THC Science

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332

Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

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

Request concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

M.Bitton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

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

There has been a long running dispute at Israel-Hamas war over the contents of the third paragraph of the lede; following multiple reverts and at least two discussions that failed to resolve the issue or prevent further reverts (one, two) I opened an RfC. A few hours later, after three editors, including myself, had !voted in the RfC, Makeandtoss closed it. They had previously been involved in this specific dispute, both in the article (example) and in the discussions linked above. This close also violated WP:TPO, as it involved striking the contributions of other editors without falling under the exceptions permitted by that policy.

I reverted this out of process close, but a few hours later M.Bitton reclosed it. M.Bitton wasn't involved in the immediate dispute, but has been involved with the article, and has expressed strong opinions in past RfC's on related content (example).

This was a topic that was ripe for dispute resolution, with an RfC that had no issues sufficient to justify a premature close. Even if Makeandtoss and M.Bitton weren't involved it would have been a disruptive close, but it is particularly so because they were - by closing it early they have locked in a status quo that Makeandtoss explicitly favors and M.Bitton implicitly favors.

This was discussed previously at ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page, and then further at ARCA, where Barkeep49 said they take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC, and recommended bringing it here.

I also requested that M.Bitton revert their close; they declined to do so.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Makeandtoss:

20:45, 14 October 2023 Page blocked from Israel-Hamas war and its talk page for 48 hours, for disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground
19:38, 26 January 2024 Warned for edit warring, including at Israel-Hamas war

M.Bitton:

No relevant sanctions

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

Makeandtoss:

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 11:32, 11 July 2017 (see the system log linked to above).

M.Bitton

Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 16:20, 6 March 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Black Kite: In accordance with WP:RFCST, which permits editors to sign RfC statements with only a timestamp, I never sign RfC's I start - even ones like WP:LUGSTUBS2, which almost everyone will already know who opened.

I do this because I believe perceptions of the editor who opened the RfC may influence how editors perceive the RfC, and I don't believe that is beneficial to the process. As for the reverts, I made them because given that editors are explicitly permitted to not add their signature, I didn't believe it was appropriate for another editor to insist that they do, particularly given we generally have very strict prohibitions on editing another editors comments.

This isn't the first time that I've had a signature added, but normally editors accept when I revert them and explain that editors are not required to sign statements - this is the first time someone has tried to edit-war a signature in. BilledMammal (talk) 14:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: To avoid any misunderstanding, I just wanted to say that I don't intend to start putting my username on any RfC's I start, regardless of how controversial - and personally, I would see this as one of the less controversial ones I've started. Editors are is permitted to do this, and there are valid reasons for not wanting to do so - and many experienced editors don't.

Regarding whether it was premature, I note that the two discussions I linked above are just a small fraction of the total number of discussions on this content; other examples include:

In addition, the content had been re-added and removed many times; I believed and still believe that it was time to hold an RfC and settle the debate.

Finally, I think it would be helpful to clarify whether it is appropriate for other editors to add a user name to an RfC they didn't start. My understanding is that it is not; that it is a violation of talk page guidelines, and that it adds heat to a debate. Perhaps if involved editors have concerns about an RfC being unsigned they should be advised to contact the editor who started it to attempt to resolve those concerns, and if that attempt fails contact an uninvolved admin? BilledMammal (talk) 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding other disruption, there have been issues with them slow-motion edit warring, misleadingly citing WP:BURDEN in edit summaries, WP:1RR gaming, and WP:1RR violations.

This slow-motion edit warring includes doing so against attributing the number of casualties in the lede, a question that was in the RfC that Makeandtoss shut down - I would personally be less concerned about it, given the glacial pace, absent that context:

09:30, 20 May 2024
14:24, 29 April 2024 (removed citing WP:BURDEN; however, the source attributed the figures to the Gaza Health Ministry)
12:03, 13 April 2024 (described the edit as "recently added nonsense")

The rest I can also present, but I need additional words and diffs to do so; may I have them? Some of them are older, but they all occurred after their most recent warning. BilledMammal (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Makeandtoss:

02:13, 10 May 2024

M.Bitton:

02:13, 10 May 2024

Discussion concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

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

Statement by Makeandtoss[edit]

As evidenced by BilledMammal's own links above, there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points, nor was there any attempt at conflict resolution that are outlined in WP:RFCBEFORE, which considers RFC a last option due to its time-consuming nature.

What I did was simply strike through the RFC, an action that was easily reverted, and I stopped and did not take it further. It would be disingenuous to claim that I had closed it, an irreversible action. Nevertheless, I will ensure to ask an uninvolved administrator to do this in upcoming incidents, which is indeed a better course of action.

That aside, this seems like an attempt to deflect from BilledMammal's own editing behavior, as they created the RFC in non-neutral phrasing without signing it, and then went ahead to vote with a signature, which creates a misleading first impression. Not to mention BilledMammal's edit warring by reverting other editors four times within the course of two hours relating to this incident: [1], [2], [3], [4].

I sincerely hope to see the day when editors are more interested in constructively contributing to Wikipedia than taking editors they disagree with to AE every time something happens. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized BM has been banned from the article for a week for edit warring, so to add to M.Bitton's statement below, this now worryingly seems more like a Samson's death kind of situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: and @Seraphimblade: First, thanks for the concerns. To add some context in response: I was blocked from that article on 14 October 2023, back when things were heated, and back when I did not completely understand what constitutes 1RR; I also wasn't able to appeal that 48 hour ban because it had passed while I was appealing. As for the second "sanction" on that article, I was warned for "slow motion edit warring" on that article backing in January 2024; because I had edited the same sentence multiple times in the lede over a few months according to developments on the talk page. Since then I have taken immense care to abide strictly by the guidelines at the article and across the topic.

My constructive and collaborative editing at the Israel-Hamas war article almost non-stop over the past seven months is evidenced by the fact that I am the third top editor by # of edits on the article having added 50k bytes and the 5th top editor on the talk page having added 70k bytes. Editing such a high-level and sensitive article while maintaining calm is not an easy task. Of course, striking through that RFC was a trout, which I have already pledged on SFR's talk page that it would not be repeated. The purpose of AE is to remedy behavior and not to punish editors. I really hope that a more balanced view of my editing is taken and that this minor mistake is not taken out of proportion. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: Of course, rules indeed apply to everyone, that is why I have tried my best to abide by all the guidelines. I did not know however that striking through an RFC would be a violation, which in that case I would have never done it. Even after being reverted, I let it go and did not pursue it further, as @Valereee: pointed out about the RFC's signing. And immediately after being notified by @ScottishFinnishRadish: on their talk page, who thankfully gave a better alternative of seeking uninvolved administrators' intervention, I pledged there that this mistake not be repeated. Looking back, now that I understand the issues surrounding it, it was definitely a mistake that should not have occurred, and for that I sincerely apologize. I believe that a heavy sanction would only prevent good contributions rather than the noble and very important goal of remedying any bad. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Thanks for weighing in. My perspective regarding the previous cases can be found above at the 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) comment.[reply]

@Ealdgyth: And thank you as well for weighing in. I only became very involved in this topic area recently, but I spent most of the past ten years editing Jordan-related articles, and I am aware of best editing practices. The whole approach was indeed not ideal, in a controversial article and tricky situation, but I am determined to ensure this never happens again. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I am extremely, deeply and absolutely aware of that. Again, I sincerely apologize for that mistake and vow that it would never be repeated again, and also to do my best to avoid any similar mistakes. You have my word for it. Makeandtoss (talk) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: I really appreciate the chance to present my perspective, and @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s comment that shows their genuine dedication to handling this request appropriately.

First, note that the Israel-Hamas war article sees dozens of edits every day, and numerous discussions. Over the course of months this accumulates and gets inevitably confusing for everyone, especially as the ideas or edits are sometimes discussed in different phrasings or closely resemble one another.

[5] Here I specifically raised doubts about the 9,000 militants killed claim since it did not fully align with the Haaretz source cited. This is different from discussing if the number of killed militants should be included or not in the RFC's second question.
[6] This took place on 20 March, two months before the RFC on 6 May; and it related to if the number of women should be included in lede. This is a bit different from the number of both women and children and also how these numbers are presented as the RFC's third question relates to.
[7] Indeed, here, it was related to the RFC's third question, but that month-old discussion that I had created on 29 April did not strike me at that moment as being relevant to the overall situation.

The fact that I have created or engaged in these discussions shows my good faith and collaborative approach. In summary, this unfortunate incident took place in a sensitive RFC opened controversially and in a sensitive and highly active article. I accordingly made a hasty decision, to which I apologize about and vow that it would not be repeated. A lot of lessons learnt here: to specifically never strike through or remove any RFC; and more generally, to demonstrate greater patience, to put in greater efforts to examine similar situations, and to never act in haste.

As for the separate older incident with Number57 on 1 January, I did not say in the edit summary that no discussion had taken place, but that the RFC went against WP:RFCBEFORE, which states that if a dispute is between two editors they should seek WP:Third opinion first. After I removed the RFC, another third editor agreed with Number57's edit and disagreed with mine, and I stopped and did not take the issue further. Again, I was only made aware of the issues surrounding removing an RFC only after the recent incident. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton[edit]

I already explained the close when asked by ScottishFinnishRadish, so I won't repeat it here. I also wasn't involved in any of the discussions that led to RfC. Frankly, this report raises more questions than answers: if BilledMammal was really interested in SFR's advice, then why did they ignore it and why did they ignore the question that SFR asked them (about how to best formulate the RFC)? Someone who's starting a RfC for the benefit of the project would have no issue with what SFR suggested (working with others), but I guess that wasn't what they were after. Approaching me four days later with an ultimatum doesn't strike me as very constructive, especially considering the fact that I chose not to report them for violating 1RR multiples times. Bringing it to AE after raising it with SFR is just plain forum shopping. M.Bitton (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

I dont think it was a good idea to shut down the RFC. But on the process, if a user is blocked from a page for edit-warring, are they allowed to pursue dispute resolution related to that page while blocked? Or is that not similar to an editor violating a topic ban by making a report about the topic? nableezy - 13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the edit-warring was on this talk page, and they are blocked from the talk page. But its your world boss. nableezy - 13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero, you missed where they also moved a signed comment, which somehow isnt a TPO violation while adding an unsigned template supposedly is. nableezy - 13:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49 nobody edited the signature, I added an {{unsigned}} template and when that was reverted a note, with my own signature, as to who started the RFC. Who started an RFC shouldnt matter, but when there is a dispute about the neutrality of the prompt then it obviously does matter. And, as WP:TPO says, attributing unsigned comments is perfectly acceptable. nableezy - 15:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep, that is not true, my initial edits were only adding an unsigned template. When that was reverted (twice) I added my own comment. Why exactly is BM moving my comment to place that decontextualized it entirely not a TPO violation? But what that portion of TPO is about is "attributing" comments, which is not simply a date and timestamp but also, obviously, a username. nableezy - 16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, as far as I can see one editor "edit-warred" over this, not a bunch, unless you want to make the leap that a single revert is now "edit-warring". nableezy - 16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The way I see this is that BM attempted to have basically a first mover's advantage here. He created an RFC that had not had any input from anybody else, he left the prompt unsigned, and then he answered that RFC immediately. Other editors who had differing views would not have been prepared with sources and arguments the way he was to present his view. And given how RFCs attract views from uninvolved users who may not be as familiar with the universe of sources available as the editors involved in the dispute but rather often rely on the RFC arguments to formulate their view, he was giving himself the advantage of both framing the dispute and further presenting his own views unchallenged to any editors who were brought to the RFC through the normal means. The very least that should be done there is to inform others of the fact that the framing and the initial, prepared in advance, argument offered are by the same person. nableezy - 16:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

My sole contribution to the RFC was to add the comment "+1. Not signed either." to Makeandtoss rejection of it, the RFCbefore being unspecified as well as a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments that had not produced the desired outcome from the openers perspective, awkwardly lumped together in a single RFC. I sympathize with the frustration that led to its untimely closure and frankly think that complainant should devote some effort to figuring out ways to spend less time at this board. Selfstudier (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Seems it can't be both Well, it can, I speak as someone familiar with the article and its history, what I mean is that those prior discussions were nowhere apparent at the RFC or even on the talk page, it being usual to specify an RFCbefore detailing them. I can try to locate the multiplicity of them in the talk page archives if desired, I assume OP knows where they are? Selfstudier (talk) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion? That's the point, it is valid and that's why editors taking part in an RFC need to know about those discussions, generally I would link them as part of an RFC(before) Not all editors are aware of prior discussions of which there may have been several.Selfstudier (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement? From where I'm sitting, which is quite frequently on the opposite side of the table from complainant, that thought is one step removed from what I see as the actual source of the problem, namely the opening of that particular RFC in that particular way in the first instance, then persisting with it when three editors came out strongly against the process. I would not personally have closed out the RFC but I don't disagree with it either, I think complainant should have done so themselves and we wouldn't be here, not for this at any rate. Selfstudier (talk) 18:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the question was put:

If this is a complete list of topic area closed RFCs then

there were two RFCs opened by complainant in that category, Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell#RfC on infobox image on 1 March, plus the current example.

In the current RFC category, taken from here, there is Talk:Israel–Hamas war#RFC: Primary title and alt titles in :the lede opened on 12 April.

The other two were also not signed. Selfstudier (talk) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Newimpartial: (and @Seraphimblade:), there is a current discussion about the signing/not signing thing Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Signing an RfC Selfstudier (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)´[reply]

It should not set a precedent, but given all the circumstances, I suggest treating the RFC close as procedural in this particular instance. Selfstudier (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Makeandtoss was imo correct to say that there had been no discussion in the sense of an RFCbefore, the RFC just came out of the blue and did not reference any prior discussions.Selfstudier (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

While BM is technically correct that an RfC does not have to be signed, when one of the principle disputants on a topic starts an RfC with their own preferences highlighted it is at least a very bad look if they refuse to have their name on it. And I mean "refuse", since BM twice deleted a signature that was added using {{unsigned}}. If there is a positive explanation for that I didn't manage to think of it. Zero^talk 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying...WP:Signatures says "Typing five tildes will convert to a date stamp with the current date and time, without adding your signature". So, while it is true that five tildes are permitted in an RfC, it is arguable whether that counts as a signature for the purposes of TPO. Zero^talk 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial[edit]

In this instance I am uninvolved in the RfC (and am largely uninvolved in ARBPIA). I wanted to draw attention to BilledMammal's using their own !vote in their own RfC as evidence that it should remain open, which I take to be a rather peculiar argument. Of the other two !votes, one largely resisted the way the RfC was framed, while the other did accept the framing but only answered two of the four RfC questions.

So to me, BM's argument amounts to an assertion that the way it is framed makes sense to them (though others evidently disagree) and that they have voted in it therefore it must stay open. To insist on this, in spite of the lack of RFCBEFORE and quite evident flaws in the RfC's construction, strikes me as an attempted deployment of bureaucratic proceduralism unworthy of BM or of enwiki in general.

To then "seek justice against one's enemies" (Plato, not a wikipedian) in this forum, after having been banned temporarily from the Talk page in question, seems to me like a failure of judgement given the overwhelming lack of support for BM's framing of the RfC in the first place. The only likely outcome of that RfC, given the responses to it on Talk and on SFR's Talk, was a "malformed RfC" outcome, and I don't see how devoting photons and editors' time to hashing out that outcome would have served anything but BURO. Newimpartial (talk) 14:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ealdgyth - "seek justice against one's enemies" was an allusion to Plato. I'll try refactoring to make this more clear. Newimpartial (talk) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the uninvolved admin: BilledMammal has now expressed the intention od continuing to create RfCs without signing the RfC (and then presumably to !vote on them with a signature, thus obscuring the relationship between the RfC question and their !vote).

Therefore, to head off future disruption, I would appreciate clearly expressed opinion about whether it is appropriate to do so or whether this choice can be appropriately understood as disruptive. Comments to date have leaned towards BM's no-signature strategy being potentially disruptive (at least by my reading), but it would be great to have some more formal consideration before the next time a related confrontation occurs. Newimpartial (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this edit summary, I have read it several times, and I am unable to interpret it as disingenuous. I read "points" in the summary as meaning "proposals" and I don't see how any of the proposals received an appropriate RFCBEFORE. For any that did, it seems to me that it was up to the person filing the RfC to document the BEFORE, in any case, so the interpretation that "these points/proposals did not receive a prior discussion that satisfies RFCBEFORE" strikes me as entirely reasonable even if others read the situation differently. I certainly don't see anything "disingenuous" about the summary, even though of course nobody INVOLVED ought to he closing anyone's RfC but their own. Newimpartial (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Number 57[edit]

I don't have a view on this particular situation, but for context, I thought it would be useful to flag up that I have also experienced Makeandtoss shutting down an RfC after others have commented (see here). Number 57 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Alaexis[edit]

Closing an RfP this way seems rather disruptive (per WP:RFC, An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be). Usually users unhappy with an RfC would !vote Bad RfC and explain their reasoning. Why couldn't it have been done in this case? Alaexis_¿question? 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323[edit]

It was a complex RFC from the get-go, and seemingly not prompted by sufficiently rigorous prior discussion so as to actually warrant such a complicated RFC (the only linked discussions are a couple that appear to have simply petered out). RFCs are by nature time consuming for the community, and can also hamstring routine discussion and editing but putting a freeze on any topic covered by the RFC until complete. It is not in the project's interest to have a proliferation of badly scripted, overly complex RFCs floating around, and closing such examples down is quite sensible from a WP:NOTBURO perspective. There aren't many other avenues open for nipping bad RFCs in the bud. If everyone just attends and votes "bad RFC" then that's time-consuming participation. Alternatively, editors could try to petition the admin noticeboard for an admin to strictly enforce WP:RFCBEFORE, but if this is a routine action, it's not one that I've observed, even though WP:RFCBEFORE is in principle quite strict and, one might think, enforceable. This close was a no-nonsense attempt to strictly adhere to WP:RFCBEFORE, and perhaps recourse to the admin board would have been a better option, but the intentions appear reasonable. It feels like the best way to deal with an RFC that fails WP:RFCBEFORE is actually a bit of a grey area, and one that perhaps needs better clearing up. Iskandar323 (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would second Makeandtoss' reminder that sanctions are too prevent not punish, and I see little merit in punishing them for this very one-off and unlikely to be repeated episode involving an RFC. It is not clear that anything here forms part of a pattern of abuse, and the dust has now settled on this incident. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Seraphimblade: I would also second Vice Regent's exhortation to consider Makeandtoss' conduct in the context of their total contribution to the project. To sanction them would be punitive and with little merit. I certainly don't see how it would be preventative given both the one-off nature of this particular set of circumstances in this dispute, or given the comparative rarity of their disorderly conduct relative to their output. It would only punish the project. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kashmiri[edit]

I agree that RFCs shouldn't be closed so early by involved editors. However, on seeing the closure, I was glad it helped us avoid another heated discussion on that very Talk page that was extremely unlikely to produce anything resembling consensus. BilledMammal was right to write that perceptions of the editor who opened the RfC may influence how editors perceive the RfC, and so given their rather contentious editing history in Palestine-related topics, they decided not not to sign their name. Yet we were at it again. When going through the questions, I was disappointed (but not surprised) to find out how POV the structure was – it concerned adding inline attribution to the internationally accepted numbers of Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion (inline attribution is not normally necessary and suggests an opinion, not a fact – our policy requires it if there is a disagreement between sources) or contrasting these numbers with Israeli-provided numbers of supposedly killed militants, even though the latter are widely considered unreliable and few media carry them. Judging from the past discussion history on that article and the POV split of the most active editors, this RfC was not going to end up in a consensus.

So, as much as the close was procedurally wrong, I'm of the view that it ultimately befitted that article and the wider readership. A trout for everyone, as Valereee wrote, and move on. — kashmīrī ^TALK 22:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple[edit]

Lots of verbiage above but it's a simple issue. RfCs are not to be closed by involved editors. Involved editors who do so should get sanctioned, for this is a contentious topic area and there needs to be extra efforts made to enforce the rules, and I don't mean "trout slaps." Coretheapple (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vice regent[edit]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: and @Seraphimblade: as you consider sanctions, I'd like to add that Makeandtoss is exceptionally productive. They are one of the very few users I see regularly creating new articles or significantly expanding existing ones in the Arab-Israeli conflict area. They have an impressive User:Makeandtoss/DYK record (many of them in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area), with some DYKs of articles they created still active (eg Killing of David Ben Avraham). They helped promote articles in this topic area to GA status (eg Battle of Karameh, Black September, Hussein of Jordan etc). Just last month, they wrote the entire History of Palestinian journalism article. I've also seen them create useful stubs (eg Mohammad Hyasat of the Jordanian Air Force, who helped defend Israel from Iranian attacks).VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 11:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish can you clarify the topic you are considering for a ban? Is it "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed"? If so, might you please consider something narrower like "Israel-Hamas war broadly construed"? I suggest that because I have not seen any problematic behavior by Makeandtoss when making excellent contributions to Jordanian and Palestinian history, but "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" covers most of the history of those two nations.

