakking had tried to remove. I'm not happy about the canvassing but I don't think that AbiquiúBoy has done anything wrong and, even if he had, that wouldn't entirely be his fault even if a more experienced user would probably have known to be a bit more cautious about being canvassed.

So, what should we do here? I don't think we need a siteban but we do need to do something. It is clear that Trakking has a POV that they can't or won't let go of. Maybe a topic ban from post-1945 US politics (broadly construed) and maybe from other global far-right related topics would make sense? --DanielRigal (talk) 23:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't think that FormalDude posting a short, neutral notice about this case on Talk:PragerU, a shared place that is directly relevant to the case, constitutes canvassing. It wasn't an attempt to bring in specific individuals or to tilt the scales. It wouldn't have prompted me to dig into Trakking's behaviour if Trakking wasn't already vaguely on my radar due to previous behaviour. It is in no way comparable to the canvassing that Trakking did and for Trakking to bring it up here (see above) and use it to question almost everybody's impartiality seems like an attempt to draw a false equivalence. Also, the way Trakking assumes that readers of Talk:PragerU are "anti-PragerU and/or opponents of me in the debate" shows an inability to WP:AGF and a general WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, with maybe a bit of WP:OWN sprinkled in. This harks back to the false accusation of "trolling" back in December and suggests that Trakking is still incapable of collaborative editing on sensitive topics. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Answering FormalDude’s comment to Springee] It was a mistake lad, why assume bad faith? AbiquiúBoy (talk) 09:04, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely erroneous citing of WP:NONAZIS

calling someone a Nazi is a very serious claim and your rather callous manner of doing so is highly problematic.

@Trakking is NOT a Nazi or anything close whatsoever and it's very bizarre that @TrangaBellam has tried to use such this rationale with no actual explanation of how it applies here. AbiquiúBoy (talk) 15:29, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Siteban is merited - WP:NONAZIS. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, being an adherent of Christianity (or any damn religion) does not automatically preclude anyone from being a Nazi or espousing views that are sympathetic/whitewashing of Nazism and similar fascist ideologies. I have no interest in knowing who are your intellectual heroes - your edits speak for yourself. TrangaBellam (talk) 16:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would recommend a quick re-read of Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor#What is considered to be a personal attack? – along with some reflection on how sticking to the advice given there might help Wikipedia and make life easier for all the individuals involved, especially when they have different views. --Andreas JN466 19:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as one of the editors who was called a "left-wing activist" on article talk by Trakking, I am most certainly involved here. A few points:

1. I will reiterate what I said on their user talk page, that the kind of ad hominem comment of which Trakking appears to make common practice is very clearly at odds with the principle of "comment on content, not contributors." I see also that their response to my post was essentially to dismiss this principle: Well, you were actively pushing for a left-wing perspective, so I characterized you as left-wing activists. That's certainly not a helpful attitude, and not conducive to long-term success on a project where we must collaborate with folks who fall along a wide spectrum of perspectives. Trakking, if I may address you directly: it doesn't matter what you believe about me or anyone else. You're not permitted to say that here. WP:CIVILITY is a core principle for a reason. We need to be able to collaborate across differences. From my point of view, and apparently from the point of view of most editors here, many of the things you consider to be "left-wing perspectives" are just eminently mainstream ideas. But you've never seen me calling you a "right-wing activist" on article talk (nor have I accused you of showing fascist tendencies as you once did to me). That's because I respect the rules that allow this project to function. Such allegations –– which are indeed serious –– need to be reserved for noticeboards like this one.
2. I would suggest to TrangaBellam that leaping to WP:NONAZIS in the case of Trakking is not appropriate either. I say this as someone who's spent a lot of my time on Wikipedia dealing with actual Nazis in the race & intelligence topic area. Trakking certainly has shown that they have unorthodox ideas about what the word "Nazi" means (they've even demonstrated that above by implying that one cannot be a Catholic or libertarian and also a Nazi, though one need only point to prominent cases like Carl Schmitt or certain fans of Ron Paul to falsify such an outlandish claim). But Trakking displaying a pattern of POV-pushing against consensus to portray Nazism as a form of socialism does not make them a Nazi. It's certainly disruptive, but far less severe. They will, after all, not be successful.
3. If anyone is interested in my 2¢ here, I would suggest that Trakking is due for a logged warning to avoid edit warring and ad hominem remarks. The POV-pushing can and is being dealt with through the normal consensus process. If they still cannot abide by p&g, then a t-ban would be the logical next step. I do not think we're at the point where a site ban is called for.

Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Willbb234: No, the dispute at Template:Fascism sidebar was indeed a case of POV-pushing against well-established consensus. See this discussion and refer to the FAQ here. Generalrelative (talk) 23:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the dispute over Template:Fascism sidebar, it does not appear that this was motivated by a particular POV. It seems like it was a bad case of edit warring and should be treated as such; from what I understand, it centred around the question of how to express Nazism in the sidebar.

I agree to an extent with Trakking over the dispute at PragerU. It seems like the critisicm section in the lede might be a little off balance when summarising what is in the body. Still, the paragraph should not be deleted in whole and a different approach should have been taken. It doesn't seem as if this was motivated by a particular POV and instead the issue should rather be what can be done to ensure that edit warring of this nature does not happen again. I would also note that of the three parties mainly involved in the initial part of the relevant talk page discussion, one party based their argument on their POV, another based it on some vague principles relating to how the content had "been in the article for several months" and "that starting such a discussion would be time-wasting", while Trakking based their argument on the manual of style. Out of these three parties, Trakking clearly took the best approach on the talk page. Willbb234 22:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved except for previous interactions with these editors, but sometimes the quiet part needs to be said loud. An editor is making edits that clearly have a right-wing lean to them. FormalDude, Andrevan, Dlthewave, and TrangaBellam all came in swinging. Springee immediately came to the editor's defense. I could have told you all of that without even opening the discussion. These editors, virtually without fail, consistently advocate a specific ideological position regardless of the merits of an argument. Trakking is just the latest subject of this proxy war. Editors like this are a far bigger timesink than editors like Trakking. At what point does this become sanctionable tendentious editing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 15:45, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a brief discussion with one of the involved parties, I'm choosing to strike some of the more specific comments here. Reading them back, they do look like strong accusations. There is a broader problem of which these disputes are just a symptom, and it does need to be solved. But I have no grounds to say that any of these specific editors are at fault just because they're the ones who showed up to this specific dispute. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I was wondering why Nazism and fascism have never been considered to be a contentious topic or, formerly, a candidate for discretionary sanctions. Given stuff like this, I think that would be a reasonable move. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not at the point of a permaban. Yet. A topic ban would be functionally the same. But the diffs above certainly show a concerning pattern of conduct. I'm contemplating a short-to-medium-term site ban between a week and a month, combined with a revert restriction and a very strong logged warning about discussion style. I expect that will go one of two ways. Hopefully Trakking will take the hint that trying to brute force your preferred version through edit warring and insults is not the way Wikipedia works. If not, we've simply postponed the inevitable permaban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes, I don't think we're at permaban stage either yet. However, someone who makes this edit (and especially with that edit-summary) lacks the competence to be editing hot-button political articles. Black Kite (talk) 12:11, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m uncomfortable with the unspoken idea that seems to set in sometimes that where a topic ban would be “equal to a site ban” due to an editor’s focused activity on a topic that the bar to a topic ban should be higher. I’m not sure we have a great option available, as AP2 wouldn’t prevent the edit highlighted by Black Kite. Courcelles (talk) 12:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Courcelles I'm not necessarily suggesting this (I don't intend to formally endorse or oppose any sanction here), but under Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Contentious topic restrictions, isn't AE allowed to TBAN from beyond the scope of existing CTOPs? any other reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project. So a TBAN from, say, right-wing politics broadly construed, would be within our authority, if necessary and proportionate (I think?). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:20, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe I'm just a bleeding-heart liberal but I'm inclined to give someone just a little bit of rope in a situation like this. If their opponents' assumptions that they have no interest or ability to contribute positively are correct, that will soon become clear. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:34, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm struggling to see how Trakking's edits and the articles of concern fall under WP:ARBAP, but I am concerned about Trakking's edits and don't want to Wikilawyer this point. If I'm missing something, feel free to leave a message on my talk page as this would be the wrong place to discuss if these constitute AP2 (in my opinion).