I recall in the WP:ARBIRP case, the arbs tailored a topic-ban[8][9] that was narrower than the scope of arbitration to take into account a user's productive edits in the topic.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

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

Although I don't think the RFC formulation is great, based on my experience as a closer, the formulation is not disruptively bad. There has been a significant amount of discussion on some of the points in the RFC, and there's something to be said for just heading to an RFC when it's obvious there will be no consensus through plain discussion. Editors thoroughly involved in a topic area should only be shutting down an RFC, closing discussions, or removing discussions when the material is plainly disruptive or in violation of WP:PAGS. Not following the advice on an information page to the letter, for me, does not meet that threshold. I have been approached by editors on several occasions about closing down RMs/RFCs that are retreading topics, but I'm loath to step in on such discussions because they are part of our formal dispute resolution. Involved editors should be even more reticent to do so. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, not like a topic ban. Normally the edit warring is in article space and I'll block just the article so they can only engage on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points or was this a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments. Seems it can't be both. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, what I mean is that those prior discussions, so there was prior in-depth discussion? Those talk pages are fast moving, and the archives are already huge. If the discussion happened a couple months ago, does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, I don't want to make this seem as if you're on the hook for anything here as you simply made a comment at the RFC, so take this as a hypothetical. Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, rather than a bunch of involved editors edit warring and violating TPGs over this, why did no one seek to remedy any issues with the RFC on BMs talk page, or ask an uninvolved administrator to do so. User talk:BilledMammal#Talk:Flour massacre#Requested move 28 April 2024, for example, is how this could have played out. To me, this is just more evidence of battleground editing in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy, there were a bunch of involved editors, there was edit warring, and there were WP:TPG violations. All of that could have been avoided, except for involved editors, if not for pervasive battleground behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vice regent, I wouldn't be opposed to something narrower like the current conflict or post 2000. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit concerned about the "trying to avoid scrutiny for the RfC" bit highlighted by Zero0000. BilledMammal, why did you do that (twice)? If I'm submitting an RfC, I want my name on it so that people can discuss it with me. It all seems very ... I don't know, underhand? Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial - did someone say "seek justice against one's enemies" or did you use quotes for some other reason? I'm confused as to why that statement is in quotes - if someone (on either side of the dispute) is saying that about the other side that's not good. If it hasn't been said, it's not really helpful to throw that around like it IS a quote from someone, it just confuses uninvolved admins (like me) and, in my view, just ups the heat in the topic area. I'm going back to looking into this as my time permits ... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I was forced to read Plato in university but... I try REALLY hard to forget it. Still reading - I read SFR's plea for help in this area and am trying to formulate something to say that I think might help things (not that I think I'm going to have much luck with this but ... hope springs eternal) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - SFR (and others) sorry I haven't been weighing in here, I've been busy outside wiki and trying to read more about this topic area. I'm good with a time-limited topic ban for Makeandtoss. It's not so much the single edit but the whole approach. Frankly, I think there are a lot of editors who might consider whether or not they should try to edit outside this topic area so that they aren't quite so burned out and fall into really bad battleground behavior. When all you see is one very contentious topic, you're going to think that battleground behavior is the norm on the project, but most non-contentious topic areas are not this filled with bad behavior and habits from editors. Getting outside the topic area would help editors regain some perspective about their own editing behavior and what best editing practices are. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no intention of weighing in substantively on this request beyond a few thoughts that I had when this was at ARCA. In a talk page like this one which is active and with a lot of peristent editors, a lower threshold for how much discussion is necessary before starting an RfC can, in my judgement, be appropriate. The reason for this can be that there is a local consensus that is at odds with a project wide consensus and so lots of discussion would lead to a false consensus (and even accusations of bad faith RfCs that "relitigate" things already decided in discussions). It strikes me as incredibly important that we are very cautious before closing a major dispute resolution method to an editor, especially one who has demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. An RfC for information that is in the lead also strikes me as more appropriate than RfC for information in the body of an article precisely because of the visibility/importance of having consensus there for me. Now it can also be true that someone who has repeatedly shown that they are at odds with project consensus about a topic can be disruptive in starting new RfCs. In looking at the last half dozen or so RfCs it did not seem like Billed Mammal fell into this second category but it's entirely possible there is better evidence out there on this front. However, given the evidence as I understand it I continue to take that "dim view" of editors using procedural means to potentially enforce a local consensus and perhaps even to seek sanctions against someone attempting to ascertain what the project consensus is through the written dispute resolution system. As for the signature bit I believe I start all my RfCs with ~~~~~ because who started the RfC should be irrelevant and WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows it as an equally valid choice to ~~~~ . I have no idea if date/time sig rather than full signature is normal or not for BM and I hope the uninvolved administrators assess that - there are no shortage of RfCs started by BM - before judging the intent. If this was out of practice for BM that clearly signifies trouble but if it's normal for BM to operate that way - as it is for me - that sends a different signal. Now if someone were to change an RfC sig I started from 5 ~ to one that included my name (and I think this has happened once), I wouldn't do anything about that because let's have a sense of perspective about things. But I would be annoyed and I would think it a violation of WP:TPO given that editing of signatures is only allowed If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information and TPO is clear that editors may ...not modify the signature on others' posts for any other reason. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy I wasn't going to respond to your ping because I mean it when I say that I want the uninvolved admin to be making the call here. But your this edit to your comment goes too far for me. WP:RFCOPEN explicitly allows for ~~~~~ and so the comment was appropriately signed, based on Wikipedia norms and practices. As such you were not fixing an unsigned signature, but instead (as I understand it) trying to make a point that the RfC was not neutral and were working to have the statements attributed to BilledMammal in order to help advance that point. I have offered no comment on the neutrality or not of the RfC. But trying to raise problems with a non-neutral RfC is not the same as a neutral fixing/improvement as allowed by the talk page guidelines, in my view. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nableezy: I'm not commenting on BM's comment move because that wasn't part of my analysis at ARCA and I'm not interested in substantively weighing in things at AE beyond what was discussed at the ARCA given that ArbCom is where the rare AE appeal goes; I expect that other uninvolved administrators will weigh that when determining what sanctions, if any, are appropriate to levy for this incident. Frankly I'm a bit flummoxed why you're continuing to debate with me - and attempting to shift the focus of discussion in this last comment. I have explicitly refrained from saying that your adding the unsigned template was wrong. That too goes beyond the analysis I've done. What I am saying that if it is BM's practice, as they've stated and so far no one has contradicted with evidence, to open RfCs with 5 tildes that this is supported by practice and norms. In that case their action is not a behavioral problem and so you cannot justify your actions based on the talk page guidelines. I have offered no opinion about whether your adding the unsigned template could be supported on other grounds. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's plenty not to love here. I am definitely not enamored of "anonymously" starting an RfC—if I'm coming to an RfC, and an editor involved in the discussion is the one who started it, I want to know that. It looks to me like RFCOPEN is more saying that the bot is able to recognize timestamp-only signatures, rather than actually endorsing that as a good practice. In any case, since it's clearly controversial, I would very much prefer not to see that done in the future here, but it's not actually against policy. What is against policy is to start an RfC instead of discussing a matter, rather than after a discussion has been held, and "open discussion on the matter first" should not be considered optional. An RfC is a significant investment of community time and should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary. RfC is often the result of such a discussion reaching an impasse, but if there's a plausible case that the result of the discussion was a "local consensus" that the wider community wouldn't support, it's appropriate to hold an RfC to call in people from the wider community who haven't been involved and I would not criticize that as being "re-litigating" or forum shopping. I think we've all seen cases where a small number of "owners" try to enforce something that the wider community wouldn't approve of, and bringing an RfC is a good way to draw attention to that and put a stop to it. But, whether an RfC is appropriate or inappropriate, involved editors shouldn't be shutting it down. So, I think in this case, trouts all around—the RfC was premature, the "anonymous" nature of it needlessly fanned the controversy, and even with that said, people involved shouldn't have closed it. If lessons can be learned from that without bringing out any bigger sticks, that's of course the optimal solution; if we find the problems reoccurring, then we'd have to evaluate that at that time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pretty much agree with all of this. I don't object to an RfC being unsigned if it's inarguably neutrally worded. This is on the edge for me. I don't object to an RfC being opened in contentious topics possibly slightly early if there's been some discussion. Again on the edge. I do object to edit-warring over signing; once it's been objected to, just let it go. I do object to involved editors closing an RfC early. Trouts all around. Valereee (talk) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's worth noting that Makeandtoss has already been warned for edit warring in the topic area and blocked from this article for battleground conduct. To me, we're past the level of a trout in this instance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got no problem with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of moving this along. I know you're generally not a fan of time-limited topic bans, but I think this topic area is one that can benefit from time-limited topic bans, allowing a cool down for an editor, and hopefully a cool down for the real world circumstances. At the least it can allow for some firming up in sources on the issues that are being discussed. Would you be amenable to 90 days in this circumstance? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a case where I'd be okay with it. Makeandtoss certainly has provided plenty of positive contribution in the area, but everyone has to follow the same rules, and especially in CT areas. I certainly hope they will return to doing the good work afterwards, minus the downsides. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, you're the only other one who gave any opinion on possible sanctions. Any thoughts on a 90 day topic ban for Makeandtoss, as they've been both blocked and warned for behavior in this topic area recently? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A time-limited t-ban...okay, I guess. I don't like them, I think they're both punitive and not very productive. But if that's what you and Seraphimblade think works, I won't object. Valereee (talk) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on, hadn't seen NYB's post. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I am missing something, the complaint against Makeandtoss is based on a single edit, made two weeks ago, of a type he has specifically agreed never to make again. If that is the case, I oppose any topic-ban. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After a partial block from the page for battleground editing and disingenuous edit summaries they closed an RFC on that page out of process, with a disingenuous edit summary. I guess you could call that "one edit" if reviewing the behavior in a vacuum.
That the report has been here for 10 days, after the behavior was reported soon after the close was made, just demonstrates what I was saying at the request for clarification, AE isn't attended well enough to work. That a report has been open without significant administrator input is the default here, and 2-3 weeks is common for non-obvious cases. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not negating the prior issues, but no one has identified more than the single problematic edit by this user in, let's say, the past three months. That is what I mean by referring to a single edit. I'm also not sure why you consider the edit summary disingenuous. More than one person above seems to agree that the RfC did not satisfy "RFCBEFORE", even though others feel differently. The edit summary was disputable, maybe even erroneous, but I see no evidence that it was "disingenuous" in the sense of knowingly asserting something one does not actually believe. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm waffling again. @Makeandtoss, do you understand that admins are extremely likely to find anything that comes anywhere near repeating this very unamusing? Valereee (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created a discussion with about the count of militants killed, specifically mentions the lead [lede] in the discussion

Took part in a discussion about including the number of women killed in the lead

Created a section on women and children casualties in the lead

Closed an RFC asking Should the number of militants that Israel has stated they have killed be included? Should we describe the number of women and children killed as... with a summary of no discussion has taken place about these points.

Those threads are just a few from the most recent archive. That is disingenuous. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given their fullthroated response, I'd be willing to just warn. They sound sincere. Valereee (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're considering some kind of final warning here instead, I think we need to be crystal clear that it is very final, and anything else like this is going to mean sanctions. "But they also do good stuff" cannot remain an excuse indefinitely. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Makeandtoss: Please respond briefly in your section to ScottishFinnishRadish's last post above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Valereee (talk) 01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's also worth noting Number 57's diff where Makeandtoss closed another RFC with a third party response after taking part in a discussion. WP:RFCBEFORE doesn't require anything, and doesn't suggest extensive discussion, only that a discussion should take place. If it is obvious that a consensus isn't forthcoming there is no need to continue in circles for a certain number of words. No one involved in a discussion should be closing any but the most malformed RFCs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galamore[edit]

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

Request concerning Galamore[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Ecrusized (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Removing referenced statements & replacing with original research
Gaza Health Ministry
1. 15:12, 13 May 2024
Rafah offensive
2. 09:55, 9 May 2024

General 1RR violations:

Rafah offensive
1. 09:55, 9 May 2024 - Referenced sentence removed
Palestinian political violence
2. 17:19, 8 May 2024 - User revert
War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war
3. 08.13, 25 April 2024 - Referenced sentence removed
Gaza–Israel conflict
4. 17:56, 24 April 2024 - User revert
Zionism
5. 21:05, 21 April 2024 - User revert
Israel and apartheid
6. 15:38, 21 April 2024 - User revert
Palestinian political violence
7. 14:35, 21 April 2024 - User revert
2024 Israeli strikes on Iran
8. 16:58, 19 April 2024 - User revert
9. 09:25, 19 April 2024 - Reverted to a previous version
10. 08:25, 19 April 2024 - Sentence removed without edit summary

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 11:20, 14 April 2024
Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I typically don't mind trivial 1RR violations if they were made in good faith. However, it struck me that the user had made hundreds of copy edits, from 20 to 31 March 2024, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for extended confirmed protection. Subsequently, they solely began editing controversial ECP articles in an aggressive manner. Additionally, it concerns me that the user was previously blocked for not disclosing their paid editing. Ecrusized (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the names of the articles above their diffs, if that is what you meant. User was warned about previous 1RR violations and enforcement. I have not warned them about their latest reverts since those edits have already been undone by other editors. Ecrusized (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:20, 14 April 2024

Discussion concerning Galamore[edit]

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

Statement by Galamore[edit]

Hi, everyone My name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on Perplexity.ai (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it. Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much. I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me. If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars. When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides. Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity.

On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? Galamore (talk) 07:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

Regarding the WP:OR concerns:

At Rafah offensive they removed:

In addition, the offensive resulted in the temporary closure of the Kerem Shalom and Rafah crossings, further exacerbating the humanitarian crisis in Gaza.

In their edit summary they said Kerem Shalom was closed due to the Hamas attacks, and now reopened, this is wrong and outdated.

The first part of their claim appears to be correct; the source provided for the content says:

But Israel closed the Kerem Shalom crossing after a Hamas attack on Sunday killed four soldiers in the area, then mounted an incursion on Tuesday that closed the Rafah crossing along the border with Egypt.

At Gaza Health Ministry they changed the lede from:

The GHM's casualty reports have received significant attention during the course of the Gaza–Israel conflict. GHM's casualty reports are considered credible by two scientific studies published in The Lancet.

To:

The casualty reports issued by the GHM during the Israel–Hamas war have been subject to significant scrutiny. While some advocate for their accuracy, others cast doubt on their reliability.

This change appears defensible based on the body which includes claims that the figures are reliable alongside claims that they are unreliable. BilledMammal (talk) 19:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.

They appear to have attempted to self revert this violation, with 07:52, 14 April 2024 - however they self-reverted the wrong edit, 07:09, 14 April 2024 rather than 07:36, 14 April 2024. BilledMammal (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since Selfstudier has linked it and it relates to two of the editors involved here, this comment, which was made by Ecrusized, wasn't appropriate in my opinion:

the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias

It only adds heat to the topic. BilledMammal (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

OP doesn't seem to know what 1RR means. Zero^talk 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

For the sake of completeness, see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galamore, gaming the system Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And the discussion Talk:Israel–Hamas war#UN changes reported casualty figures.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Galamore[edit]

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

Ecrusized, can you break the 1RR violations down by article, and have they been warned about or asked to revert any 1RR violations? I don't see any engagement about that on their talk page. No comment yet on possible OR issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite and Drmies: just making sure you're aware this thread is here. The reported 1rr violations don't seem to be violations, but I am concerned about the edit warring over content that socks and editors banned and tbanned by Arbcom had been edit warring over. I try not to judge content choices unless there is a clear issue, and the edits to the lead are a summary of parts of the body. I think NPOV is a bit lacking, but it's not flagrant and I'm not sure if that alone is enough for action. Combining that with the history of the content being edit warred over brings me a lot closer to a sanction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What I said at the AN/I thread: Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. jp×g🗯️ 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JPxG, are you at all concerned about their continuing an edit war primarily edited on one side by socks and people banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing and proxying? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On the issue of the sanctioned topic in its own right, I defer to the judgment of persons such as yourself. jp×g🗯️ 08:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had the chance to dig into this yet (though I will try to over the next couple of days), but I will say that such guidelines should not be treated like black-letter law which can have "loopholes". We can take an extreme case, say that an editor makes an account, waits thirty days, and then runs a script which adds and then removes a single character from their sandbox 500 times. It is perfectly valid, in such a case, to say "That is not what we meant, and that doesn't count. Make 500 real edits before you start editing in this area." Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, if it is literally somebody adding and removing a period from their sandbox that is one thing, but if it's five hundred non-deleted, non-reverted edits that improve the articles they're being made on, we have to accept that this was what we told people to do. jp×g🗯️ 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned at the AN posting about this, I saw the edits when they started editing in ARBPIA, and they looked constructive enough where I didn't take any action then. Those types of edits combined with immediately leaping into a long-term edit war that has been pushed by a sock, and had been supported by editors banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing/proxying is more concerning, and I think that is where we should focus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I have indefinitely topic banned the filer of this report, which doesn't actually clear up my concerns about Galamore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, I'm thinking a topic ban of 6 months and 500 edits in this circumstance. That forces more out-of-topic contributions, gives them more experience, and puts them further from any sock/proxy/canvass concerns. I'm also okay with no action if you're not convinced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't see doing anything time-limited here. If you're going to do any sanction, I think it ought to be indefinite, but very much in the "indefinite need not mean permanent" vein, and that constructive edits in other areas would likely be viewed favorably at a future appeal. I also don't think they've been previously warned, so unless I'm wrong about that, another thing to consider would be a logged warning, with a clear understanding that further issues will all but certainly result in a topic ban. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unnamed anon[edit]

No action taken at this time as the matter is already being discussed at ANI. There is no prejudice to raising this issue here again if the ANI discussion ends without resolution of the matter, but we shouldn't have multiple threads open on the same issue at the same time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Unnamed anon[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation

24 July 2021 After Utada Hikaru has come out, UA changes the pronouns in the article from they/them to she/her without consensus.
25 October 2021 Launches a malformed RFC with an innapropriate comment on Tamzin's identity Tamzin's comments as a she/they NB supporting using Utada's last known pronouns (she/her) help break the POV mold.
26 October 2021 Argues they/them are "gramatically incorrect" as opposed to "real pronouns" in a discussion about Utada
26 October 2021 when Tamzin asks them to stop with their repeated use of gramatically incorrect/real pronouns[10], they apologize but this is their defense: Historically, I have not had the greatest experiences with transgender people when talking about subjects relating to being transgender, whether it be ones I've taken part in or ones I've simply observed. (Tamzin, you're actually the first one I've had a civil conversation with, or even seen for that matter, and I really do appreciate that).. The comment is edited to expanded to make it more offensive,[11] before being toned down.[12]
27 October 2021 When Tamzin leaves a kind explanatory message, they admit they occasionally resort to stereotyping when not in a good mood and apologize, saying they try and stay out of GENSEX.
11 November 2011 changes came out as non-binary to expressed frustration with traditional gender roles in Utada's article according to their WP:OR.
25 November 2021 Launches a malformed RFC on the lead of J.K. Rowling and begins to edit war with editors trying to fix it.
1 March 2022 Asks for page protection with a generalizing comment about nonbinary people Common target for enbies to force exclusive use of they/them into a she/they enby
22 March 2022 Describes being LGB as a sexual deviancy repeatedly.
4 July 2022 When asked for a source definitively saying a character from Stranger things isn't gay instead of "it's indeterminate", provides one saying "it's indeterminate". A user notes that on the talk page.
28 January 2023 misgenders a transgender character and removes relevant categories.
10 July 2023 launches an AFD for List of LGBT Characters in the Simpsons, having just previously edit-warred at LGBT representation in The Simpsons
3 May 2024 (revision deleted) they commit a BLP violation regarding kiwifarms in the MFD for WP:No queerphobia, which they participate in heavily.
5 May 2024 this is one instance of their repeated claim that LGBT editors can have COI's due to their identity: while it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors).
5 May 2024 They remove the example accepting transgender children in a slipper slope saying Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here. They continue to remove parts they disagree with and slow motion edit war with multiple other editors with many misleading or nonexistent edit summaries.
17 May 2024 I want to stress they argued it's too controversial to say marriage, adoption, or parenting should be restricted to heterosexual couples. is a queerphobic proposition.
17 May 2024 Tells me I should You should really remove the "friendly" part of your username and patronizingly tells me that he understands I feel strongly about not removing trans youth from the essay since I transitioned as a minor, but we can't shut down real debates

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 25 October 2021 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user originally started by edit warring over My Hero Academia and was warned by multiple editors, which accounts for their first ~700 edits across multiple forums, noticeboards, and talk pages.[13] I believe their contribution record, comments from others at the thread at ANI they started to complain about my behavior where they freely admit to having a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and their talk page shows they have problems with edit warring and strong feelings in general.

I believe the evidence above shows their disruption is particularly heightened in the GENSEX topic area, despite claiming to avoid it. This has been an issue for years. Their conduct at WP:No queerphobia and its associated MFD has been particularly disruptive. I made comments I regret and struck or clarified in response to their latest edits to the essay and for the record would like to apologize for my incivility towards him, but I believe he is still disruptive to the topic area (regardless of whether or not his views are queerphobic), he has a problematic tendency to group editors by LGBT status, and a TBAN may be necessary. At the minimum, a page block from WP:No queerphobes.