I see repeated instances that Trakking removed both sourced information and lede text added after consensus was reached. When Trakking's edits were reverted, Trakking removed the text again without obtaining consensus on the talk page. I would like to remind Trakking that there are several dispute mechanisms, including WP:RfC, where they can ask the wider community their opinions on the matter.

I'm not in favour of a permaban at this time. I think the best solution is a 1RR for Trakking on all fascism-related articles, broadly construed, with the 1RR extended in perpetuity for their edits (so if they remove content and it is reverted, they cannot wait a couple months and then remove the same content again, as seen in Template:Fascism and PragerU). I would also be amenable to a topic ban of Fascism-related articles (although allow them to propose changes on the talk page) but I can also see HJ Mitchell's point above that it might not be necessary now, per WP:ROPE, and don't feel strongly either way the inclusion of this further restriction. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Springee: The "in perpetuity" is trying to send a clear signal to Trakking that they cannot keep trying to make the same changes to an article or template several weeks or months later. In your example, this would be considered a "grey-zone" and admin/editors have to evaluate the edit. If Trakking is trying to add new information, or copyediting the text that doesn't change the meaning, then additional sanctions would not be required as disruption is not taking place. If they are trying to change or delete the same information in the same way as the last reversion, as observed at PragerU and Template:Fascism, then I would support additional sanctions. Concerned editors can post here and admin will determine if it rises to the level of additional sanctions. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not generally in favor of time-limited sanctions, and I don't see an exception for that here, so I would not be in favor of a short-term topic or site ban. I do think a 1RR restriction (indefinitely, with the normal appeals process), combined with a logged warning for personal attacks and personalizing disputes, would be a place to start. Either that will suffice to get the point across and stop the disruption (which is, of course, always the outcome I'd hope for), or it doesn't, and then we'll know for certain that stronger measures are needed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:31, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think we've missed the boat on any short-term block/siteban here but for what it's worth Arbcom fairly consistently suggest/mandate escalating blocks and I think there's merit to the idea when dealing with misconduct that falls short of an indef. We need somewhere to go between a warning and long-term/indef sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I generally don't agree with time-limited sanctions either (indef blocks require the user to demonstrate that they understand why they were blocked before getting unblocked, which time-limited does not allow). I also agree with HJ Mitchell about how it's too late to justify a short-term block. I think 1RR needs to be put in place, and if it is violated escalating blocks can be imposed. Z1720 (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2023 (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

Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

F2Milk (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/American politics 2

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

Current Issue

1. 28 September 2023 (UTC) Edit-warring at Portal:Current events/2023 September 26, making vague references to wrongdoing "...please read the rules on reverting"
2. 28 September 2023 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks on user-talk.
3. 28 September 2023 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks on user-talk.

Previous Issues

1. 3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks at AFD. The vote was later moved to the talk-page by Administrator Tamzin as being off-topic/inappropriate.
2. 3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks in edit summary.
3. 3 December 2022 (UTC) Casting aspersions and making personal attacks in edit summary.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 28 September.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has persistently casted aspersions and made personal attacks in content disputes relating to the AP2 topic area.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification to User

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.

Let me put say it out aloud about the current state of Wikipedia. We have a lot of gatekeepers and editors who make editing seem a chore. I am not going to mince words here. I have been editing Wikipedia for the last 20 years or more. There have been editors who seem to have an ulterior motive in removing other editor's edits citing 101 rules. eg notability, reliable sources etc. I have faced my fair share of editors (so called left-leaning editors) who want to shape Wikipedia in their own image. Reliable sources to them is CNN, Washington Post, etc. I put in an edit from Daily Mail saying 100 people died in a Hurricane, and the edit is removed. What difference does it make if CNN says 100 people died in Hurricane or if Daily Mail says 100 people died in Hurricane? None at all. We live in a polarized world where gatekeepers try to paint all conservative websites as unreliable, but put their so-called bias references like CNN, Washington Post, etc as reliable. Post something negative even if it is factual about their golden boy or party. eg the Democrats, they try to scrub everything to paint themselves as angels.

Now if you call out the editors such as this, they will cry victim (the story of the boy who cried wolf comes to mind) and waste resources saying the other editor has cast aspersions on them. Give me a break. If you want civility, you better be more respectful of other's contributions and don't give flimsy excuses in your summary when removing other people's edits, especially in the Current Events section. I am not going to change my upfront approach to these matters. I will continue to point out the hypocrisy that we are currently witnessing in Wikipedia today. F2Milk (talk) 17:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin, never edited that page, never met either of these people before. I'm going to address only the accusation that F2Milk cast aspersions and made personal attacks.

• First accusation of personal attack: [67] Nope. F2Milk states what actions the addressee made and objects to a post they put on F's talk page. The closest this gets to an attack is "you probably have a left-leaning bias." I don't call that an attack. The person F is talking to might feel attacked by detecting F's disapproval, but that's not the same thing as F violating any rules or norms.
• Second accusation: [68] Eh. Closest this comes is "You should stick to facts instead of removing edits to the Current Events that don't fit your agenda."
• Third: [69] Huh. This is an attack but it's not personal. FMilk is not directing hostility at any one person, only at a non-specific "There is a lot of bad faith actors in Wikipedia at the moment." It does rise to an attack with the words "legacy media sycophants," but it's not directed at anyone. It's better classified as a negative opinion of Wikipedia in general.
• Fourth: [70] I think Carter might have put the wrong diff here, because it's just FM adding a link to Forbes, a reliable source. That's what we want editors to do. Oh wait, the edit description mentions "bad faith actors." Carter, is there some context, perhaps on another talk page, that shows that this is directed at specific Wikieditors? Because then it's name-calling.
• Fifth: [71] See above. The diff shows FM adding sources (good) with the diff summary stating that he wants to neutralize (my word) "bad faith actors" (F's words).

Conclusion: Not all of these diffs show personal attacks, but if there is context showing that FM was referring to specific Wikieditors as "bad faith actors," then FM engaged in name-calling, which violates WP:CIVIL. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think with the obvious WP:BATTLEGROUND statement here that a topic ban is probably warranted. It seems unlikely that they will constructively contribute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Yeah, either an indef AP2 topic ban or a NOTHERE block. The battleground comment here combined with the single purpose makes me lean towards NOTHERE but I'm okay with a TBAN. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• In addition to the above, we've got the statement I have been editing Wikipedia for the last 20 years or more, from an account less than half that old, which certainly leads one to wonder. Given the circumstances here, I would lean very much toward a NOTHERE indef, and will probably do exactly that unless an uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I am not going to change my upfront approach to these matters. I will continue to point out the hypocrisy that we are currently witnessing in Wikipedia today. No objection here barring a drastic rethink of their approach to editing. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 30 September 2023 (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

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:41, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nhradek (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:ARBPS

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

1. [72] 29 September 2023 — they are not willing to obey WP:PSCI
2. [73] 29 September 2023 — they are not willing to obey WP:PSCI
3. [74] 29 September 2023 — they even deny that WP:PSCI is applicable to precognition
4. [75] 29 September 2023 — total WP:IDHT

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 [76] 29 September 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• Reply: WP:PSCI is WP:NPOV, there is no WP:NPOV without obeying WP:PSCI. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [77] 29 September 2023

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.

Read what we said in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Precognition. He can argue that I'm violating Wikipedia:Psci but they are violating WP:Neutral point of view in Precognition.

Precognition is not WP:PSCI. Multiple studies and meta-analyses have shown this.

Here's a link to the meta-analysis by Bem and Tressoldi, et al. disputing the claims of WP:PSCI. If I'm violating WP:PSCI then certainly they are violating WP:NPOV by not including the meta-analysis. I tried to include it but was reverted in this diff with the response " Daryl Bem is a hack" by @Hob Gadling. How does this not violate the core principle of WP:NPOV?

I hit a nerve with the "skeptics" on this community but WP is not a posting board for their idealogical agenda. It's an online encyclopedia. Might I have violated WP:PSCI? Maybe, but they sure violated WP:NPOV and haven't given Daryl Bem a fair article in Precognition.

In addition in Wikipedia:FRINGE/QS it clearly states an article should not be labeled WP:PSCI if reasonable debate still exists in the scientific community which it does.