The other edits to media articles and their edit-warring at Reverse racism and related pages and categories? I leave those to others to interpret. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG I wanted to show it was a long-term issue and they've been warned. If an admin allows me 100-200 more words and 10 diffs I can highlight specifics of their conduct around WP:No queerphobes.

A taste, May 4 2024, they say it definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest that I'm sick of people saying all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists. Their incivil comments about me and queer people predated mine towards them.

If an IB means "UA can redefine anything in the essay they want and I can't comment" - I can't support it. If it means "they can write a counter-essay and I won't try to delete or rewrite it" - I fully support it. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified Unnamed anon 18 May 2024 Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Unnamed anon[edit]

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

Statement by Unnamed anon[edit]

13-17 all relate to the same page. If you made this AE yesterday, I'd gladly be blocked from editing that specific essay if you reported me yesterday, but I had just come to an agreement with Licks-rocks, so it's up to others if they want me to no longer edit that page. I want to stress that I didn't actually agree with 16, but I was following advice from another Non-Endorser, Ficaia. 1-6 plus 8 all refer to the same page as well, and that was because Utada still used "she" pronouns in many then-current sources, before her social media outright listed she/they. I wasn't the only editor arguing this, nor was I the most prominent. That leaves five unique pages. The Simpsons AfD (12) was out of redundancy concerns, as all of the characters either had their own page already or were non-notable gag characters. The Family Guy edit (11) was because I was removing vandalism where the transphobia page was wrongly linked several times. The JK Rowling RfC (7) was because I felt that people put undue weight on recent news. For 9, at the time I didn't know people considered asexuals as LGBT (I still don't understand, but I'm no longer warring over it). I had no excuse for my phrases in 9, 3 and 4, but my views have changed in those three years. I don't group editors over their sexuality anymore unless there's a clear pattern where one side is mostly openly LGBT and the other side isn't. 10 was me seeing what I thought was original research, as I specifically remembered reading that Stranger Things interview.

As for the edit war when I started my account, that was exasperation at constantly reverting to a preferred version, in spite of multiple users agreeing that a lot of the content was wrongly removed, being considered "not warring", as well as an name-calling from the other user in said edit war, who didn't contribute to the discussion after said incivility. Once Serial Number and I directly interacted for the first time in years when he complained about me at ANI, he submitted misrepresented evidence against me; in most of the diffs in his comment where I supposedly can't listen to other users, I had come to agreements with said users soon after(example), which he conveniently left out. As JXpG suggested,

I'd like a two-way interaction ban between me and YFNS; SN54129 as well, because I can't trust that the latter will criticize me in good faith. In both of these cases, it's clear that I don't react well when somebody is being blatantly uncivil towards me, as both users have shown. My reactions are probably inappropriate, but they're not unwarranted since the other party is usually uncivil first, which is why I think my Ibans should be two-way.

(@Serial Number 54129): If you think calling me names isn't uncivil, I don't know what to say. While I now know that looking at my IP location prior to account creation isn't doxxing, that also felt wildly inappropriate for that discussion. I also do not appreciate the aspersions from you that every IP reverting your edits was me or that I was "bullshitting innocent admins". During the ANI thread, you told me to "Feel free to cry" and another aspersion that I "accept no responsibility", when I had literally just said "I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless" You saying "of course they're aspersions" in your reply below doubles down on why I don't trust you. Unnamed anon (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I think the discussion should be redirected here rather than ANI, as my grievances with one user I initially reported have seceded, while another user conduct dispute was reignited after years of inactivity because of the ANI discussion. I think the ANI discussion should close and discussion redirected here due to the user report switch. I'll also reiterate than I'm volunteering myself for two two-way interaction bans. If YFNS and SN54129 both agree with two-way interaction bans, then this case can be ended fairly easily. Unnamed anon (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG[edit]

I suppose I am involved here because I commented at the AN/I thread about these same diffs running concurrently to this AE request (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist_and_User:Licks-rocks_civility_concerns). I also commented at the MfD for this essay, where I said it ought to be userfied (which it apparently now has been). This AE request feels like basically the same thing as the AN/I thread, which is "one of the participants in a vicious talk page argument wants the other person gone".

The diffs in the post opening this thread go back three years, which, well -- if you have to go back three whole years to find stuff to make a case, I think the case might not be that strong. They are also presented in the worst context possible: e.g. the thing about recommending that YFNS remove "friendly" from her name was not some random remark, it was made in the context of a several-week-long discussion in which YFNS was saying stuff like "In any case, cry as much as you want" and "If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll".

It may be warranted to note that YFNS (under a previous username) was at one point subject to a WP:GENSEX topic ban at AN (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Advocacy_editing_by_User:TheTranarchist), where CaptainEek's closing note was:

All editors inherently edit topics they find interesting. Just because an editor writes about something does not mean they have WP:ADVOCACY problem. But there is a line between the two. The commenters ultimately agreed that TheTranarchist has passed this line: she goes beyond interest into trying to mold the topic area to fit her worldview. That is incompatible with Wikipedia. She has become a WP:TENDITIOUS editor. Given all the factors discussed, there is rough consensus for an indefinite GENSEX topic ban.

Of course, as with many things related to contentious political topics, this thread was opened by a now-blocked sock, but the consensus was nonetheless pretty consistent that there was a pattern of disruption. It should also be noted in the interest of fairness that this restriction was appealed (first at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive352#TheTranarchist_GENSEX_TBAN_Appeal and later, successfully, at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive356#TheTranarchist_Appeal, with topic-based 1RR and 0RR restrictions).

Now, while we're on the subject of "reports don't need to be made in good faith for the issues they mention to be serious and worth action" -- this may well be true here, and UA is acting pretty out-of-pocket. I think that something in the general shape of a two-way interaction ban may be appropriate here. I am not an "AE guy" so I cannot say for certain what's the most likely to actually have a meaningful positive impact.

Further comment (sorry if this busts me on word limit): in re "doxing" claim against Serial, see this screenshot of the menu I have on every IP talk page; the link he posted was from this; well within the bailiwick and propriety of normal editing.

Statement by Serial Number 54129[edit]

Since I have been name checked, can I ask admins to request examples of the incivility I have used against User Anon. Without diffs... well, of course they're aspersions. ——Serial Number 54129 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC) anon|talk]]) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Unnamed anon[edit]

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

It looks like there is already an open ANI thread about this matter, and we should generally not have multiple discussions open about the same matter in different places. Unless an uninvolved admin shortly objects, I'll close this with no action, with the option to bring it back here if the ANI thread ends without resolving the matter. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

THC Science

Bringing Science to the Cannabis Conversation!

Cannabis Ruderalis

Latest revision as of 01:38, 22 May 2024

Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

Request concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

Discussion concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

Statement by Makeandtoss[edit]

Statement by M.Bitton[edit]

Statement by Nableezy[edit]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

Statement by Newimpartial[edit]

Statement by Number 57[edit]

Statement by Alaexis[edit]

Statement by Iskandar323[edit]

Statement by Kashmiri[edit]

Statement by Coretheapple[edit]

Statement by Vice regent[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton[edit]

Galamore[edit]

Request concerning Galamore[edit]

Discussion concerning Galamore[edit]

Statement by Galamore[edit]

Statement by BilledMammal[edit]

Statement by Zero0000[edit]

Statement by Selfstudier[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Galamore[edit]

Unnamed anon[edit]

Request concerning Unnamed anon[edit]

Discussion concerning Unnamed anon[edit]

Statement by Unnamed anon[edit]

Statement by JPxG[edit]

Statement by Serial Number 54129[edit]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Unnamed anon[edit]

Leave a Reply

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<noinclude>{{pp-move-indef}}
+<noinclude> {{pp-move-indef}}
+{{Redirect|WP:AE||WP:AE (disambiguation)}}
-{{Redirect|WP:AE|the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae|MOS:LIGATURE|the automated editing program|WP:AutoEd}}
 __NEWSECTIONLINK__</noinclude><!--
 --><includeonly>={{anchor|toptoc}}[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|Requests for enforcement]]=</includeonly>
@@ Line 6: / Line 6: @@
 -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
-|counter = 303
+|counter =332
 |minthreadsleft = 0
 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 }}</noinclude>{{Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}
+==Makeandtoss and M.Bitton==
-==Shirshore==
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning Shirshore===
+===Request concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton===
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Kzl55}} 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|BilledMammal}} 02:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Shirshore}}<p>{{ds/log|Shirshore}}</p>
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Makeandtoss}}<p>{{ds/log|Makeandtoss}}</p><br><p>{{userlinks|M.Bitton}}<p>{{ds/log|M.Bitton}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa#Final_decision]]
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles]]
 ; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+There has been a long running dispute at [[Israel-Hamas war]] over the contents of the third paragraph of the lede; following multiple reverts and at least two discussions that failed to resolve the issue or prevent further reverts ([[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#The_accuracy_of_figures_in_the_lede|one]], [[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war#Majority_of_killed_Palestinians_are_women_and_children|two]]) I {{diff2|1222480508|opened an RfC}}. A few hours later, after three editors, including myself, had !voted in the RfC, Makeandtoss {{diff2|1222515422|closed it}}. They had previously been involved in this specific dispute, both in the article ({{diff2|1221366758|example}}) and in the discussions linked above. This close also violated [[WP:TPO]], as it involved striking the contributions of other editors without falling under the exceptions permitted by that policy.
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&type=revision&diff=1078035945&oldid=1077696068&diffmode=source 14:26, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sanaag]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&type=revision&diff=1078037779&oldid=1078037051&diffmode=source 14:38, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sanaag]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&type=revision&diff=1078046682&oldid=1078038086&diffmode=source 15:35, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sanaag]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078042268&oldid=1078038624&diffmode=source 15:06, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sool]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078046832&oldid=1078044249&diffmode=source 15:36, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sool]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078079790&oldid=1078074161&diffmode=source 19:05, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sool]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078094126&oldid=1078082376&diffmode=source 20:34, 19 March 2022] Edit-warring on [[Sool]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhulbahante&type=revision&diff=1079015591&oldid=1077136739&diffmode=visual  15:19, 24 March 2022] POV edit in which Shirshore removed almost 20% of the article by blanking a sourced section wholly with the summary: {{tq|Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia}}.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buuhoodle&diff=prev&oldid=1079059676&diffmode=visual 20:05, 24 March 2022] Shirshore removed an entire sourced section of the article with the edit summary: {{tq|Removed derogatory and degrading text not suitable for Wikipedia. This is abhorrent and can’t be allowed on Wikipedia". This appears to have been an edit they've made from a mobile device}}.
+I reverted this out of process close, but a few hours later M.Bitton {{diff2|1222619063|reclosed it}}. M.Bitton wasn't involved in the immediate dispute, but has been involved with the article, and has expressed strong opinions in past RfC's on related content ({{diff4|1221389913|old=1221396461|example}}).
-; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
-<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive431#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked) 15:42, 16 April 2021] Shirshore was reported for engaging in the same kind of disruptive POV edit warring behaviour on some of the same articles included in this report (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buuhoodle&diff=prev&oldid=1017953897&diffmode=visual]), as a result of the report they were blocked.
+This was a topic that was ripe for dispute resolution, with an RfC that had no issues sufficient to justify a premature close. Even if Makeandtoss and M.Bitton weren't involved it would have been a disruptive close, but it is particularly so because they were - by closing it early they have locked in a status quo that Makeandtoss explicitly favors and M.Bitton implicitly favors.
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
-<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
+This was discussed previously at [[User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#Involved_editors_repeatedly_shutting_down_RFC_prematurely|ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page]], and then further at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment#Clarification_request:_Palestine-Israel_articles_4|ARCA]], where {{noping|Barkeep49}} said they {{tq|take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC}}, and recommended bringing it here.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirshore&diff=1017997888&oldid=1017975954&diffmode=source Alerted about discretionary sanctions on 20:12, 15 April 2021]
+I also [[User_talk:M.Bitton#RfC_close_at_Israel-Hamas_war|requested that M.Bitton]] revert their close; they declined to do so.
-; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
-<!-- Add any further comment here -->
-Editor has been engaging in disruptive editing for sometime within the Horn of Africa space, particularly within Somaliland/Somalia articles. Their edit summaries indicate they are only interested in pushing a specific viewpoint and are more than willing to erase sourced content they dont like using "derogatory" as justification (e.g. from 2019: {{tq|Removed derogatory and inflammatory material on the Derivsh period. <u>This material, although sourced cannot be allowed on Wikipedia</u>.}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhulbahante&diff=prev&oldid=915575384&diffmode=source], vs 2022: {{tq|Removed derogatory content which belittles group concerned. <u>This demeaning content should not be allowed on Wikipedia</u>}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dhulbahante&diff=prev&oldid=1079015591&diffmode=source]. Please see [[User_talk:Kzl55#Dhulbahante_-_Dervish_Period.]] for a discussion in which this behaviour was discussed and Wikipedia guidelines were explained to them. They've been sanctioned last year for the the same disruptive edit warring behaviour [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AShirshore][[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RRArchive431#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked)|#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Dabaqabad_(Result:_Blocked)]].
-They do not seem to care all that much for edit-warring warnings as they have gone back to edit warring within minutes of the notice [[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirshore&diff=1078083255&oldid=1077418880]], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sool&diff=1078094126&oldid=1078082376&diffmode=source].They are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. As such I request a [[WP:NOTHERE]] ban, failing that I think a permanent topic ban from Horn-related articles is the minimum necessary sanction. Kind regards -- [[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 01:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
-* Seems like the discussion was automatically archived by a bot, as such I've restored it pending a decision from admins. Best regards --[[User:Kzl55|Kzl55]] ([[User talk:Kzl55|talk]]) 00:39, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
-; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
-[[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Shirshore&diff=1079102506&oldid=1079102176&diffmode=source]]
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-===Discussion concerning Shirshore===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by Shirshore====
-The content removed is derogatory and inflammatory towards the group concerned. I don’t believe such content should be on Wikipedia, it can be deemed abusive should be removed off the platform. However, if other editors believe it to be constructive I will cease editing. Regards
-* I don’t think there is need for a topic ban or a block. Since my editing has been received as disruptive I can simply cease editing controversial issues to avoid conflict before consensus is reached with other editors. I think my contribution to the project overall has been constructive and I have helped improve the quality of articles concerning the Horn of Africa in general. I have a lot of knowledge on the region and ultimately I seek to dispense that in a neutral and balanced manner for readers. Unfortunately, I see that many articles have evolved to form a bias towards one entity over another, and my endeavours to correct that has been misconstrued by editors who consent to that bias, hence this engagement here. Nevertheless, I’m more familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and I intend to observe them in all my edits in the future. I’m not here to be disruptive, I’m here to contribute to the platform in a meaningful way. Kind regards!
-====Statement by Freetrashbox====
-I don't disagree with TBAN because I have several problems with Shirshore's edits, especially [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Buuhoodle&diff=next&oldid=1078968496 this one]. However, the same goes for Kzl55 and Jacob300 for joining in the editing battle.  It is clear from the [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14114727 BBC] and [https://www.voanews.com/a/official-clash-between-somaliland-and-puntland-leaves-4-dead/4394682.html VOA] articles that these areas are disputed areas. Kzl55 and Jacob300 are clearly violating WP:POV and there is no doubt that their edits are frustrating their opponents. I have had several dialogues with Jacob300, but they simply repeat their arguments with the latest version fixed to their preferred edit (and their logic is that "as long as no consensus has been formed, the current version should be adopted,") and I rarely feel that a consensus can be formed in a dialogue with them. It would induce hasty and emotional editing. If their editorial attitude is not changed, it seems likely that similar examples will follow. I have been a long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia, but the situation in this topic on the English Wikipedia is extraordinary.--[[User:Freetrashbox|Freetrashbox]] ([[User talk:Freetrashbox|talk]]) 21:36, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
-'''Additional comment''' {{ping|El C}} I re-read my post above, and I apologize for the content that could be taken to suggest that the English Wikipedia is inferior to the Japanese version. I mainly translate English Wikipedia articles into Japanese version, and I browse in a wide range of fields, including science, culture, geography, and history. Compared to those, there are many editorial battles in this field to rewrite A into B (and B into A), and the articles are not being enriched in spite of this. Editorial battles are generally caused by both sides. I think it is good idea that both be mentioned jointly, but it seems to me that this is being rejected by both sides participating in this field in the Somaliland/Somalia(Puntland) capacity.--[[User:Freetrashbox|Freetrashbox]] ([[User talk:Freetrashbox|talk]]) 08:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by (username)====
-<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
-===Result concerning Shirshore===
-:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
-<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
-*Recommend an indef [[WP:BROADLY]] [[WP:TBAN]]. Even though editing [[WP:HORN]] pages is all {{u|Shirshore}} appears to do on the project, so I'm not sure how open they'd be to that, still, at a minimum, I believe this is what's required to curb the disruption. If they are able to edit productively elsewhere for, say, 6 months,  appealing this sanction would have a fair chance of success. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:56, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
-:*There was also a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=1028901523#User:Shirshore_reported_by_User:Jacob300_(Result:_Shirshore_and_Dabaqabad_warned;_Jacob300_cautioned) June AN3 report (warned)] and I think their talk page speaks for itself. They have made 7 edits between Aug 2021 and Jan 2022. Anyway, there needs to be strong assurances, at this point, I think (I've yet to see any at any point), which a TBAN is the ultimate test of. I still think it's due. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 14:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
-::*{{u|Freetrashbox}}, excuse me if I take {{tq|long-time participant in the Japanese Wikipedia}} with an extra grain of salT, knowing what I know about the alarming extent of historical revisionism on that language project. Anyway, the general convention on the [[English Wikipedia|''English'' Wikipedia]] is to refer to ''de facto'' independent (self-declared) states by their own names rather than the countries from which they had separated from.
-:::[[Somalia]] vs [[Somaliland]] naming conventions disruption had been a perennial problem on Wikipedia for as long as I can remember. Now, wrt the [[Puntland–Somaliland dispute]], maybe Somalia and Somaliland could both be mentioned jointly in the [[Sanaag]] and [[Sool]] infoboxes, as a compromise. It doesn't necessarily need to be either or, all or nothing, etc. But that discussion needs to, well, exist. It needs to have the ''foundation'' to exist. A foundation which [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] editing work very much against. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
-*This is two cases of edit warring on two article in a couple of days.  Not sure I would jump to a topic ban just yet, although I understand if that is how it goes.   Their last (and only) block was by {{u|EdJohnston}} in August of last year for 72 hours for similar.   Being that this is in such a short period of time, and I think their intentions are good (although their execution is horrible), I would be more inclined to issue a strong block, one week, standard admin action, then go to a topic ban if this continues (3rd strike).  I don't think this is a matter of someone who is inclined to be disruptive, but rather, someone who gets something in their mind and won't let it go; a habit they need to break.  They also need to read [[WP:BRD]], ie: if you are the one trying to introduce new material, YOU are the one that needs to go to the talk page after you are reverted, then build consensus.  Or accept you don't have consensus.  In other words, take your own advice.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sanaag&diff=1078046682&oldid=1078038407]  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 14:08, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
-**Those are two very valid points, I had missed the prior warning.  I have to admit, I'm a bit warmer to the idea of a topic ban now, particularly give the limited scope. The warning was appropriate in that episode was not the most egregious violation of edit warring, but the same problem was going on, a fundamental misunderstanding (or flat out ignoring) of [[WP:BRD]].  Again, I'm not against the topic ban so much I like trying to be less aggressive, but you do make a strong case for a tban. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 15:44, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
-*I hate to admit it, but I'm coming down on the side of a TBAN. The chronic edit warring is pretty clearly disruptive, and it's gone on for long enough. [[User:The Blade of the Northern Lights|The Blade of the Northern Lights]] ([[User talk:The Blade of the Northern Lights#top|<span style="font-family: MS Mincho; color: black;">話して下さい</span>]]) 02:21, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
-*I think El_C's proposal seems the best option here.  A [[WP:TBAN|topic ban]] from all editing related to the [[Horn of Africa]] region, broadly construed, with an appeal possible in six months.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 13:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-==Reasoned Inquiry==
-{{hat|No AE-enforcement action needed at this time, though Reasoned Inquiry is cautioned that dominating talk page conversations, per [[WP:BLUDGEON]], is frowned upon, and may lead to behavioral sanctions in the future. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 12:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)}}
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning Reasoned Inquiry===
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tgeorgescu}} 18:25, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Reasoned Inquiry}}<p>{{ds/log|Reasoned Inquiry}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION]]
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
-[[WP:ARBPS]] and [[WP:ARBCAM]]
-; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
-#{{diff2|1080821896}} 3 April 2022 Does not heed [[WP:DROPTHESTICK]]
-#{{diff2|1080827221}} 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of [[WP:AE]]
-#{{diff2|1080827635}} 3 April 2022 Does not heed hint of [[WP:AE]]
 ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
+Makeandtoss:
-<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
+#{{diff2|1180149051|20:45, 14 October 2023}} Page blocked from [[Israel-Hamas war]] and its talk page for 48 hours, for {{tq|disingenuous edit summaries, edit warring, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground}}
+#{{diff2|1199319744|19:38, 26 January 2024}} Warned for edit warring, including at [[Israel-Hamas war]]
+M.Bitton:
+#No relevant sanctions
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
+Makeandtoss:
-<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
-* {{diff2|1078138061}} Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
+*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on {{diff2|790067168|11:32, 11 July 2017}} (see the system log linked to above).
+M.Bitton
+*Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on {{diff2|1212196061|16:20, 6 March 2024}}
 ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+:{{ping|Black Kite}} In accordance with [[WP:RFCST]], which permits editors to sign RfC statements with only a timestamp, I never sign RfC's I start - even ones like [[WP:LUGSTUBS2]], which almost everyone will already know who opened.
-<!-- Add any further comment here -->
+:I do this because I believe perceptions of the editor who opened the RfC may influence how editors perceive the RfC, and I don't believe that is beneficial to the process. As for the reverts, I made them because given that editors are explicitly permitted to not add their signature, I didn't believe it was appropriate for another editor to insist that they do, particularly given we generally have very strict prohibitions on editing another editors comments.
+:This isn't the first time that I've had a signature added, but normally editors accept when I revert them and explain that editors are not required to sign statements - this is the first time someone has tried to edit-war a signature in. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 14:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-{{re|Reasoned Inquiry}} You were not uncivil. You were just doing [[WP:PUSH]]. [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  13:09, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
+:{{ping|Seraphimblade}} To avoid any misunderstanding, I just wanted to say that I don't intend to start putting my username on any RfC's I start, regardless of how controversial - and personally, I would see this as one of the less controversial ones I've started. Editors are is [[WP:RFCST|permitted]] to do this, and there are [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Signing_an_RfC|valid reasons]] for not wanting to do so - and many experienced editors don't.
+:Regarding whether it was premature, I note that the two discussions I linked above are just a small fraction of the total number of discussions on this content; other examples include:
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 22#"Per the Gaza Health Ministry"]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 23#Casualty count]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 34#Hamas exaggeration in the lead]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 33#"Hamas-controlled" attribution]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 35#RfC on including casualty template in lede]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 27#First para including number of Palestinian children killed]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 42#Include number of women killed in lead?]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 37#Lede addition suggestion, 20-30% of all Hamas fighters killed so far]]
+:#[[Talk:Israel–Hamas war/Archive 42#9,000 militants]]
+:#etc
+:In addition, the content had been re-added and removed many times; I believed and still believe that it was time to hold an RfC and settle the debate.
+:Finally, I think it would be helpful to clarify whether it is appropriate for other editors to add a user name to an RfC they didn't start. My understanding is that it is not; that it is a violation of talk page guidelines, and that it adds heat to a debate. Perhaps if involved editors have concerns about an RfC being unsigned they should be advised to contact the editor who started it to attempt to resolve those concerns, and if that attempt fails contact an uninvolved admin? [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
+::Regarding other disruption, there have been issues with them slow-motion edit warring, misleadingly citing [[WP:BURDEN]] in edit summaries, [[WP:1RR]] gaming, and [[WP:1RR]] violations.
+::This slow-motion edit warring includes doing so against attributing the number of casualties in the lede, a question that was in the RfC that Makeandtoss shut down - I would personally be less concerned about it, given the glacial pace, absent that context:
+::# {{diff2|1224764300|09:30, 20 May 2024}}
+::# {{diff2|1221366758|14:24, 29 April 2024}} (removed citing [[WP:BURDEN]]; however, the source attributed the figures to the Gaza Health Ministry)
+::# {{diff2|1218720504|12:03, 13 April 2024}} (described the edit as "recently added nonsense")
+::The rest I can also present, but I need additional words and diffs to do so; may I have them? Some of them are older, but they all occurred after their most recent warning. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+Makeandtoss:
+*{{diff2|1223128108|02:13, 10 May 2024}}
+M.Bitton:
+*{{diff2|1223128106|02:13, 10 May 2024}}
 <!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
-{{diff2|1080830029}} [[User:tgeorgescu|tgeorgescu]] ([[User talk:tgeorgescu|talk]])  18:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 <!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-===Discussion concerning Reasoned Inquiry===
+===Discussion concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
+<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by Reasoned Inquiry====
+====Statement by Makeandtoss====
-I'll try to keep this statement as lean as possible.  I see a big misunderstanding of my conduct in the electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page surrounding this AE action.
+As evidenced by BilledMammal's own links above, there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points, nor was there any attempt at conflict resolution that are outlined in [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], which considers RFC a last option due to its time-consuming nature.
+What I did was simply strike through the RFC, an action that was easily reverted, and I stopped and did not take it further. It would be disingenuous to claim that I had closed it, an irreversible action. Nevertheless, I will ensure to ask an uninvolved administrator to do this in upcoming incidents, which is indeed a better course of action.
-My intention was certainly not to indulge in argumentation.  I used the talk page solely for the purpose of ''engaging discussion'' about the ''substance'' of my position.  My position was entirely misrepresented over the course of the discussion and my activity in the talk page represents my failed attempts to correct this view with my interlocutors.  I use reason/logic to clarify misunderstandings generally because it seems to be the ideal way of making that happen.  I intend no antagonism with this; I simply have a style that relies on it, hence my handle name.
+That aside, this seems like an attempt to deflect from BilledMammal's own editing behavior, as they created the RFC in non-neutral phrasing without signing it, and then went ahead to vote with a signature, which creates a misleading first impression. Not to mention BilledMammal's edit warring by reverting other editors four times within the course of two hours relating to this incident: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1222600849&oldid=1222592454 ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1222614689&oldid=1222614433 ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1222615354&oldid=1222615173 ], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1222616622&oldid=1222616211 ].
-Blatant misrepresentations are demonstrated with invocations of [[Wikipedia:Exceptional claims|WP:EXCEPTIONAL]].  This standard is unclear outside the implication that "EHS has a scientific basis" is a part of my claim. It is not a part of my claim and I further rule it out specifically here:
+I sincerely hope to see the day when editors are more interested in constructively contributing to Wikipedia than taking editors they disagree with to AE every time something happens. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 10:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1079391133&oldid=1079340077&title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity]
+:I just realized BM has been banned from the article for a week for edit warring, so to add to M.Bitton's statement below, this now worryingly seems more like a [[Samson#death|Samson's death]] kind of situation. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 13:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-Here are the responses from @tgeorgescu and @Alexbrn that appeared ''after'' this comment, implying my claim meets criteria as an exceptional claim in some way:
+{{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} and {{ping|Seraphimblade}} First, thanks for the concerns. To add some context in response: I was blocked from that article on 14 October 2023, back when things were heated, and back when I did not completely understand what constitutes 1RR; I also wasn't able to appeal that 48 hour ban because it had passed while I was appealing. As for the second "sanction" on that article, I was '''warned''' for "'''slow motion''' edit warring" on that article backing in January 2024; because I had edited the same sentence multiple times in the lede over a few months according to developments on the talk page. Since then I have taken immense care to abide strictly by the guidelines at the article and across the topic.
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=next&oldid=1079391133]
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=next&oldid=1079513042]
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=prev&oldid=1079921903]
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=next&oldid=1079533594]
+My constructive and collaborative editing at the [[Israel-Hamas war]] article almost non-stop over the past seven months is evidenced by the fact that [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war I am the third top editor by # of edits on the article having added 50k bytes] and [https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war the 5th top editor on the talk page having added 70k bytes]. Editing such a high-level and sensitive article while maintaining calm is not an easy task. Of course, striking through that RFC was a trout, which I have already pledged on SFR's talk page that it would not be repeated. The purpose of AE is to remedy behavior and not to punish editors. I really hope that a more balanced view of my editing is taken and that this minor mistake is not taken out of proportion. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
-'''My position is that science has not cast a judgment against EHS'''[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity&diff=prev&oldid=1078802716] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1079391133&oldid=1079340077&title=Talk:Electromagnetic_hypersensitivity] and that's the only basis for my proposed edit.  So I do not understand why my position was not considered as such.
+:{{ping|Seraphimblade}} Of course, rules indeed apply to everyone, that is why I have tried my best to abide by all the guidelines. I did not know however that striking through an RFC would be a violation, which in that case I would have never done it. Even after being reverted, I let it go and did not pursue it further, as {{ping|Valereee}} pointed out about the RFC's signing. And immediately after being notified by {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}} on their talk page, who thankfully gave a better alternative of seeking uninvolved administrators' intervention, I pledged there that this mistake not be repeated. Looking back, now that I understand the issues surrounding it, it was definitely a mistake that should not have occurred, and for that I sincerely apologize. I believe that a heavy sanction would only prevent good contributions rather than the noble and very important goal of remedying any bad. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 13:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-This brings me to the subject of consensus, which I felt was far from clear cut due to these circumstances.  This was the spirit of the message I intended to convey to @Meters, (albeit I did not express it well). I did not mean to dismiss @Meters' point, although I see how I might have accidentally allowed that to happen.  Generally, I agree with the points they made.
+::{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} Thanks for weighing in. My perspective regarding the previous cases can be found above at the 09:30, 15 May 2024 (UTC) comment.
+::{{ping|Ealdgyth}} And thank you as well for weighing in. I only became very involved in this topic area recently, but I spent most of the past ten years editing [[Jordan]]-related articles, and I am aware of best editing practices. The whole approach was indeed not ideal, in a controversial article and tricky situation, but I am determined to ensure this never happens again. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 13:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{ping|Valereee}} I am extremely, deeply and absolutely aware of that. Again, I sincerely apologize for that mistake and vow that it would never be repeated again, and also to do my best to avoid any similar mistakes. You have my word for it. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 18:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+{{ping|Newyorkbrad}} I really appreciate the chance to present my perspective, and {{ping|ScottishFinnishRadish}}'s comment that shows their genuine dedication to handling this request appropriately.
-I hope this message helps.  [[User:Reasoned Inquiry|Reasoned Inquiry]] ([[User talk:Reasoned Inquiry|talk]]) 16:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
+First, note that the [[Israel-Hamas war]] article sees dozens of edits every day, and numerous discussions. Over the course of months this accumulates and gets inevitably confusing for everyone, especially as the ideas or edits are sometimes discussed in different phrasings or closely resemble one another.