I quote from WP:FRINGE/QS Articles about hypotheses that have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may note those critics' views; however, such hypotheses should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific if a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists.

How does the meta-analysis I included violate this?

How did I violate WP:PSCI if there are meta-analyses and many studies providing evidence for precognition in the parapsychological literature?

I don't wish to argue too much about violations in the Precognition article here, but how does the following statement in the article not violate WP:NPOV and WP:No_reliable_sources,_no_verifiability,_no_article? Despite the lack of scientific evidence, many people believe it to be real; it is still widely reported and remains a topic of research and discussion within the parapsychology community.

It's like that everywhere and almost no supporting evidence for Bem or Tressoldi's research.

There is scientific evidence in support of precognition including the analysis I cited earlier and in Talk. Claims that my edits and the topic of Precognition in general are WP:PSCI are nonsense and my citation of Bem and Tressoldi's meta-analysis should be included. Nhradek (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either party and have never edited the pages in question. Given the diffs offered, the problem isn't that Nhradek refuses to respect Wikipedia's rules about pseudoscience. It's that Nhradek does not accept that precognition is pseudoscience. (It is; DGMW, Nhardek is wrong about this.) I noticed something else: All of the diffs offered here are talk page statements. Nhradek is saying on article and Wikipedia talk pages that they think precognition isn't pseudoscience. Yes, it's a bit strange, but it's not a problem the way, say, adding unsourced or improperly sourced material to Wikipedia articles about precognition would be a problem. This boils down to "Someone on the talk page has an annoying cherished belief."

Nhradek, can you promise that you won't add anything to the articles if you can't find support for it in the types of sources that Wikipedia respects (just like everyone else has to)? Can you promise that you if you remove text from an article and others put it back, you'll use established dispute resolution processes (WP:3O, WP:RFC)? Also, I'd recommend that when you talk to any given individual person on that talk page, remember what you already said to them and whether or not that specific person found it unconvincing. During the Trump administration, we got a lot more information about how to change people's minds and why they believe what they believe, and it turns out that "show the same people the same evidence and arguments over and over" doesn't work. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm hesitant to leap to anything too harsh with what appears to be a new, good faith editor who's behavior is disruptive. I feel that some of the issue is due to unfamiliarity with WP:DR. Nhradek, the reliability of the source you've provided has been challenged. WP:RSN would be the next stop if you'd like broader input on the reliability of your source. You also need to focus on why the source you provided is reliable, not calling anyone who disagrees with the author of the source as pseudoskeptic. A general dialing back of your engagement style would also be wise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good block. I was on the edge of blocking, but was hoping a little advice and some AGF might work. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Since ScottishFinnishRadish's message above, that it's clear Nhradek has read, they have engaged in similar conduct in the RSN discussion. That is bludgening and failure to listen and accept Wikipedia norms, see in particular this comment. Given that I've blocked as NOTHERE but am happy to modify or for other admins to modify that if that's the belief here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:22, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Good block. Bishonen | tålk 08:09, 30 September 2023 (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

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:04, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Closetside (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

Arbpia

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

1. 23:34, 27 September 2023 reverting this edit
2. 11:36, 28 September 2023 reverting this edit

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 10 September (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was subject of a 1R complaint filed recently and still on this page as I write this, resolved without sanction. There is a content dispute about the material subject of the reversions which will be dealt with in the usual way. Editor was offered the opportunity to self revert but has not, instead producing an unhelpful and false response alleging that I have broken 1R instead.

@Closetside: Reverting means undoing or otherwise negating the effects of one or more edits, which results in the page (or a part of it) being restored to a previous version. Please show that previous version in respect of Diff 3.Selfstudier (talk) 20:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: Diff 2 removed " a pro-Israel US based press monitoring organization"<Intercept ref>. Diff 3 added "a Washington-based media-monitoring group considered close to Israel"<Reuters ref>. Please explain how Diff 3 is a revert of Diff 2.Selfstudier (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Closetside: On the contrary, this was a normal editing process, the removal was only because the given source did not support the material, I edited to give a new source and quoted it directly. The removing editor, whom you cited in edit summary in support of your revert, states that they have no problem with adding the material as long as it is supported by the source, which it is, and that is another reason, apart from the 1R breach, why reverting relevant properly sourced material was inappropriate. Selfstudier (talk) 23:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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.