-:Allow me to add my views on [[WP:TALKDONTREVERT]]: <u>"Editors with good social skills and good negotiation skills are more likely to be successful than those who are less than civil to others."</u>  I have poor social and negotiation skills since this essentially comes with the territory of having autism spectrum disorder.  Having been put in opposition to being "less than civil" tells me Wikipedia might understand my nature as being uncivil.  I try very hard to be fair with representing other views accurately and respond in kind.  None of this is challenged by the specifics of the AE action (with the possible exception of my response to @[[User:Meters|Meters]], partly because my message was poorly expressed, and partly because I thought their first-time appearance very late into the discussion meant they might not have been aware of certain details, which does not convey in a standalone diff). By all appearances, I communicate in a style editors do not want since the minor mistakes I make as a newcomer to Wikipedia take the spotlight over the clear misrepresentations from @[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] and @[[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]].  I write long messages -while rooted in concise language- so that I am not misunderstood; but it happens anyway.  I have no idea what I'm supposed to learn from this AE action outside the basic instruction not to pursue this anymore, as though there were some general assumption I want to violate the policies/guidelines/etcetera (and would attempt this in the future by reopening discussion).  I do not have this intent and I would like to know why my conduct is being seen as a potential problem.  There is more I could discuss; but I do not want to bother the admins with additional long messages.  I hope this message helps ''me''. [[User:Reasoned Inquiry|Reasoned Inquiry]] ([[User talk:Reasoned Inquiry|talk]]) 13:00, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
+* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_42#9,000_militants ] Here I specifically raised doubts about the 9,000 militants killed claim since it did not fully align with the Haaretz source cited. This is different from discussing if the number of killed militants should be included or not in the RFC's second question.
-::@[[User:Tgeorgescu|Tgeorgescu]] This is the first anyone in that discussion has mentioned [[WP:PUSH]], which I've never seen before now. [[User:Reasoned Inquiry|Reasoned Inquiry]] ([[User talk:Reasoned Inquiry|talk]]) 14:46, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
+* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_42#Include_number_of_women_killed_in_lead? ] This took place on 20 March, two months before the RFC on 6 May; and it related to if the number of women should be included in lede. This is a bit different from the number of both women and children and also how these numbers are presented as the RFC's third question relates to.
+*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war/Archive_42#Majority_of_killed_Palestinians_are_women_and_children ] Indeed, here, it was related to the RFC's third question, but that month-old discussion that I had created on 29 April did not strike me at that moment as being relevant to the overall situation.
+The fact that I have created or engaged in these discussions shows my good faith and collaborative approach. In summary, this unfortunate incident took place in a sensitive RFC opened controversially and in a sensitive and highly active article. I accordingly made a hasty decision, to which I apologize about and vow that it would not be repeated. A lot of lessons learnt here: to specifically never strike through or remove any RFC; and more generally, to demonstrate greater patience, to put in greater efforts to examine similar situations, and to never act in haste.
-====Statement by (username)====
-<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+As for the separate older incident with Number57 on 1 January, I did not say in the edit summary that no discussion had taken place, but that the RFC went against [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], which states that if a dispute is between two editors they should seek [[WP:Third opinion]] first. After I removed the RFC, another third editor agreed with Number57's edit and disagreed with mine, and I stopped and did not take the issue further. Again, I was only made aware of the issues surrounding removing an RFC only after the recent incident. [[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]] ([[User talk:Makeandtoss|talk]]) 23:23, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-===Result concerning Reasoned Inquiry===
-:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
-<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
-*Reasoned Inquiry has not edited the article [[Electromagnetic hypersensitivity]]. (They are autoconfirmed, so not prevented from editing it.) They're certainly argumentative on the talkpage, and the sheer mass of their posts is more of a problem than Tgeorgescu's three diffs above, in my opinion. Being unimpressed by hints of AE is no wikicrime. (Just brushing off  {{u|Meters}}'s very reasonable point[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1080682024&diff=1080683739] is not a good look, though). But I don't see any of it as rising to a discretionary sanction. Why doesn't one of you guys just close the thread with a note about the (obvious) consensus? If RI then starts another long argument about a similar wording change, [[WP:BLUDGEON]] may come into play. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 21:31, 3 April 2022 (UTC).
-*I agree with Bishonen's analysis. The talkpage discussion has been closed, so hopefully the matter is now resolved. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-{{hab}}
+====Statement by M.Bitton====
-==David Gerard==
+I already [[Special:Diff/1222950926|explained]] the close when asked by ScottishFinnishRadish, so I won't repeat it here. I also wasn't involved in any of the discussions that led to RfC. Frankly, this report raises more questions than answers: if BilledMammal was really interested in SFR's advice, then why did they ignore it and why did they ignore the question that SFR asked them (about how to best formulate the RFC)? Someone who's starting a RfC for the benefit of the project would have no issue with what SFR suggested (working with others), but I guess that wasn't what they were after. Approaching me four days later with an ultimatum doesn't strike me as very constructive, especially considering the fact that I chose not to report them for violating 1RR multiples times. Bringing it to AE after raising it with SFR is just plain forum shopping. [[User:M.Bitton|M.Bitton]] ([[User talk:M.Bitton|talk]]) 11:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+====Statement by Nableezy====
-{{hat|Not a violation.  Everyone seems to be on the same page now, so closing without action. I do recommend discussing the source's suitability (reliability) at the proper venue.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 20:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)}}
+I dont think it was a good idea to shut down the RFC. But on the process, if a user is blocked from a page for edit-warring, are they allowed to pursue dispute resolution related to that page while blocked? Or is that not similar to an editor violating a topic ban by making a report about the topic? '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  13:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
+:But the edit-warring was on this talk page, and they are blocked from the talk page. But its your world boss. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  13:25, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+:Zero, you missed where they also [[Special:Diff/1222616622|moved a signed comment]], which somehow isnt a TPO violation while adding an unsigned template supposedly is. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  13:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+:@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] nobody edited the signature, I added an {{t|unsigned}} template and when that was reverted a note, with my own signature, as to who started the RFC. Who started an RFC ''shouldnt'' matter, but when there is a dispute about the neutrality of the prompt then it obviously ''does'' matter. And, as [[WP:TPO]] says, attributing unsigned comments is perfectly acceptable. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  15:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+::Barkeep, that is not true, my initial edits were only adding an unsigned template. When that was reverted (twice) I added my own comment. Why exactly is BM moving my comment to place that decontextualized it entirely not a TPO violation? But what that portion of TPO is about is "attributing" comments, which is not simply a date and timestamp but also, obviously, a username. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  16:19, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+:SFR, as far as I can see one editor "edit-warred" over this, not a bunch, unless you want to make the leap that a single revert is now "edit-warring". '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  16:21, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+:The way I see this is that BM attempted to have basically a first mover's advantage here. He created an RFC that had not had any input from anybody else, he left the prompt unsigned, and then he answered that RFC immediately. Other editors who had differing views would not have been prepared with sources and arguments the way he was to present his view. And given how RFCs attract views from uninvolved users who may not be as familiar with the universe of sources available as the editors involved in the dispute but rather often rely on the RFC arguments to formulate their view, he was giving himself the advantage of both framing the dispute and further presenting his own views unchallenged to any editors who were brought to the RFC through the normal means. The very least that should be done there is to inform others of the fact that the framing and the initial, prepared in advance, argument offered are by the same person. '''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17;font-size:90%">nableezy</span>]]''' -  16:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
+====Statement by Selfstudier====
-===Request concerning David Gerard===
+My sole contribution to the RFC was to add the comment "+1. Not signed either." to Makeandtoss rejection of it, the RFCbefore being unspecified as well as a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments that had not produced the desired outcome from the openers perspective, awkwardly lumped together in a single RFC. I sympathize with the frustration that led to its untimely closure and frankly think that complainant should devote some effort to figuring out ways to spend less time at this board. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 13:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Nableezy}} 14:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
+:{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}}  {{tq|Seems it can't be both}} Well, it can, I speak as someone familiar with the article and its history, what I mean is that those prior discussions were nowhere apparent at the RFC or even on the talk page, it being usual to specify an RFCbefore detailing them. I can try to locate the multiplicity of them in the talk page archives if desired, I assume OP knows where they are? [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|David Gerard}}<p>{{ds/log|David Gerard}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+::{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} {{tq| does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion?}} That's the point, it is valid and that's why editors taking part in an RFC need to know about those discussions, generally I would link them as part of an RFC(before) Not all editors are aware of prior discussions of which there may have been several.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 15:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions]]
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+:::{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}}  {{tq|Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement?}} From where I'm sitting, which is quite frequently on the opposite side of the table from complainant, that thought is one step removed from what I see as the actual source of the problem, namely the opening of that particular RFC in that particular way in the first instance, then persisting with it when three editors came out strongly against the process. I would not personally have closed out the RFC but I don't disagree with it either, I think complainant should have done so themselves and we wouldn't be here, not for this at any rate. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:22, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+:Since the question was put:
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
+:[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration/Article_alerts/Archive_1#RfC If this is a complete list of topic area closed  RFCs] then
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=prev&oldid=1080996619  17:45, 4 April 2022‎] previously removed this source [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051594844&oldid=1036641810 here] and reverted [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=next&oldid=1051594844 here] making this the first revert
+:there were two RFCs opened by complainant in that category, [[Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell#RfC on infobox image]] on 1 March, plus the current example.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=prev&oldid=1081010732 19:18, 4 April 2022] Second reflexive revert within 2 hours of the first
+:In the current RFC category, taken from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Israel_Palestine_Collaboration#Articles_within_scope here], there is [[Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war#RFC: Primary title and alt titles in :the lede]] opened on 12 April.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=1081133174&oldid=1081129612 Refused to self-revert]
+:The other two were also not signed. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 14:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
+:{{Re|Newimpartial}} (and {{Re|Seraphimblade}}), there is a current discussion about the signing/not signing thing [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Signing an RfC]] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 22:35, 14 May 2024 (UTC)´
-; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
-N/A
+:It should not set a precedent, but given all the circumstances, I suggest treating the RFC close as procedural in this particular instance. [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+:{{Re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} Makeandtoss was imo correct to say that there had been no discussion in the sense of an RFCbefore, the RFC just came out of the blue and did not reference any prior discussions.[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 18:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
-*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=1030504329&oldid=1030415200 here]
+====Statement by Zero0000====
-; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+While BM is technically correct that an RfC does not have to be signed, when one of the principle disputants on a topic starts an RfC with their own preferences highlighted it is at least a very bad look if they refuse to have their name on it. And I mean "refuse", since BM [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1222614689 twice] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel–Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1222615354 deleted] a signature that was added using <nowiki>{{unsigned}}</nowiki>. If there is a positive explanation for that I didn't manage to think of it. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 13:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-I know David is a popular person around these parts, I know his crusade against sources he finds subpar to have varying levels of support. But [[Benny Morris]] is very obviously among the five best sources for [[Palestinian right of return]] and calling him "extremist" or "fringe" is either over the line or nudging up against the line of a BLP violation. Im sure he will say things like "white nationalist blog", but Morris was responding to somebody else in the same forum his views were attacked, and if Morris were to write his views on a soiled piece of toilet paper and sign his name to it that would still be a usable source here. Regardless, that is a question for the talk page or RSN, neither of which Mr Gerard has seen fit to consult. Instead, as per the usual MO, edit warring to [[WP:RGW]] without paying even the tiniest bit of attention to what it is he is removing. This is a clear 1RR violation, one in which the editor has refused to self-revert, and it should be met with a block or topic ban
-:Dennis, I call it a revert because it was David who previously removed it and had it restored. I dont know how one can claim they can repeat an edit they've previously made and had reverted anything other than a revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 14:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-Also, for the record, and for why the removal of the is improper, there is now in our article a direct quote to Morris, "who had just attacked the Jewish community", which is not in what is now the only source cited ([https://www.haaretz.com/1.5262428 this interview in Haaretz]). The quote is from the now expunged source, making David's edit an issue of source falsification in which we claim a quote is available in a source which does not contain it. Making this just the latest example of this editor recklessly and carelessly removing things they have not even pretended to look at. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-:I dont intend to engage in the silliness about arguing whether or not [[Benny Morris]] is a reliable source, since that is an abjectly absurd argument to have, but this is a simple issue of counting. Can David remove something, be reverted, and then come back some months later to remove it again and that not be a revert? Or is an editor periodically returning to make the same edit that has previously been contested a revert? I think it obvious given his removal in October that the first removal yesterday was a revert and his second removal yesterday his second revert. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 15:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-{{u|Newyorkbrad}} could you please explain how [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=prev&oldid=1080996619 this] repetition of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051594844&oldid=1036641810 this previous removal] is not a revert? Genuinely curious as to how that is possible, because there are a number of edits Ive made 6 months ago I could repeat if they are no longer reverts. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 16:05, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-:{{u|Newyorkbrad}} normally I would agree with you 6 months is plenty long to ignore, except for the fact that it is David repeating his own edit. If this had been removed by some other person back in October then sure calling it a revert would be a stretch. But when David repeats his own edit, an edit that was reverted, I dont see how one can claim that is not a revert. You are essentially, if this is to be carried out with any consistency, allowing users to periodically return with a new first-movers advantage to push their view through edit-warring. As far as a "better source", there is no better source for Morris' own views than Morris himself, even if he is writing in a less than reputable publication. I agree it should be discussed on the talk page, a place David has never found himself. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 16:21, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-Um the two reverts I am listing here are two hours apart, not 6 months apart. I feel like I am in crazy town here. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 16:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-:{{u|Jayron32}} if that is the definition decided here then fine, but then expect any repeated edit I make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert". You are opening things up to all sorts of gaming here by restoring a first-movers advantage to somebody who just waits some period of time to return their contested edits. As far as the claim of "hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart", a the edit in question from October is in the last fifteen edits of that page, and b. I saw it at the time and raised it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051828514 here] then, with David at the time seeming to acknowledge his error in removing it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051829275 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1051830755 here]. I didnt have to hunt through anything, I just had to remember the last time he pulled this crap.  <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:00, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-:So let me get this straight, "After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit." only applies in this specific instance with this specific editor? That isnt a definition of anything, it is just how the interpretation this one specific instance, [[Bush v Gore|never to be referenced again as though it applies in any other situation with the exact same sequence]]? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:30, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-:No Jayron, I am not twisting anything at all by quoting you. By saying I will accept the precedent established that an edit repeated after six months is not a revert I am not announcing an intent to game the system. Odd for somebody to write [[WP:AGF]] as often as it appears in your comments to then repeatedly assume my bad faith. If an edit six months apart is not a revert by an admin then I will expect that same determination for edits six months apart by anybody else. Unless you really would like to more formally declare that admins are indeed covered by a "rules for thee but not for me" policy. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 17:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-:It is not this one admin said this one time, it would be if a consensus here finds that an edit repeated after 6 months is not a revert, then I would expect that consensus to stand for future such edits. Here we have David making an edit, being reverted, then re-doing his edit 6 months later. With multiple admins claiming that the intervening six months makes it so that this restoring of his preferred version is not a revert. If that is the case for David it should be the case for everybody else. This game of we dont establish precedents and I wont be held accountable for my positions in the future very obviously leads to an unfair and unjust system in which different users are treated in different ways for objectively the same actions. Do you really feel that is acceptable? I do not. So yes, if the consensus of this discussion is that 6 months time wipes away the status of revert for repeating ones edit then I will expect that same treatment. Obviously since I am not one of the anointed ones with the bit I may not get that treatment, but I sure as hell will be referencing the hypocrisy of such a decision if it does not hold. You cant just say for David returning after six months negates any status of a revert but for me it would be gaming. That is unfair and unjust and it is not sealioning to say so. We are all supposed to follow the same rules of the road here. You cant say well David didnt blow a red light for six months so this first rolling stop is not going to be counted against him, but for others (me) no such deference will be given. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 18:31, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-Thanks Dennis, I appreciate your kind tone (and Floqs and NYB for that matter), and I am fine with that honestly, I just find it to be opening things up to game-playing, but so long as there is consistency in that definition of a revert for all of us then Im cool with it. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">'''[[User talk:Nableezy|<span style="color:#C11B17">nableezy</span>]]''' - 19:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)</small>
-; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:David_Gerard&diff=1081136231&oldid=1081134159 Notified]
+Just saying...[[WP:Signatures]] says "Typing five tildes will convert to a date stamp with the current date and time, '''without adding your signature'''". So, while it is true that five tildes are permitted in an RfC, it is arguable whether that counts as a signature for the purposes of TPO. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 01:24, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+====Statement by Newimpartial====
-===Discussion concerning David Gerard===
+In this instance I am uninvolved in the RfC (and am largely uninvolved in ARBPIA). I wanted to draw attention to BilledMammal's using their own !vote in their own RfC as evidence that it should remain open, which I take to be a rather peculiar argument. Of the other two !votes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1222509735 one] largely resisted the way the RfC was framed, while [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas_war&diff=prev&oldid=1222486691 the other] did accept the framing but only answered two of the four RfC questions.
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by David Gerard====
-This appears from the diffs provided to be a second revert within six months, not within 24 hours. Literally the ARBPIA ruling that Nableezy links says: {{tq|Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours}}. There is no case to answer here.
+So to me, BM's argument amounts to an assertion that the way it is framed makes sense to them (though others evidently disagree) and that they have voted in it therefore it must stay open. To insist on this, in spite of the lack of RFCBEFORE and quite evident flaws in the RfC's construction, strikes me as an attempted deployment of [[WP:BURO|bureaucratic proceduralism]] unworthy of BM or of enwiki in general.
-The source removed was from the white nationalist blog American Thinker. Although it hasn't been formally deprecated, I think it's jawdroppingly obvious that it's the sort of source that absolutely shouldn't be used in Wikipedia. [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_235#American_Thinker|Here's an RSN discussion from 2018]] setting out its issues, for example. This shouldn't even be a difficult call.
+To then "seek justice against one's enemies" ''(Plato, not a wikipedian)'' in this forum, after having been banned temporarily from the Talk page in question, seems to me like a failure of judgement given the overwhelming lack of support for BM's framing of the RfC in the first place. The only likely outcome of that RfC, given the responses to it on Talk and on SFR's Talk, was a "malformed RfC" outcome, and I don't see how devoting photons and editors' time to hashing out that outcome would have served anything but BURO. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 14:09, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-Even if Morris is a great source, that doesn't mean every instance of him saying things is a suitable source for Wikipedia use.
+:Sorry, {{u|Ealdgyth}} - "seek justice against one's enemies" was an allusion to Plato. I'll try refactoring to make this more clear. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 15:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-I note also that Nableezy is already constructing a conspiracy theory as to why his action here will fail, ''in the course of raising the action''.
+:To the uninvolved admin: BilledMammal has now expressed the intention od continuing to create RfCs without signing the RfC (and then presumably to !vote on them with a signature, thus obscuring the relationship between the RfC question and their !vote).
+:Therefore, to head off future disruption, I would appreciate clearly expressed opinion about whether it is appropriate to do so or whether this choice can be appropriately understood as disruptive. Comments to date have leaned towards BM's no-signature strategy being potentially disruptive (at least by my reading), but it would be great to have some more formal consideration before the next time a related confrontation occurs. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 22:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
+:Concerning [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1222515422 this edit summary], I have read it several times, and I am unable to interpret it as {{tq|disingenuous}}. I read "points" in the summary as meaning "proposals"  and I don't see how any of the proposals received an appropriate RFCBEFORE. For any that did, it seems to me that it was up to the person filing the RfC to document the BEFORE, in any case, so the interpretation that "these points/proposals did not receive a prior discussion that satisfies RFCBEFORE" strikes me as entirely ''reasonable'' even if others read the situation differently. I certainly don't see anything "disingenuous" about the summary, even though of course nobody INVOLVED ought to he closing anyone's RfC but their own. [[User:Newimpartial|Newimpartial]] ([[User talk:Newimpartial|talk]]) 19:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+====Statement by Number 57====
-In any case, we have the RS. If the quote isn't in that, remove the quote, don't put back the obviously terrible source - [[User:David Gerard|David Gerard]] ([[User talk:David Gerard|talk]]) 15:11, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
+I don't have a view on this particular situation, but for context, I thought it would be useful to flag up that I have also experienced Makeandtoss shutting down an RfC after others have commented (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bezalel_Smotrich&diff=next&oldid=1192844051 here]). [[User:Number 57|<span style="color: orange;">Number</span>]] [[User talk:Number 57|<span style="color: green;">5</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Number 57|<span style="color: blue;">7</span>]] 17:13, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
-====Statement by Kyohyi====
+====Statement by Alaexis====
-Completely uninvolved in terms of this dispute.  I'm just seeing some rather confounding comments by admins.  What is a revert is defined in policy, policy says to revert is to undo another editor's actions.  It does not give a time frame in which this has to happen.  If enforcing admins wish to include a time frame then they should be modifying the existing sanction, or seek to change policy language.  But to characterize the first revert on April 4th as a non-revert has no standing in policy.  --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 17:08, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-:The policy language is clear, to revert is to undo another editor's actions.  Period.  That's policy, as documented in [[WP: EW]].  Do these removals undo someone else's actions?  Obviously they do, since wikipedia articles and content are non-existant until someone creates them.  So someone added this, and David Gerard removed it.  That's a revert.  It doesn't get much more explicit than this.  (Using the undo button is obviously more explicit than this)--[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 17:34, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-:: The point I am making is that the look back time is irrelevant to how policy defines a revert.  That content exists on Wikipedia indicative of someone having added it.  Removing that content is always going to be a revert regardless of when the content was added.  That is because any removal is always an undoing of what someone else added.  And a revert is an undo of another editor's actions.  Policy is clear on this.  --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 17:40, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-::: Whether or not you choose to block the editor, or issue a warning, or do something else is your prerogative.  Whether or not something <b>is</b> a revert is documented in policy.  --[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 18:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-:::: Nobody is playing word games.  What is a revert, as well as it's exceptions are spelled out in our edit warring policy.  Whether or not a violation is worthy of a sanction is different from whether or not something was a violation in the first place.  Something that is a minor violation, but doesn't warrant a sanction, can come to warrant a sanction if continued over a prolonged period of time.  Something that isn't a violation at all should not.--[[User:Kyohyi|Kyohyi]] ([[User talk:Kyohyi|talk]]) 18:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
+Closing an RfP this way seems rather disruptive (per WP:RFC, {{tquote|An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be}}). Usually users unhappy with an RfC would !vote '''Bad RfC''' and explain their reasoning. Why couldn't it have been done in this case? [[User:Alaexis|Alaexis]]<sub>[[User_talk:Alaexis|¿question?]]</sub> 21:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
-====Statement by (username)====
-<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+====Statement by Iskandar323====
-===Result concerning David Gerard===
+It was a complex RFC from the get-go, and seemingly not prompted by sufficiently rigorous prior discussion so as to actually warrant such a complicated RFC (the only linked discussions are a couple that appear to have simply petered out). RFCs are by nature time consuming for the community, and can also hamstring routine discussion and editing but putting a freeze on any topic covered by the RFC until complete. It is not in the project's interest to have a proliferation of badly scripted, overly complex RFCs floating around, and closing such examples down is quite sensible from a [[WP:NOTBURO]] perspective. There aren't many other avenues open for nipping bad RFCs in the bud. If everyone just attends and votes "bad RFC" then that's time-consuming participation. Alternatively, editors could try to petition the admin noticeboard for an admin to strictly enforce [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], but if this is a routine action, it's not one that I've observed, even though [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] is in principle quite strict and, one might think, enforceable. This close was a no-nonsense attempt to strictly adhere to [[WP:RFCBEFORE]], and perhaps recourse to the admin board would have been a better option, but the intentions appear reasonable. It feels like the best way to deal with an RFC that fails [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] is actually a bit of a grey area, and one that perhaps needs better clearing up. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 02:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
-:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
-<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
-*Not sure I would call the first diff a "revert", since it was added Oct of 2021 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051988500&oldid=1051945378].  David first removed the source just before that latest addition, also in October [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Palestinian_right_of_return&diff=1051594844&oldid=1036641810]. David does seem to have an obvious problem with https://www.americanthinker.com, although I'm not sure if that is withing the remit of WP:AE.  I think it all boils down to whether you call that first edit a "revert" or not, and (again) since the edit was removing material that was inserted many months ago, I'm not sure.  At the very least, it does seem against the spirit of 1RR. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 14:44, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-::I understand your frustration {{u|nableezy}}, hence why I said it felt like it was against the spirit of the policy, but it is within policy.  {{u|Floquenbeam}} sums it up better than I did, below.  The first "reinstatement" (if we call it that) really wasn't a revert. There isn't a specific time that must pass before reinstating a prior edit isn't really a revert, but I'm pretty sure 6 months qualifies.  That means, from a technical perspective, we have one edit and 2 hours later, one revert, even if he does gain first mover advantage via 1RR.  But in the end, there is no violation.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 19:41, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*Not a comment on David's actions but it is important to remember that RSOPINION exists and thus regardless of the quality of the source, as long as it is not on a BLP, there is a potential to use that otherwise nonRS, but editors should discuss the expertness of the writer and whether the view merits DUE inclusion. Which is all stuff to debate on talk pages. --[[User:Masem|M<span style="font-variant: small-caps">asem</span>]] ([[User Talk:Masem|t]]) 15:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*No violation. In lieu of further reverts, please discuss use of this source on the talkpage. If this person's point of view is notable enough to include, shouldn't there be a better source for what his view is? [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 15:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-**{{ping|Nableezy}}Thank you for your question. It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report. As I mentioned above, the substantive issue here should be resolved by finding one or more additional sources of better quality, if available. This should be discussed on the talkpage. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 16:13, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*I'm with NYB here.  No violation.  The text of the arbitration sanction says "{{tq|Each editor is limited to one revert per page per 24 hours on any edits made to content within the area of conflict.}}"  While I would think that reverts that were close to, but slightly outside of 24 hours, might be "gaming the system", and could warrant something, reverts made ''6 months apart'' in no way represents a violation here.  I'm much more concerned that someone is hunting through someone's editing history, trying to play "gotcha" over edits half a year apart... --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*:@Nableezy: What I am saying is that your characterization of two edits separated by 6 months do not constitute a revert.  The 17:45 edit is not a revert under any normal understanding of the term.  After a 6 month difference, I think we can consider this a normal edit.  The only revert is then the 19:18 edit.  That is the first edit I would consider a revert for the purposes of XRR.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*::I'm not "defining" anything for any other purpose, nor establishing any rules here.  Rules get decided only by community consensus, and if you want to start a discussion elsewhere to establish consensus to establish parameters (up to and including no time limit), then feel free to have that discussion elsewhere.  We have no guidance on the matter, so we're left with assessing the situation on our own, and deciding what is the best way forward, with only [[WP:AGF]] and other similar rules as our guidance.  With the lens of "we have no rules on this" and "I don't see evidence of bad-faith acting here", I'm considering his first edit on the day in question a normal edit.  This is not a rule, and if you came in here tomorrow with another person in a different situation, the evidence may point in a different direction.  That would ''include'' statements that the person intended ahead of time to test the limits of admins patience by deliberately making two such edits 6 months apart, knowing ahead of time that this conversation had occurred.  Every situation is unique, and needs to be assessed on its own merits.  If you want a rule, do the work of establishing a new rule.  Don't make claims that "one time this one decision was made, so it's now a rule".  That's not how rules get made.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:24, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*:::No, and I must say Nableezy, this is becoming a [[Sealioning|sealion]] level of [[WP:BLUDGEON]], but I will try one last time to avert your deliberate twisting of my words.  A ''facile'' description of a situation, absence of context, is not a good way of solving problems.  Context matters, and simply saying there are two hypothetical situations where edits were made 6 months apart ''does not make the rest of the context around those situations'' the same.  It rarely is.  If faced with another case of such a situation, maybe the decision would go differently.  For example, if the person in question announced ahead of time they had intended to "{{tq| make 6 months after the last time it was attempted to be claimed to be an "edit" and not a "revert".}}" that is ''context'' for making a decision that would make ''that'' case different from ''this'' case.  See, in this case, we have no such intent to [[WP:GAME|game]] the system.  We merely have these edits, and have to make sense of what to do about them.  In this case, we have nothing more than these edits, and your characterization of them.  With all due respect, I tend to ignore ''anyone's'' characterization.  I look at the diffs.  The dates and times of the diffs lead me to the conclusion that this is not a violation.  If you have other diffs that act as evidence to change my opinion on the matter, please provide them, if you just have more assertions and your own characterizations, I've seen enough of those, TYVM, and I consider this my final analysis of the situation.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*::::This is not a court of law, we don't establish precedent.  We apply the principles of behavior at Wikipedia the best we can to allow smooth operation of the encyclopedia.  Don't try to read rules from these discussions.  I'm ''not'' a king.  I am ''not'' more important than you, or David, or anyone else.  I am providing my opinion on this matter.  My opinion, insofar as any decision is made on this matter based on it, only counts for this discussion here.  If you want to make a rule, there are ways to do that at Wikipedia, but "This one admin said this one time..." is not rulemaking.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:55, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*@Kyohyi Let me reiterate what NYB said, "{{tq|It may not be entirely clear how far back in an article-history one needs to look in evaluating whether an edit constitutes a "revert" in wiki-speak, but a look-back period of six months seems excessive to me. Even if others disagree and consider that there was a technical violation here, its borderline nature would still militate against enforcement action on this report.}}"  If other admins clearly disagree with us, I'm perfectly willing to abide by consensus here, and if there is consensus that NYB and I are out of order, I will abide by that consensus.  What we have is, in my perspective, a lack of guidance from the rules, which is to say that the rules are ''silent'' on the matter.  What you interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so the limit must go back forever", I interpret as "the rules don't say there's a limit, so we have no guidance and are working blind here".  When I don't have such clear rules, I fall back on more core principles, including [[WP:AGF]].  When I see a borderline or ambiguous case, as long as there is no evidence to the contrary, I lean towards AGF.  That's my statement on the matter. --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:32, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*:Context is always relevant, the notion that a "revert" in the spirit of "enabling a good editing environment" needs to be assessed, in context.  Under your limitless revert, an edit could have been made in 2006, undone in 2014, reinstated in 2019, and undone again in 2022, and now we're supposed to block that editor?  I'm going to be honest with you, and this is just me, I can't remember ''anything'' I was doing 6 months ago; much less any specific edits I may have made to one Wikipedia article.  Is this a revert?  I don't know.  So I need to go with [[WP:AGF]] here.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*::This isn't a place to play games with language.  This is a place to decide whether or not to block someone for something they did.  If the language I used gets in your way of understanding that, simply rewrite everything I already said, but replace any time I made you think I said "this isn't a revert" instead with the language "this revert is not worth counting for 1RR in this case".  The end result is exactly the same, and if that doesn't get you hung up on the language here, Kyohyi, it's all the same to me.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 18:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-*While I don't think I'd actually actively '''do''' anything different than Dennis, Brad, or Jayron here, because it's a little fuzzy, I do understand Nableezy's frustration.  I've noticed for a while - with no suggested resolution - that there is a tension between BRD and 1RR. If we assume David's first removal of the link was bold, then he violated BRD when he reverted Nableezy's revert.  But there's currently no sanction for doing that.  1RR in fact incentivizes breaking BRD.  So no matter how we define David's first edit to the page today - bold or revert - the second edit broke either 1RR or BRD, but Nableezy is trapped and has to accept the edit as the new status quo while discussion goes on.  And if the discussion results in no consensus, David's edit somehow becomes the de facto new default.  1RR definitely creates a first-mover advantage, which in most other areas of WP we tend to try to avoid.  This is reason #46 I seldom get involved in AE, because so often it relies on gamesmanship, and rewarding the person who plays the game better. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 17:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
-{{hab}}
+:I would second Makeandtoss' reminder that sanctions are too prevent not punish, and I see little merit in punishing them for this very one-off and unlikely to be repeated episode involving an RFC. It is not clear that anything here forms part of a pattern of abuse, and the dust has now settled on this incident. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:53, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
-==Veverve==
+:@[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]], @[[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]]: I would also second Vice Regent's exhortation to consider Makeandtoss' conduct in the context of their total contribution to the project. To sanction them would be punitive and with little merit. I certainly don't see how it would be preventative given both the one-off nature of this particular set of circumstances in this dispute, or given the comparative rarity of their disorderly conduct relative to their output. It would only punish the project. [[User:Iskandar323|Iskandar323]] ([[User talk:Iskandar323|talk]]) 15:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-{{hat|There's been a lot of ideas as to solutions, and we all agree on the problem.  At the end of the day, I think the best solution is to institute an indefinite topic ban for all topics relating to "Russia", broadly construed, for {{u|Veverve}}.  This includes talk pages or discussions anywhere on the Wiki, subject to the usual exceptions (appeals).  The scope was kind of tricky, as we aren't trying to overshoot the mark, yet it's unfair to have the scope too narrow or confusing as to invite more AE discussions as to what is and isn't a violation.  I think there is a clear consensus that Russia in general is the primary problem.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 14:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC) }}
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning Veverve===
+==== Statement by Kashmiri====
+I agree that RFCs shouldn't be closed so early by involved editors. However, on seeing the closure, I was glad it helped us avoid another heated discussion on that very Talk page that was extremely unlikely to produce anything resembling consensus. BilledMammal was right to write that {{tq|perceptions of the editor who opened the RfC may influence how editors perceive the RfC}}, and so given their rather contentious editing history in Palestine-related topics, they decided not not to sign their name. Yet we were at it again. When going through the questions, I was disappointed (but not surprised) to find out how POV the structure was – it concerned adding inline attribution to the internationally accepted numbers of Palestinian victims of the Israeli invasion (inline attribution is not normally necessary and suggests an opinion, not a fact – our policy requires it {{tq|[[WP:SOURCESDIFFER|if there is a disagreement between sources]]}}) or contrasting these numbers with Israeli-provided numbers of supposedly killed militants, even though the latter are widely considered unreliable and few media carry them. Judging from the past discussion history on that article and the POV split of the most active editors, this RfC was not going to end up in a consensus.
+So, as much as the close was procedurally wrong, I'm of the view that it ultimately befitted that article and the wider readership. A trout for everyone, as Valereee wrote, and move on. — [[User:Kashmiri|<span style="color:#30c;font:italic bold 1em 'Candara';text-shadow:#aaf 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em;">kashmīrī</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Kashmiri|<sup style="color:#80f;font-family:'Candara';">TALK</sup>]] 22:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|My very best wishes}} 16:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
+====Statement by Coretheapple====
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Veverve}}<p>{{ds/log|Veverve}}</p>
+Lots of verbiage above but it's a simple issue. RfCs are not to be closed by involved editors. Involved editors who do so should get sanctioned, for this is a contentious topic area and there needs to be extra efforts made to enforce the rules, and I don't mean "trout slaps." [[User:Coretheapple|Coretheapple]] ([[User talk:Coretheapple|talk]]) 22:44, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+====Statement by Vice regent====
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe|Eastern_Europe#General_restriction]]
+{{re|ScottishFinnishRadish}} and {{re|Seraphimblade}} as you consider sanctions, I'd like to add that Makeandtoss is  exceptionally productive. They are one of the very few users I see regularly creating new articles or significantly expanding existing ones in the Arab-Israeli conflict area. They have an impressive [[User:Makeandtoss/DYK]] record (many of them in the Arab-Israeli conflict topic area), with some DYKs of articles they created still active (eg [[Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham|Killing of David Ben Avraham]]). They helped promote articles in this topic area to GA status (eg [[Battle of Karameh]], [[Black September]], [[Hussein of Jordan]] etc). Just last month, they wrote the entire [[History of Palestinian journalism]] article. I've also seen them create useful stubs (eg [[Mohammad Hyasat]] of the Jordanian Air Force, who helped defend Israel from Iranian attacks).'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 11:35, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+:@[[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] can you clarify the topic you are considering for a ban? Is it "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed"? If so, might you please consider something narrower like "[[Israel-Hamas war]] broadly construed"? I suggest that because I have not seen any problematic behavior by Makeandtoss when making excellent contributions to Jordanian and Palestinian history, but "Arab-Israeli conflict broadly construed" covers most of the history of those two nations.
-; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+:I recall in the [[WP:ARBIRP]] case, the arbs tailored a topic-ban[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Proposed_decision#Mhhossein_topic-banned][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Proposed_decision#Mhhossein_topic-banned_(MEK)] that was narrower than the scope of arbitration to take into account a user's productive edits in the topic.'''[[User talk:Vice regent|VR]]''' <sub>(Please [[Template:Ping|ping]] on reply)</sub> 16:41, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080034218&oldid=1079915442 23:40, 29 March 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080135703&oldid=1080102706 14:05, 30 March 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080589879&oldid=1080282988 04:21, 2 April 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080855244&oldid=1080848916 21:31, 3 April 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081159494&oldid=1081141914 17:17, 5 April 2022], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081223680&oldid=1081222452 02:22, 6 April 2022] - sustained edit-warring on page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&action=history Russian_fascism_(ideology)], immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page. In last edit summaries user claims consensus to delete this page by making it a redirect. I do not see an obvious consensus anywhere. An AfD about this page was closed as "no consensus" on March 18 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_fascism_(ideology)].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Russia_should_do_with_Ukraine&diff=1081530623&oldid=1081529993],[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_Russia_should_do_with_Ukraine&diff=1081533032&oldid=1081531163] (please check their edit summaries) - the user repeatedly removes [[:Category:Russian fascism]] from a page about Neo-fascist essay [[What Russia should do with Ukraine]]. This essay advocates extermination of [[Ukrainian people]] in context of the ongoing [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]]. And it is described as such on the page: "The article calls for the full destruction of Ukraine as a state and the Ukrainian national identity [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kremlin-editorial-ukraine-identity-1.6407921 ref]" in the lead. It also say that "According to [[Euractiv]], Sergeitsev [author of the essay] is "one of the ideologists of modern Russian fascism" [https://www.euractiv.com/section/europe-s-east/opinion/the-whole-world-can-observe-the-clash-of-civilization-and-anticivilization/ ref]". The irony of this? The category was already there, I inserted it by mistake. But such edits show the bias of Veverve and their readiness to edit war even about categorization of pages as belonging to [[:Category:Russian fascism]] when they obviously belong to such category.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1081549139&oldid=1081548642] - Veverve objects to using [[:Category:Russian fascism]] on a number of pages (such as page in the previous diff #2), and instead of discussing why the category would be applicable to specific pages (as I suggested [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:My_very_best_wishes&diff=1081543675&oldid=1081537841]), demands that I must self-revert on ''all'' such pages or he will submit an ANI request about me. This is a highly confrontational approach.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1075008684&oldid=1075005722] - misleading edit summary by Veverve. No, [[Z symbol]] removed by Veverve is very much relevant to the subject, this is like removing swastika from a page about Nazi. But he removes it again: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1075061771&oldid=1075059578], and again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1076355855&oldid=1076336630]. This is ''modus operandi'' of Veverve: just declare something to be unrelated to the subject and remove over the objections by other multiple contributors.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1080855244&oldid=1080848916] - misleading edit summary. Veverve removes not just views by [[Dzhokhar Dudayev]] (which are relevant), but views by well known academic historian [[Timothy D. Snyder]]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1079384812&oldid=1078311674 (edit summary)] - is that an adequate explanation for removal?
-; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
-<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veverve#March_2022] block for edit-warring on page Russian_fascism_(ideology)
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
-<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veverve#DS_alert DS alert]
-; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
-<!-- Add any further comment here -->
-*As a note of order, I now restored the page based on comments by admins below. I also commented on article talk page about it: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=prev&oldid=1081914856] [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 11:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-With regard to categories (diff #3), my typical response would be that [[Black Hundreds]], for example, should be included to the category based on their description in book [[Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies, Movements]] or in another book, but this is beyond the point. The point is the confrontational approach by Veverve to resolving content disputes: the refusal to discuss the essence of disagreements and demanding to self-revert immediately on all pages or "I will report you to ANI". The report to ANI would result only in wasting time by contributors in this case.
-*If a TBAN to be issued here, I think this should be a TBAN from anything related to Russian nationalism or fascism or any wider topic ban. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 22:44, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
-<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Veverve#AE_request User notified]
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-===Discussion concerning Veverve===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by Veverve====
-:1. What you call edit-warring is either: a) enforcing the consensus at [[Talk:Russian fascism (ideology)#Scope of the article]], and I was not the only one doing it by revertingyour edits as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081222024&oldid=1081221912 HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith reverted you]; or b) disagreeing on the content of the page which does not constitute edit-warring. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)&diff=1081225560&oldid=1081225056 told you on the article's talk] page that there was a consensus and that another uninvolved user had seen there was a consensus. The consensus was also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=1081120645&oldid=1081117625 seen by a second uninvolved user at ANM].
-:[[User_talk:Veverve#March_2022|My article-ban]] was from 17 March 2022 to 24 March 2022. All your examples are from more than 5 days after the end of the ban, so I do not see how you can say I had contend disputes {{tq|immediately after coming from a block for edit-warring on the same page}}.
-:I opened an ANI [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1095#Tsans2 adding FICTREFs, refusing to BRD, implies I have an AGENDA|on 1 April 2022]] concerning this page and a dispute with another user, Tsans2. On 2 April the user was topic-banned, and I received no sanction or accusation for edit-warring at this ANI, meaning I was not considered by anyone as edit-warring (i.e. no [[WP:BOOMERANG]] as should have happened if I was doing what you are accusing me of). This topic-ban was [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_Review_of_Topic_Ban|supported by Deepfriedokra]], who had previously imposed a one-week article-ban of this article to both me and Tsans2.
-<br>
-:2. and 3. As for the second and third point, you are emphasising the content dispute aspect, while I was protesting against you trying to make controversial changes. As I [[User_talk:My_very_best_wishes#POV_categorisation|stated on you talk page]], most of your additions did not meet [[WP:CATDEF]]. And some (probably most if I remember correctly) of the articles to which you added those tags make no mention of fascism; I gave you two examples at your talk page ([[Russian world]], [[Third Rome]]). Another example is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Antisemitism_in_the_Soviet_Union&diff=1081542796&oldid=922512283 adding this category to Category:Antisemitism in the Soviet Union] which is highly contestable. I have the right to ask you to follow [[WP:BRD]] and [[WP:QUO]] when a policy is not respected; I feel in no way can this behaviour be considered {{tq|a highly confrontational approach}}.
-[[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 18:16, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
-::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} since there was no consensus at the AfD, as [[User talk:Veverve#Russian fascism|I told My very best wishes]], my reasoning was that there was no WP:CONLEVEL, as [[WP:NOCONSENSUS]] seems treated differently in the same policy page (I pointed out [[WP:CCC]] and [[WP:BUREAUCRACY]] in my comment). [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 21:41, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
-:::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} that I may have misinterpreted one or more policies, I admit. However, what POV are you accusing me of pushing? [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 21:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
-:::Dennis Brown: I would like to point out that my argument about CCC and CONLEVEL were made 6 April 2022, 1 month after the AfD; and they were not made after you gave an explanation on them.
-:::While I was previously given the argument that the soft deletion was not to be done due to the AfD result, other users have also been given this argument and have also changed the article into a redirect, in good faith, in the name of what they perceived as enforcing a legitimate consensus from the talk page. Besides, I am not the one who turned this article into a redirect in the first place. I am not invoking a [[WP:SHEEP]] editing on my part, but the user My very best wishes wants to make those actions as if they were outlandish and especially made by me.
-:::While those elements do not make my actions automatically excusable, I hope they provide a bigger picture of the situation. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 01:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
-::::I note that My very best wishes (MVBW) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=1081696157&oldid=1081690838 has changed their complaint] to try, even here, to POV-push adding the [[Z (military symbol)]] and the [[Ribbon of Saint George]] as symbols of fascism in Russia without any source; this is despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARussian_fascism_%28ideology%29&type=revision&diff=1077678876&oldid=1077678761 having accepted the letter "Z" was not a fascist symbol according to the only sources once given in the article supposedly supporting this claim]. MVBW is also trying to blame me for not agreeing on their scope of the article at the time, which [[Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)#Scope_of_the_article|by a 2 vs 1 was not following MVBW's opinion]]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARussian_fascism_%28ideology%29&type=revision&diff=1078113113&oldid=1078094040 MVBW's view] being that the article should be a collection of claims of [[Russia under Vladimir Putin]] being fascist or compared to fascists. I have justified myself concerning Danilov's opinion [[Talk:Russian_fascism_(ideology)#Editing_problems|on the article's talk page]]; the opinion to me is not DUE and the statement it supports is half a FICTREF. Dudayev's opinion is from an interview and therefore is a primary source and given weight arbitrarily. Those new accusations are either once again content dispute material, or an user trying to justify [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 03:37, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by Dhawangupta====
-{{ping|Dennis Brown}} I think you should take [[WP:ATD]] into consideration. There is no need of another AfD to overturn a previous AfD. The discussion on talk page happened for weeks and it was concluded that Wikipedia is better off without this article. The clear consensus was also noted by arbitrator+admin Xeno on WP:AN.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=1081708006#Careful_attention_to_the_page_Russian_fascism_(ideology)]
-Since this report largely depend on that particular point that has been already resolved, I don't consider this report as anything more than [[WP:FORUMSHOPPING]] to find another resolution instead of describing on talk page that why this POV cruft is needed or if there is any academic coverage about it. [[User:Dhawangupta|Dhawangupta]] ([[User talk:Dhawangupta|talk]]) 05:53, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
-::{{ping|Dennis Brown}} With that logic, the whole issue is now moot because "Russian fascism (ideology)" was redirected and "[[Fascism in Russia]]" became article after Vevere requested on RM/TR.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests&diff=1081278282&oldid=1081273262] I believe his efforts were sincere and he was being helpful. [[User:Dhawangupta|Dhawangupta]] ([[User talk:Dhawangupta|talk]]) 11:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by Levivich====
-Just want to note Veverve's recent editing in this topic area, including a group of RfDs, plus their retirement message, plus more editing afterwards. Sorry I'm on mobile and don't have time for diffs, but it's all in their contribs from today. I would suggest the scope of the tban include fascism ''and'' EE, not just "Russian fascism" as that's too narrow IMO. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 17:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
-===Result concerning Veverve===
+===Result concerning Makeandtoss and M.Bitton===