First, clearly explained why Selfstudier is guilty of violating 1RR.

Second, I mentioned Selfstudier's userspace harrasment towards me in my response without elaborating. Selfstudier made three false allegations that I violated the rules: (a) claiming that my self-reverts violated 3RR and claiming (b) one of my disambiguating edits expressed a POV and (c) I was hounding Selfstudier. Repeated false allegations about rule violations constitute userspace harrassment.

Third, Selfstudier claimed that Diff 3 in my explanation was not a revert. WP:3RR clearly states: "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes or manually reverses other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule often attract blocks of at least 24 hours." Other editors' actions include reverts. Therefore, both Diff 3 and Diff 5, which occured within 24 hours, prove that Selfstudier violated 3RR.

Fourth, based on Longhornsg's clarification I may have misrepresented Longhornsg's position. However, I reverted before the clarification, so the potential misrepresentation of their view is irrelevant here. I reverted based on the information I had.

Fifth, I would like to redouble on my concession that by executing Diff 6, I violated 1RR. However, Diff 6 restored the page to the version right before Selfstudier's illegal revert. Next time, I will confront the 1RR-breaking (or 3RR-breaking for most articles) editor, asking them to self-revert, instead of reverting myself. I have never experienced such a situation before. I would like to apologize to the Wikipedia community for my error. In contrast, Selfstudier is clearly aware of the standard case of 1RR, but violated it anyway.

In conclusion, Selfstudier's violation is far worse than mine. I regret my violation and pledge not to repeat it in the future. Selfstudier shows no regret for his clear violation; they even deny it. Additionally, they harassed me in my userspace. I appeal to a neutral administrator for a just verdict.

@Selfstudier, you reverted Diff 2 in Diff 3. Then, you reverted Diff 4 in Diff 5. All in a span in less then 24 hours which violated 1RR. As I established earlier, undoing a revert is itself a revert. Please thoroughly read my comment before critiquing it. Thanks! Closetside (talk) 20:37, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Those two statements are functionally equivalent. They both mean that MEMRI is an organization with an ideology that supports Israel that monitors Arab media. You don’t need to restore a previous version character-by-character for it to be a revert.

Same for sources. The use of a different source which makes the same point doesn’t mean the edit wasn’t a revert. The version before the original reversion and the version after the new reversion are functionally equivalent.

If either wasn’t the case, dubious information would be the status quo on Wikipedia. Just use a synonym and/or a source that makes the point in a slightly different way and it’s not a revert for 3RR. @Selfstudier, that is why Diff 3 is a revert. Closetside (talk) 23:11, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I'm convinced per you and Longhornsg. I concede Diff 3 wasn't a revert and apologize to you for the mess-up. I will self-revert both Diff 4 and Diff 6, and then restore Diff 6 (both per local consensus). I will revert and restore Diff 6 implicitly, without actually going through the motions to achieve the same result. I know this is my second time, but I will extra careful regarding 1RR in the future. Closetside (talk) 23:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the two edits were made within 24 hours of each other, and they're on the same page, so yes this is a 1RR violation, but on a fundamental level this looks like two invested editors with different worldviews in a content dispute. Closetside broke a clearly posted rule, so Closetside should get the standard response, but the core problem could be solved by more active use of dispute resolution. The talk page goes back to January 2023, and I don't see any RfC requests or 3O on that talk page. I do see Closetside and Selfstudier initiating talk page discussions about keeping/removing questionable material. I know how much pressure a person can feel to not let a wrong/"wrong" version of the article stand, especially if they think the other party will take that as giving up or tacitly conceding on the facts. Can you two reach an agreement not to make those assumptions or pretend to have made them? Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I think a logged warning about edit violating 1RR would be reasonable here. Closetside, you're a relatively new user swooning in the deep end of the pool. I suggest that you fully familiarize yourself with contentious topics and editing norms. You would probably be well served to bow out of conflicts in contentious areas, or at the least hold yourself to 0rr until you're more experienced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:55, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. I think we're past the point were leaving it at advice is reasonable but not at the point were a ban or block are necessary. A logged warning would be a final chance though, anything after this will likely be met with an extended topic ban or block. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]