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*Although I don't think the RFC formulation is great, based on my experience as a closer, the formulation is not disruptively bad. There has been a significant amount of discussion on some of the points in the RFC, and there's something to be said for just heading to an RFC when it's obvious there will be no consensus through plain discussion. Editors thoroughly involved in a topic area should only be shutting down an RFC, closing discussions, or removing discussions when the material is plainly disruptive or in violation of [[WP:PAGS]]. Not following the advice on an information page to the letter, for me, does not meet that threshold. I have been approached by editors on several occasions about closing down RMs/RFCs that are retreading topics, but I'm loath to step in on such discussions because they are part of our formal dispute resolution. Involved editors should be even more reticent to do so. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:29, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-*{{u|Veverve}}, why exactly are you (and {{u|Czello}} and {{u|HappyWithWhatYouHaveToBeHappyWith}}) trying to soft delete an article that went to AFD and was closed as "no consensus".[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Russian_fascism_(ideology)].  AFD is considered a global consensus, unlike a talk page which is a local consensus, as it attracts input from all over the Wiki.  It would seem to be that if you want it to be deleted, you would take it to AFD again. I mean, you didn't even bother to have a well advertised RFC, you just got a few people together on a talk page and decided the AFD was "wrong". There are plenty of issues with the article (as the AFD pointed out), but you [[WP:CONLEVEL|can't overturn global consensus with local consensus]]. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 19:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:{{u|Nableezy}}, not like a topic ban. Normally the edit warring is in article space and I'll block just the article so they can only engage on the talk page. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:05, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-::I'm seeing textbook [[Wikipedia:Tendentious editing|tendentious editing]] from Veverve here.  You can't just quote BRD or only give it lip service, then point your finger at the other guy.  I will look around more, but seriously, this may warrant a topic ban.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 19:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:Was {{tq|there was no prior in-depth discussion on each of the four points}} or was this {{tq|a transparent attempt to revisit old arguments}}. Seems it can't be both. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-::No consensus defaults to KEEP under all circumstances at AFD, and always has, as that is the default state of an article.  The only real difference between a no consensus and keep decision is that it is considered acceptable to bring a no consensus article back to AFD after a period of time, 3 to 6 months.  For all intent and purposes, the status quo was "keep", and the AFD showed there was NO consensus to delete it.  Been that way since I started in 2006.  And please stay in your own section.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 21:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
+*::{{u|Selfstudier}}, {{tq|what I mean is that those prior discussions}}, so there was prior in-depth discussion? Those talk pages are fast moving, and the archives are already huge. If the discussion happened a couple months ago, does it being in an archive mean it no longer counts as prior discussion? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-::Let me add, your quoting CCC (consensus can change) two weeks after the AFD is making the case that you need to be topic banned.  You seem blinded by your POV here and reaching for any straw to grab onto.  You're quoting policy you don't understand, and instead of learning policy, you are trying to find some policy that fits your preconceived ideas.  I don't think you need to be editing in EE areas, your POV is overriding good judgement.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 21:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:::{{u|Selfstudier}}, I don't want to make this seem as if you're on the hook for anything here as you simply made a comment at the RFC, so take this as a hypothetical. Would a better, less inflammatory way to handle this have been pointing out those earlier discussions in the RFC discussion or bringing up that you believe they should be linked on BMs talk page rather than closing the RM or modifying the RFC statement? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::{{u|Dhawangupta}} ATD has no bearing here.  The Arbitrator didn't take action as an admin, and their opinions don't carry more weight anyway. Local discussions don't override a recent AFD.  Had it been a well advertised RFC (thus global) or actual advertised and tagged merge discussion, that might be different, but it wasn't.  Your arguments here are moot. [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 20:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:Also, rather than a bunch of involved editors edit warring and violating TPGs over this, why did no one seek to remedy any issues with the RFC on BMs talk page, or ask an uninvolved administrator to do so. [[User talk:BilledMammal#Talk:Flour massacre#Requested move 28 April 2024]], for example, is how this could have played out. To me, this is just more evidence of battleground editing in the topic area. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 15:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::Pinging {{u|Deepfriedokra}} who made the last block and is more familiar with the case.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 13:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+*::{{u|Nableezy}}, there were a bunch of involved editors, there was edit warring, and there were [[WP:TPG]] violations. All of that could have been avoided, except for involved editors, if not for pervasive battleground behavior. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 17:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-*{{u|Dennis Brown}}'s observations reflect my own. This is straying into [[WP:CIR]] territory. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:12, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:{{u|Vice regent}}, I wouldn't be opposed to something narrower like the current conflict or post 2000. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 16:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-:*{{u|Deepfriedokra}}, just trying to be nice, because incompetence might happen in good faith, unlike agenda, uh, ''servitude.'' But that's right, we don't have special insight into someone's soul. In that sense, mitigating factors for DE can only go so far, with the effectiveness of the enforcement action serving as the driving imperative. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 13:27, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+* I'm a bit concerned about the "trying to avoid scrutiny for the RfC" bit highlighted by Zero0000.  BilledMammal, why ''did'' you do that (twice)?  If I'm submitting an RfC, I ''want'' my name on it so that people can discuss it with me.  It all seems very ... I don't know, underhand? [[User_talk:Black Kite|Black Kite (talk)]] 13:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-* Oh, {{u|Veverve}} I see my block did not deter you from further disruption. Not sure if we need just a TBAN  enforced by a partial  block on Russian_fascism_(ideology) or a TBAN on  Eastern Europe entire.  --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 13:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+* Newimpartial - did someone say "seek justice against one's enemies" or did you use quotes for some other reason? I'm confused as to why that statement is in quotes - if someone (on either side of the dispute) is saying that about the other side that's not good. If it hasn't been said, it's not really helpful to throw that around like it IS a quote from someone, it just confuses uninvolved admins (like me) and, in my view, just ups the heat in the topic area. I'm going back to looking into this as my time permits ... [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-*:{{yo|El_C}} is it [[WP:CIR]] or is it in the service of some agenda? ''Quien sabe''. Or some other reason? There's a [[Roger Zelazny]] quote I won't bother to look up that would apply. The reason is irrelevant. Stopping the disruption is what we seek. (noting "retired" on user page) --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+** Thanks - I was forced to read Plato in university but... I try REALLY hard to forget it. Still reading - I read SFR's plea for help in this area and am trying to formulate something to say that I think might help things (not that I think I'm going to have much luck with this but ... hope springs eternal) [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-*: '''Wot Firefly sed''' --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 13:17, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+*** SFR (and others) sorry I haven't been weighing in here, I've been busy outside wiki and trying to read more about this topic area. I'm good with a time-limited topic ban for Makeandtoss. It's not so much the single edit but the whole approach. Frankly, I think there are a lot of editors who might consider whether or not they should try to edit outside this topic area so that they aren't quite so burned out and fall into really bad battleground behavior. When all you see is one very contentious topic, you're going to think that battleground behavior is the norm on the project, but most non-contentious topic areas are not this filled with bad behavior and habits from editors. Getting outside the topic area would help editors regain some perspective about their own editing behavior and what best editing practices are. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] ([[User talk:Ealdgyth|talk]]) 13:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-*::OK with any broader than the one article topic ban. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 15:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+* I have no intention of weighing in substantively on this request beyond a few thoughts that I had when this was at ARCA. In a talk page like this one which is active and with a lot of peristent editors, a lower threshold for how much discussion is necessary before starting an RfC ''can'', in my judgement, be appropriate. The reason for this can be that there is a [[WP:LOCALCON|local consensus]] that is at odds with a project wide consensus and so lots of discussion would lead to a false consensus (and even accusations of bad faith RfCs that "relitigate" things already decided in discussions). It strikes me as incredibly important that we are very cautious before closing a major dispute resolution method to an editor, especially one who has demonstrated knowledge of Wikipedia policies, guidelines, and norms. An RfC for information that is in the lead also strikes me as more appropriate than RfC for information in the body of an article precisely because of the visibility/importance of having consensus there for me. Now it can also be true that someone who has repeatedly shown that they are at odds with project consensus about a topic can be disruptive in starting new RfCs. In looking at the last half dozen or so RfCs it did not seem like Billed Mammal fell into this second category but it's entirely possible there is better evidence out there on this front. However, given the evidence as I understand it I continue to take that "dim view" of editors using procedural means to potentially enforce a local consensus and perhaps even to seek sanctions against someone attempting to ascertain what the project consensus is through the written dispute resolution system. As for the signature bit I believe I start all my RfCs with <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> because who started the RfC should be irrelevant and [[WP:RFCOPEN]] explicitly allows it as an equally valid choice to <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> . I have no idea if date/time sig rather than full signature is normal or not for BM and I hope the uninvolved administrators assess that - there are no shortage of RfCs started by BM - before judging the intent. If this was out of practice for BM that clearly signifies trouble but if it's normal for BM to operate that way - as it is for me - that sends a different signal. Now if someone were to change an RfC sig I started from 5 ~ to one that included my name (and I think this has happened once), I wouldn't do anything about that because let's have a sense of perspective about things. But I would be annoyed and I would think it a violation of [[WP:TPO]] given that editing of signatures is only allowed {{tqq| If a signature violates the guidelines for signatures, or is an attempt to fake a signature, you may edit the signature to the standard form with correct information}} and TPO is clear that editors may {{tqq|...not modify the signature on others' posts for any other reason.}} [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-* My instinct would be a partial block + TBAN from [[Russian fascism (ideology)]], with a clear warning that should the same disruption "leak" elsewhere in any way, broader sanctions will be swiftly imposed. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 13:15, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:Nableezy I wasn't going to respond to your ping because I mean it when I say that I want the uninvolved admin to be making the call here. But your [[Special:Diff/1223202982|this edit]] to your comment goes too far for me. [[WP:RFCOPEN]] explicitly allows for <nowiki>~~~~~</nowiki> and so the comment was appropriately signed, based on Wikipedia norms and practices. As such you were not fixing an unsigned signature, but instead (as I understand it) trying to make a point that the RfC was not neutral and were working to have the statements attributed to BilledMammal in order to help advance that point. I have offered no comment on the neutrality or not of the RfC. But trying to raise problems with a non-neutral RfC is not the same as a neutral fixing/improvement as allowed by the talk page guidelines, in my view. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-::So I'm clear, a topic ban only on Russian Facism specifically, broadly construed, as well as a partial block from the single article/talk?  That is a lot narrower than all of EE but does make sense and I could support that.  Not sure how necessary the partial block would be if there is a tban in place, but it can't hurt.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 14:10, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+*::Nableezy: I'm not commenting on BM's comment move because that wasn't part of my analysis at ARCA and I'm not interested in substantively weighing in things at AE beyond what was discussed at the ARCA given that ArbCom is where the rare AE appeal goes; I expect that other uninvolved administrators will weigh that when determining what sanctions, if any, are appropriate to levy for this incident. Frankly I'm a bit flummoxed why you're continuing to debate with me - and attempting to shift the focus of discussion in this last comment. I have explicitly refrained from saying that your adding the unsigned template was wrong. That too goes beyond the analysis I've done. What I am saying that if it is BM's practice, as they've stated and so far no one has contradicted with evidence, to open RfCs with 5 tildes that this is supported by practice and norms. In that case their action is not a behavioral problem and so you cannot justify your actions based on the talk page guidelines. I have offered no opinion about whether your adding the unsigned template could be supported on other grounds. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:47, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::Thinking on it just a minute more, this would have to be a little broader, covering Russism, Russian nationalism and more.  If making it that narrow, might be better to just make it all of Russia, or Russian politics and philosophy.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 14:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+*I think there's plenty not to love here. I am definitely not enamored of "anonymously" starting an RfC&mdash;if I'm coming to an RfC, and an editor involved in the discussion is the one who started it, I want to know that. It looks to me like RFCOPEN is more saying that the bot is able to recognize timestamp-only signatures, rather than actually endorsing that as a good practice. In any case, since it's clearly controversial, I would very much prefer not to see that done in the future here, but it's not actually ''against'' policy. What is against policy is to start an RfC instead of discussing a matter, rather than after a discussion has been held, and "open discussion on the matter first" should ''not'' be considered optional. An RfC is a significant investment of community time and should only be resorted to when absolutely necessary. RfC is often the result of such a discussion reaching an impasse, but if there's a plausible case that the result of the discussion was a "local consensus" that the wider community wouldn't support, it's appropriate to hold an RfC to call in people from the wider community who haven't been involved and I would not criticize that as being "re-litigating" or forum shopping. I think we've all seen cases where a small number of "owners" try to enforce something that the wider community wouldn't approve of, and bringing an RfC is a good way to draw attention to that and put a stop to it. But, whether an RfC is appropriate or inappropriate, ''involved editors shouldn't be shutting it down''. So, I think in this case, [[WP:TROUT|trouts]] all around&mdash;the RfC was premature, the "anonymous" nature of it needlessly fanned the controversy, and even with that said, people involved shouldn't have closed it. If lessons can be learned from that without bringing out any bigger sticks, that's of course the optimal solution; if we find the problems reoccurring, then we'd have to evaluate that at that time. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::Could happily support something along those lines - "Russian politics/political philosophy, broadly construed"? [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 14:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:I'm going to pretty much agree with all of this. I don't object to an RfC being unsigned if it's inarguably neutrally worded. This is on the edge for me. I don't object to an RfC being opened in contentious topics possibly slightly early if there's been some discussion. Again on the edge. I do object to edit-warring over signing; once it's been objected to, just let it go. I do object to involved editors closing an RfC early. Trouts all around. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::As I think about it, I'm still a bit worried the narrowness will cause him to trip up unintentionally, or perhaps intentionally thinking there was plausible deniability, ie: editing the current Russian war, which is getting close.  I think if we are going to narrow it smaller than EE, it may need to just be "Russia", broadly construed.  [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 17:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+*::It's worth noting that Makeandtoss has already been warned for edit warring in the topic area and blocked from this article for battleground conduct. To me, we're past the level of a trout in this instance. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 22:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::::Yep, we don't want ambiguity if we can help it. "Russia, broadly construed" looks good. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-*Support TB for Russia broadly construed. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:::I've got no problem with that. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 23:25, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::In the interests of moving this along. I know you're generally not a fan of time-limited topic bans, but I think this topic area is one that can benefit from time-limited topic bans, allowing a cool down for an editor, and hopefully a cool down for the real world circumstances. At the least it can allow for some firming up in sources on the issues that are being discussed. Would you be amenable to 90 days in this circumstance? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
-*Reading through all of this, it seems the most appropriate response here is a topic ban from all Eastern Europe topics, per [[WP:ARBEE]].  I would also support any lesser included topic bans if it is felt that a more narrow scope is sufficient.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 13:13, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
+*:::::This might be a case where I'd be okay with it. Makeandtoss certainly has provided plenty of positive contribution in the area, but everyone has to follow the same rules, and especially in CT areas. I certainly hope they will return to doing the good work afterwards, minus the downsides. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-{{hab}}
+*::::::{{u|Valereee}}, you're the only other one who gave any opinion on possible sanctions. Any thoughts on a 90 day topic ban for Makeandtoss, as they've been both blocked and warned for behavior in this topic area recently? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:::::::A time-limited t-ban...okay, I guess. I don't like them, I think they're both punitive and not very productive. But if that's what you and Seraphimblade think works, I won't object. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::::::Hold on, hadn't seen NYB's post. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*Unless I am missing something, the complaint against Makeandtoss is based on a single edit, made two weeks ago, of a type he has specifically agreed never to make again. If that is the case, I oppose any topic-ban. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 13:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:After [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1180149051 a partial block from the page] for battleground editing and disingenuous edit summaries they closed an RFC on that page out of process, with a disingenuous edit summary. I guess you could call that "one edit" if reviewing the behavior in a vacuum.
+*:That the report has been here for 10 days, after the behavior was reported soon after the close was made, just demonstrates what I was saying at the request for clarification, AE isn't attended well enough to work. That a report has been open without significant administrator input is the default here, and 2-3 weeks is common for non-obvious cases. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 13:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::I'm not negating the prior issues, but no one has identified more than the single problematic edit by this user in, let's say, the past three months. That is what I mean by referring to a single edit. I'm also not sure why you consider the edit summary disingenuous. More than one person above seems to agree that the RfC did not satisfy "RFCBEFORE", even though others feel differently. The edit summary was disputable, maybe even erroneous, but I see no evidence that it was "disingenuous" in the sense of knowingly asserting something one does not actually believe. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 17:11, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:::Now I'm waffling again. @[[User:Makeandtoss|Makeandtoss]], do you understand that admins are extremely likely to find anything that comes anywhere near repeating this very unamusing? [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:27, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:::*Created a discussion with [[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_42#9,000_militants|about the count of militants killed, specifically mentions the lead [lede] in the discussion]]
+*:::*Took part in [[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_42#Include_number_of_women_killed_in_lead?|a discussion about including the number of women killed in the lead]]
+*:::*Created [[Talk:Israel–Hamas_war/Archive_42#Majority_of_killed_Palestinians_are_women_and_children|a section on women and children casualties in the lead]]
+*:::*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1222515422 Closed] an RFC asking {{tq|Should the number of militants that Israel has stated they have killed be included? Should we describe the number of women and children killed as...}} with a summary of {{tq|no discussion has taken place about these points}}.
+*:::Those threads are just a few from the most recent archive. That is disingenuous. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::Given their fullthroated response, I'd be willing to just warn. They sound sincere. [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 18:50, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:::::If we're considering some kind of final warning here instead, I think we need to be crystal clear that it is ''very'' final, and anything else like this is going to mean sanctions. "But they also do good stuff" cannot remain an excuse indefinitely. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::::{{ping|Makeandtoss}} Please respond briefly in your section to [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]]'s last post above. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::::+1 [[User:Valereee|Valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 01:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::I think it's also worth noting {{u|Number 57}}'s [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bezalel_Smotrich&diff=next&oldid=1192844051 diff] where Makeandtoss closed another RFC with a third party response after taking part in a discussion. [[WP:RFCBEFORE]] doesn't require anything, and doesn't suggest extensive discussion, only that a discussion should take place. If it is obvious that a consensus isn't forthcoming there is no need to continue in circles for a certain number of words. No one involved in a discussion should be closing any but the most malformed RFCs. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:14, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
-==Goliath74 ==
+==Galamore==
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning Goliath74 ===
+===Request concerning Galamore===
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|FDW777}} 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Ecrusized}} 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Goliath74 }}<p>{{ds/log|Goliath74 }}</p>
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Galamore}}<p>{{ds/log|Galamore}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe]]
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions]]
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
 ; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+'''Removing referenced statements & replacing with [[WP:OR|original research]]'''<br />
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
+[[Gaza Health Ministry]]<br />
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081629382&diff=prev 16:35, 08 April 2022] Restores content with unreliable reference without explanation
+. {{diff2|1223636841|15:12, 13 May 2024}}<br />
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081629981&diff=prev 16:35, 08 April 2022] Again restores content with unreliable reference without explanation, despite my very clear edit summary of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081629802&diff=prev "rv. See previous edit summary. The discussion has been had regarding that website. It isn't reliable. Per WP:BURDEN, anyone restoring the information needs to cite a proper reference, not an unreliable blog]
+[[Rafah offensive]]<br />
+. {{diff2|1222996783|09:55, 9 May 2024}}
+'''General 1RR violations:'''
-; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
-<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
-n/a
+[[Rafah offensive]]<br />
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+. {{diff2|1222996783|09:55, 9 May 2024}} - Referenced sentence removed<br />
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoliath74&type=revision&diff=1081629792&oldid=633303208 Notified]
+[[Palestinian political violence]]<br />
+. {{diff2|1222881476|17:19, 8 May 2024}} - User revert<br />
-; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+[[War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war]]<br />
-Given the ongoing propaganda war surrounding the actual war, the last thing relevant articles needs is editors who persist in restoring information by a blog deemend unreliable at [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 320#defence-blog.com]]. [[User:FDW777|FDW777]] ([[User talk:FDW777|talk]]) 16:44, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
+. {{diff2|1220666690|08.13, 25 April 2024}} - Referenced sentence removed<br />
+[[Gaza–Israel conflict]]<br />
-; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+. {{diff2|1220555594|17:56, 24 April 2024}} - User revert<br />
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AGoliath74&type=revision&diff=1081630614&oldid=1081630330 Notified]
+[[Zionism]]<br />
+. {{diff2|1220078983|21:05, 21 April 2024}} - User revert<br />
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+[[Israel and apartheid]]<br />
+. {{diff2|1220036690|15:38, 21 April 2024}} - User revert<br />
-===Discussion concerning Goliath74 ===
+[[Palestinian political violence]]<br />
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
+. {{diff2|1220030518|14:35, 21 April 2024}} - User revert<br />
-====Statement by Goliath74 ====
+[[2024 Israeli strikes on Iran]]<br />
+. {{diff2|1219730431|16:58, 19 April 2024}} - User revert<br />
-====Statement by (username)====
+. {{diff2|1219683976|09:25, 19 April 2024}} - Reverted to a previous version<br />
-<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+. {{diff2|1219677141|08:25, 19 April 2024}} - Sentence removed without edit summary
-===Result concerning Goliath74 ===
-:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
-<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
-*[[File:Pictogram voting support.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''[[Wikipedia:Protection policy#Extended confirmed protection|Extended confirmed protected]]'''<!-- Template:RFPP#excp --> for the duration. {{u|FDW777}}, while {{u|Goliath74}}'s edits to the page might be subpar, it's only 2 reverts and this article isn't subject to [[WP:1RR]] right now. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 11:22, 9 April 2022 (UTC)
-*I guess if {{ping|Goliath74}} can agree to not make further edits with that source, and to [[WP:BRD|discuss contents and sourcing going forward]], we can call it a [[Day-O (The Banana Boat Song)|day-o]] --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 15:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-*ECP should work. I note that Goliath74 rarely edits, with months between edits, and wouldn't be surprised if he's not going to again for a while. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:41, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-==14Jenna7Caesura==
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning 14Jenna7Caesura===
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Funcrunch}} 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|14Jenna7Caesura}}<p>{{ds/log|14Jenna7Caesura}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality]]
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
-; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=129964201 00:34, 10 April 2022] Page move without discussion
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=129523836 23:14, 29 March 2022] Page move without discussion
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=129120319 04:03, 20 March 2022] Page move without discussion
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=123691679 17:40, 11 November 2021] Page move without discussion
 ; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
 <!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|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 {{diff2|1218861582|11:20, 14 April 2024}}
-<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
+*Warned by another user about 1RR violation on {{diff2|1218858883|10:45, 14 April 2024}}. Did not self-revert.
-*Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
 ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+I typically don't mind trivial 1RR violations if they were made in good faith. However, it struck me that the user had made [[Special:Contributions/Galamore|hundreds of copy edits]], from 20 to 31 March 2024, spamming categories to articles, in order to pass the 500 edit requirement for [[WP:ECP|extended confirmed protection]]. Subsequently, they solely began editing controversial ECP articles in an aggressive manner. Additionally, it concerns me that the user was previously blocked for not disclosing their paid editing. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 18:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-<!-- Add any further comment here -->
-User has a number of DS alerts in other areas as well, but my reason for filing is the number of page moves without discussion on pages subject to gender and sexuality sanctions. [[User:Funcrunch|Funcrunch]] ([[User talk:Funcrunch|talk]]) 01:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+::I've added the names of the articles above their diffs, if that is what you meant. User was warned about previous 1RR violations and enforcement. I have not warned them about their latest reverts since those edits have already been undone by other editors. [[User:Ecrusized|Ecrusized]] ([[User talk:Ecrusized|talk]]) 19:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
 ; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
+{{diff2|1218861582|11:20, 14 April 2024}}
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A14Jenna7Caesura&type=revision&diff=1081847304&oldid=1081397677 Diff]
+===Discussion concerning Galamore===
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-===Discussion concerning 14Jenna7Caesura===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by 14Jenna7Caesura====
-*Please review [[Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Changing_the_title]].--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 01:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-*Does DS mean a 0 revert policy? If so, every single time, I reverted even once, I got a DS notice. Let me know is DS means 0-revert policy or no discussion allowed.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 16:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-*User:Deepfriedokra is one of the editors who backed blocking me in 2021; I was asked to create an account and reveal personal information even though I was okay with IP editing.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 16:09, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-*I believe I may have more DS's on my talk page that I probably deleted.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 17:52, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-*When I move the pages, I let them know that reversion of my page moves are okay. There were either discussions there as in [[Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality]] or I discussed when asked about my rationale.
-*The main advocates of [[Causes_of_transsexuality]] have refrained from casting a single vote at [[Talk:Causes_of_transsexuality#Requested_move_10_April_2022]] to explain the selection of the "transsexuality" term.--[[User:14Jenna7Caesura|14Jenna7Caesura]] ([[User talk:14Jenna7Caesura|talk]]) 15:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by Crossroads====
+====Statement by Galamore====
+Hi, everyone
+My name is Gal, Gal the teacher (in Hebrew with English letters it comes out GALAMORE). I entered Wikipedia because I wanted to write about technology, I wrote the article on [[Perplexity.ai]] (which received 568,902 views so far!!), after I wrote about a few more high-tech companies I was temporarily blocked and warned not to engage in business matters probably for fear of receiving money for it.
+Almost every morning, before I start teaching, I go to Wikipedia to edit and I enjoy it very much.
+I am Israeli, so the Israel related topics interest me.
+If it is relevant, politically, in Israel I believe in peace with our neighbors and want an end to wars.
+When I see something that is biased, I try to balance it and bring sources from both sides.
+Even if there is an Israeli editor who makes claims that are "in favor of Israel" but are not substantiated, I will correct it - because I truly believe in balanced coverage of topics. I am not obssessive to my edits, I just enjoy adding information and I think it is productive to humanity.
+On this occasion, may I ask where and when can I request that the prohibition to write on tech companies be removed? [[User:Galamore|Galamore]] ([[User talk:Galamore|talk]]) 07:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
-See [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&oldid=1076925682#Keir_Starmer_content_moved this] about BLP-violating gender-related content being added to an article after getting the gender DS, and the attacks in the reply [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:14Jenna7Caesura&oldid=1081847304#Your_edit_to_List_of_people_killed_for_being_transgender here] to another editor.
+====Statement by BilledMammal====
-Jenna7Caesura made [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Act_%28United_States%29&type=revision&diff=1081063800&oldid=1080798095 this] edit to [[Equality Act (United States)]], which added a source but also subsumed sex and sexual orientation as part of gender ''even though none of the sources support that'', not even the one she added.  After being reverted, she [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Equality_Act_(United_States)&diff=1081110198&oldid=1081070204 edit warred] by restoring the same edit with a non sequitur edit summary about sex and gender being related (true, but they are [[sex and gender distinction|distinct]], as is sexual orientation).
+:Regarding the [[WP:OR]] concerns:
+:At [[Rafah offensive]] they {{diff2|1222996783|removed}}:
+:{{tqb|In addition, the offensive resulted in the temporary closure of the [[Kerem Shalom crossing|Kerem Shalom]] and Rafah crossings, further exacerbating the [[Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present)|humanitarian crisis in Gaza]].}}
+:In their edit summary they said {{tq|Kerem Shalom was closed due to the Hamas attacks, and now reopened, this is wrong and outdated.}}
+:The first part of their claim appears to be correct; the source provided for the content says:
+:{{tqb|But Israel closed the Kerem Shalom crossing after a Hamas attack on Sunday killed four soldiers in the area, then mounted an incursion on Tuesday that closed the Rafah crossing along the border with Egypt.}}
+:At [[Gaza Health Ministry]] they {{diff2|1223636841|changed}} the lede from:
+:{{tqb|The GHM's casualty reports have received significant attention during the course of the [[Gaza–Israel conflict]]. GHM's casualty reports are considered credible by two scientific studies published in [[The Lancet|''The Lancet'']].}}
+:To:
+:{{tqb|The casualty reports issued by the GHM during the Israel–Hamas war have been subject to significant scrutiny. While some advocate for their accuracy, others cast doubt on their reliability.}}
+:This change appears defensible based on the body which includes claims that the figures are reliable alongside claims that they are unreliable. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
+::Regarding {{tq|Warned by another user about 1RR violation on 10:45, 14 April 2024. Did not self-revert.}}
+::They appear to have attempted to self revert this violation, with {{diff2|1218859424|07:52, 14 April 2024}} - however they self-reverted the wrong edit, {{diff2|1218856099|07:09, 14 April 2024}} rather than {{diff2|1218858190|07:36, 14 April 2024}}. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 19:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::Since Selfstudier has linked it and it relates to two of the editors involved here, {{diff2|1223777044|this comment}}, which was made by Ecrusized, wasn't appropriate in my opinion:
+:::{{tqb|the latest change seems to come from virtually inexperienced editors, Galamore and GidiD with a heavy Israeli bias}}
+:::It only adds heat to the topic. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 20:38, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
+====Statement by Zero0000====
-The discussion she points to in the comment here contains personal attacks against Funcrunch, found in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACauses_of_transsexuality&type=revision&diff=1081849985&oldid=1081848494 this diff]. Odd to point to it. Whether someone is right or not, editors must be collaborative and civil. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 05:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
+OP doesn't seem to know what 1RR means. [[User:Zero0000|Zero]]<sup><small>[[User_talk:Zero0000|talk]]</small></sup> 09:07, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-====Statement by (username)====
-<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
+====Statement by Selfstudier====
-===Result concerning 14Jenna7Caesura===
+For the sake of completeness, see also [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27 noticeboard/Incidents#User:Galamore, gaming the system]] [[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
-<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
-*Well, it looks like 14Jenna7Caesura goes and does as she wishes without attaining a consensus. {{ping|14Jenna7Caesura}} you must not do this. I leave it to those with stronger reading skills to look further. Not sure what the provenance of four (4) DS alerts is or should be. --<b>[[User:Deepfriedokra|<span style="color:black">Deep</span><span style="color:red">fried</span><span style="color:DarkOrange">okra</span>]] [[User talk:Deepfriedokra|(<span style="color:black">talk</span>)]]</b> 15:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-*4 different alerts for 4 edits in different areas. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:40, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
+And the discussion [[Talk:Israel%E2%80%93Hamas war#UN changes reported casualty figures]].[[User:Selfstudier|Selfstudier]] ([[User talk:Selfstudier|talk]]) 09:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
-*And that's all that I can see. I think either a page move ban or a topic ban would be appropriate here. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-*Page move ban might be sufficient, and given the topic is an Arb DS area, I think that a total page move ban is within our authority to implement.   [[User:Dennis Brown|<b>Dennis Brown</b>]] - [[User talk:Dennis Brown|<b>2&cent;</b>]] 15:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-*Let me be the one dissenting voice to put the brakes on sanctions at this point, or indeed to at least consider lesser sanctions than the ones proposed above.  The difs above show me a little overly aggressive application of [[WP:BOLD]], but 14Jenna7Caesura is also showing restraint as time has gone on... For example, in the April 10 move, [[WP:BRD]] was clearly followed, as the initial contested move has now resulted in a discussion.  14Jenna7Caesura has been made aware of DS in the past, but as far as I can tell, [[WP:ARBGSDS]] has no provision ''requiring'' a move discussion.  I'm sure 14Jenna7Caesura is ''now'' aware that such moves as they have been making have been unilaterally controversial, and that such moves in the future, especially those in the ARBGSDS remit, should ALWAYS be preceded by a consensus building discussion (which is to say, no more [[WP:BOLD]] moves in the GS topic area).  I don't think we need a ban to accomplish this as long as 14Jenna7Caesura agrees to common sense self-moderation including 1) refraining from enacting likely-to-be-controversial moves unilaterally 2) participate collegially in discussions about such ''proposed'' moves before they happen, and refrain from accusations of bad faith or [[WP:BLUDGEON]]y-type responses from those that disagree with them.  While the others above note that people have applied DS notices from multiple topic areas, while strictly true, this all relates to GS-related editing, even if the notices come from other sensitive topic areas.  I think if we have some assurances that they intend to work more cautiously, I would be willing to forstall formal sanctions at this point, under [[WP:LASTCHANCE]] principles.  I am but one voice here, so don't let my dissent overrule any consensus that may develop in another direction, but this is at least my feelings on the matter.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-==RfC at  [[Azov Battalion]]==
-{{hat|Declined malformed. [[user:Elinruby|Elinruby]], this is inadequate and malformed. It doesn't look like you've put that much effort into this report, like much of a ''summary'', the ''users involved,'' key ''diffs'', and so on. I've given you a logged warning due to spillover from this dispute just yesterday, and I'm sorry to say, but this does not inspire confidence. Worse still, when the careless (not just inexperience) nature of this report was brought up, your responses had been just confounding ([[special:diff/1082011386|diff]]). And also just plain wrong, because not only is [[user:Redrose64|Redrose64]] an admin, but her knowledge of these editorial procedures is unrivalled. Please do better because a [[WP:TBAN]] is pretty much imminent for ''anything'' else. Newcomers can only be given allowances to a point. [[WP:CIR|Competence is required]], most especially for [[WP:ACDS]] matters.  [[User:El_C|El_C]] 23:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)}}
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning RfC at  [[Azov Battalion]]===
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Elinruby}} 19:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|RfC at  [[Azov Battalion]]}}<p>{{ds/log|RfC at  [[Azov Battalion]]}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
-RfC close as no consensus
-; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
-Section as it stands: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion]
-; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
-<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
-#[http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation
-#[http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
-<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->.
-Not seeking sanctions, just closure
-; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
-<!-- Add any further comment here -->
-Not seeking sanctions at the moment but  there has been a revert war on an RfC as people were voting on it. This may be due to a previous refusal to discuss but the bigger point right now is that everyone involved seems to agree.that the RfC needs to be closed and started over.
-; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
-<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
-Not  seeking sanctions, just closure
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-===Discussion concerning RfC at [[Azov Battalion]]===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by RfC at [[Azov Battalion]]====
-====Statement by Aquillion====
-Explanation (sort of) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&oldid=1082014893#I_asked_for_the_RfC_to_be_closed here].  I don't think AE lets administrators close RFCs as an arbcom enforcement action, so it's unclear what is being requested here. See the list of things you can request via AE at the top of the page. If you're requesting action against a user you need to specify the user and why. I would assume that this page falls under the [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions|Eastern Europe DS]], though. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 22:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
-===Result concerning RfC at [[Azov Battalion]]===
+===Result concerning Galamore===
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*{{u|Ecrusized}}, can you break the 1RR violations down by article, and have they been warned about or asked to revert any 1RR violations? I don't see any engagement about that on their talk page. No comment yet on possible OR issues. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 18:44, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
-*
+*:{{ping|Black Kite|Drmies}} just making sure you're aware this thread is here. The reported 1rr violations don't seem to be violations, but I am concerned about the edit warring over content that socks and editors banned and tbanned by Arbcom had been edit warring over. I try not to judge content choices unless there is a clear issue, and the edits to the lead are a summary of ''parts'' of the body. I think NPOV is a bit lacking, but it's not flagrant and I'm not sure if that alone is enough for action. Combining that with the history of the content being edit warred over brings me a lot closer to a sanction. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 00:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
-{{hab}}
+*What I said at the AN/I thread:  Speaking as the administrator who a few months ago indeffed Galamore as a suspected UPE, after they wrote several extremely promotional articles about non-notable subjects: this doesn't seem like gaming the system. This seems like somebody -- I despise more than anybody for this to be true, but I must admit it -- editing in good faith, or at least not doing anything visibly wrong, along the rules that we explicitly tell them that they have to follow. If we don't think that "500 edits and one month" is enough for someone to edit CT articles, we shouldn't have thousands of words of policy teling people, repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that making 500 edits and having an account for a month is required to edit CT articles. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 19:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:{{u|JPxG}}, are you at all concerned about their continuing an edit war primarily edited on one side by socks and people banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing and proxying? [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 23:13, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::On the issue of the sanctioned topic in its own right, I defer to the judgment of persons such as yourself. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 08:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:I haven't had the chance to dig into this yet (though I will try to over the next couple of days), but I will say that such guidelines should not be treated like black-letter law which can have "loopholes". We can take an extreme case, say that an editor makes an account, waits thirty days, and then runs a script which adds and then removes a single character from their sandbox 500 times. It is perfectly valid, in such a case, to say "That is ''not'' what we meant, and that doesn't count. Make 500 ''real'' edits before you start editing in this area." [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 02:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::Yeah, if it is literally somebody adding and removing a period from their sandbox that is one thing, but if it's five hundred non-deleted, non-reverted edits that improve the articles they're being made on, we have to accept that this was what we told people to do. <b style="font-family: monospace; color:#E35BD8">[[User:JPxG|<b style="color:#029D74">jp</b>]]×[[Special:Contributions/JPxG|<b style="color: #029D74">g</b>]][[User talk:JPxG|🗯️]]</b> 08:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:::As I mentioned at the AN posting about this, I saw the edits when they started editing in ARBPIA, and they looked constructive enough where I didn't take any action then. Those types of edits combined with immediately leaping into a long-term edit war that has been pushed by a sock, and had been supported by editors banned by Arbcom for off-wiki canvassing/proxying is more concerning, and I think that is where we should focus. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:20, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::::Noting that I have indefinitely topic banned the filer of this report, which doesn't actually clear up my concerns about Galamore. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+*::{{u|Seraphimblade}}, I'm thinking a topic ban of 6 months ''and'' 500 edits in this circumstance. That forces more out-of-topic contributions, gives them more experience, and puts them further from any sock/proxy/canvass concerns. I'm also okay with no action if you're not convinced. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 12:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
+*:::I wouldn't see doing anything time-limited here. If you're going to do any sanction, I think it ought to be indefinite, but very much in the "indefinite need not mean permanent" vein, and that constructive edits in other areas would likely be viewed favorably at a future appeal. I also don't think they've been previously warned, so unless I'm wrong about that, another thing to consider would be a logged warning, with a clear understanding that further issues will all but certainly result in a topic ban. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 21:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
+==Unnamed anon==
-==EnlightenmentNow1792==
+{{hat|No action taken at this time as the matter is already being discussed at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and User:Licks-rocks civility concerns|ANI]]. There is no prejudice to raising this issue here again if the ANI discussion ends without resolution of the matter, but we shouldn't have multiple threads open on the same issue at the same time. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 19:58, 19 May 2024 (UTC) }}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning EnlightenmentNow1792===
+===Request concerning Unnamed anon===
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vladimir.copic}} 03:11, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
+; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist}} 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|EnlightenmentNow1792}}<p>{{ds/log|EnlightenmentNow1792}}</p>
+; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Unnamed anon}}<p>{{ds/log|Unnamed anon}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[WP:ARBEE]]
+;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation]]
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hikaru_Utada&diff=prev&oldid=1035331000 24 July 2021] After [[Utada Hikaru]] has come out, UA changes the pronouns in the article from they/them to she/her without consensus.
-; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hikaru_Utada&diff=prev&oldid=1051850518 25 October 2021] Launches a malformed RFC with an innapropriate comment on Tamzin's identity {{tq|Tamzin's comments as a she/they NB supporting using Utada's last known pronouns (she/her) help break the POV mold}}.
-<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081922071 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hikaru_Utada&diff=prev&oldid=1052050229 26 October 2021] Argues they/them are "gramatically incorrect" as opposed to "real pronouns" in a discussion about Utada
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hikaru_Utada&diff=prev&oldid=1052051941 26 October 2021] when Tamzin asks them to stop with their repeated use of {{tq|gramatically incorrect}}/{{tq|real}} pronouns[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1052051321&oldid=1052050855&title=Talk:Hikaru_Utada], they apologize but this is their defense: {{tq|Historically, I have not had the greatest experiences with transgender people when talking about subjects relating to being transgender, whether it be ones I've taken part in or ones I've simply observed. (Tamzin, you're actually the first one I've had a civil conversation with, or even seen for that matter, and I really do appreciate that).}}. The comment is edited to expanded to make it more offensive,[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hikaru_Utada&diff=prev&oldid=1052074115] before being toned down.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hikaru_Utada&diff=prev&oldid=1052079045]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081922071#RFC_designation_as_neo-Nazi 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unnamed_anon&diff=prev&oldid=1052162194 27 October 2021] When Tamzin leaves a kind explanatory message, they admit they occasionally resort to stereotyping when not in a good mood and apologize, saying they try and stay out of GENSEX.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1081929129&oldid=1081928374&title=Talk:Azov_Battalion 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081933725 10 April] Disruption/vandalism of an RfC
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hikaru_Utada&diff=prev&oldid=1054713574 11 November 2011] changes {{tq|came out as [[non-binary]] }} to {{tq|expressed frustration with traditional gender roles}} in Utada's article according to their [[WP:OR]].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081947361 10 April] Disruptively editing away from the status quo (the result of an RfC) while a new RfC is in progress. They cite votes in the ongoing RfC as justification.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:J._K._Rowling&diff=prev&oldid=1057083305 25 November 2021] Launches a malformed RFC on the lead of [[J.K. Rowling]] and begins to edit war with editors trying to fix it.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&type=revision&diff=1081581566&oldid=1081384722 8 April] Accusing an editor (myself) of being an SPA on Jimbo Wales' talk page.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection/Increase&diff=prev&oldid=1074774495 1 March 2022] Asks for page protection with a generalizing comment about nonbinary people {{Tq|Common target for enbies to force exclusive use of they/them into a she/they enby}}
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEnlightenmentNow1792&type=revision&diff=1081781087&oldid=1081745923 9 April] Uncivil behaviour after receiving an AE warning
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jaiden_Animations&diff=prev&oldid=1078670660 22 March 2022] Describes being LGB as a {{tq|sexual deviancy}} repeatedly.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1081744203 9 April] Uncivil behaviour at AN/I
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unnamed_anon&diff=prev&oldid=1096469575 4 July 2022] When asked for a source definitively saying a character from Stranger things isn't gay instead of "it's indeterminate", provides one saying "it's indeterminate". A user notes that on the talk page.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081701248 9 April] Battleground/uncivil behaviour
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1136027384&oldid=1135526365&title=Quagmire%27s_Dad 28 January 2023] misgenders a transgender character and removes relevant categories.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081783343 9 April] Declined report at edit war noticeboard
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_LGBT_characters_in_The_Simpsons&oldid=1164771063 10 July 2023] launches an AFD for [[List of LGBT Characters in the Simpsons]], having just previously edit-warred at [[LGBT representation in The Simpsons]]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081677501 8 April] Baseless accusations of edit warring
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_queerphobes&action=history 3 May 2024 (revision deleted)] they commit a BLP violation regarding [[kiwifarms]] in the MFD for [[WP:No queerphobia]], which they participate in heavily.
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_queerphobes&diff=prev&oldid=1222286594 5 May 2024] this is one instance of their repeated claim that LGBT editors can have COI's due to their identity: {{tq| while it is true that often LGBT editors can escape the Conflict of Interest concerns, this seems to be an attempt at absolving the editor even when there clearly is a conflict of interest, like in this discussion (I have noticed that quite a lot of the "keep" !votes are coming from LGBT editors). }}
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081676671 8 April] Baseless accusations of edit warring
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_queerphobia&diff=prev&oldid=1222316987 5 May 2024] They remove the example {{tq|accepting transgender children in a slipper slope}} saying {{Tq|Anything regarding transgender youth is too controversial to be here}}. They continue to remove parts they disagree with and slow motion edit war with multiple other editors with many misleading or nonexistent edit summaries.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081571289&diff=prev 8 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:No_queerphobia&diff=prev&oldid=1224264386 17 May 2024] I want to stress they argued it's too controversial to say {{tq|[[same-sex marriage|marriage]], [[same-sex adoption|adoption]], or [[LGBT parenting|parenting]] should be restricted to heterosexual couples.}} is a queerphobic proposition.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081609185&diff=prev 8 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag
+#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:No_queerphobia&diff=prev&oldid=1224337338 17 May 2024] Tells me I should {{tq|You should really remove the "friendly" part of your username}} and patronizingly tells me that he understands I feel strongly about not removing trans youth from the essay since I transitioned as a minor, but we can't shut down {{tq|real debates}}
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081670731&diff=prev 8 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1081720955&diff=prev 9 April] Repeated re-adding of POV tag
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bobfrombrockley&diff=prev&oldid=1081632470 8 April] Bludgeoning
-; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
-<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=127923465 19 February 2022] 1 week block for disruptive editing
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
+;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]):
 <!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
-*DS alert sent on 8 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=prev&oldid=1081577591]
+*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unnamed_anon&diff=prev&oldid=1051746242 25 October 2021] (see the system log linked to above).
-*AE warning logged on 9 April [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEnlightenmentNow1792&type=revision&diff=1081745923&oldid=1081683233]
 ; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
+<!-- Add any further comment here -->
-This is just a snapshot of this editor's disruptive behaviour over the past few days at the Azov Battalion page [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=EnlightenmentNow1792&page=Talk%3AAzov_Battalion&server=enwiki&max= encompassing more than 100 edits on the talk page] since 30 March.
+The user originally started by edit warring over My Hero Academia and was warned by multiple editors, which accounts for their first ~700 edits across multiple forums, noticeboards, and talk pages.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Unnamed_anon&target=Unnamed+anon&offset=20200921220242&limit=500] I believe their contribution record, comments from others at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist_and_User:Licks-rocks_civility_concerns the thread at ANI they started to complain about my behavior] where they freely admit to having a [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] mentality, and their talk page shows they have problems with edit warring and strong feelings in general.
-; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
-<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEnlightenmentNow1792&type=revision&diff=1082049158&oldid=1081953581]
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
+I believe the evidence above shows their disruption is particularly heightened in the GENSEX topic area, despite claiming to avoid it. This has been an issue for years. Their conduct at [[WP:No queerphobia]] and its associated [[Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:No queerphobes|MFD]] has been particularly disruptive. I made comments I regret and struck or clarified in response to their latest edits to the essay and for the record would like to apologize for my incivility towards him, but I believe he is still disruptive to the topic area (regardless of whether or not his views are queerphobic), he has a problematic tendency to group editors by LGBT status, and a TBAN may be necessary. At the minimum, a page block from [[WP:No queerphobes]].
-===Discussion concerning EnlightenmentNow1792===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by EnlightenmentNow1792====
+The other edits to media articles and their edit-warring at [[Reverse racism]] and related pages and categories? I leave those to others to interpret. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 21:19, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+:@[[User:JPxG|JPxG]] I wanted to show it was a long-term issue and they've been warned. If an admin allows me 100-200 more words and 10 diffs I can highlight specifics of their conduct around [[WP:No queerphobes]].
-'''My contributions to the attempt to improve the article''':
+:A taste, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:No_queerphobes&diff=prev&oldid=1222291014 May 4 2024], they say it {{tq| definitely shows POV pushing and editing in one's own interest}} that I'm sick of people saying {{tq|all trans women who aren't straight are fetishists}}. Their incivil comments about me and queer people predated mine towards them.
+:If an IB means "UA can redefine anything in the essay they want and I can't comment" - I can't support it. If it means "they can write a counter-essay and I won't try to delete or rewrite it" - I fully support it. [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 22:48, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
-'''1.''' Sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Azov_Battalion#Is_Azov_still_neo-nazi? (over a dozen of the most eminently RSs)
+Notified Unnamed anon [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unnamed_anon&diff=prev&oldid=1224514508 18 May 2024] [[User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ]] ([[User talk:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist|talk]]) 21:23, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-'''2.''' Many hours spent trying to help finish the malformed RfC (I didn't want to), only for the initiator to then take back control of the RfC, which I acquiesed to:
+===Discussion concerning Unnamed anon===
+<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.<br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
+====Statement by Unnamed anon====
-. {{ font color | darkolivegreen | For the RfC, an "Alternative Draft #2:" }}
+-17 all relate to the same page. If you made this AE yesterday, I'd gladly be blocked from editing that specific essay if you reported me yesterday, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist/No_queerphobia&diff=prev&oldid=1224507653 but I had just come to an agreement with Licks-rocks], so it's up to others if they want me to no longer edit that page. I want to stress that I didn't actually agree with 16, but I was following advice from another Non-Endorser, Ficaia. 1-6 plus 8 all refer to the same page as well, and that was because Utada still used "she" pronouns in many then-current sources, before her social media outright listed she/they. I wasn't the only editor arguing this, nor was I the most prominent. That leaves five unique pages. The Simpsons AfD (12) was out of redundancy concerns, as all of the characters either had their own page already or were non-notable gag characters. The Family Guy edit (11) was because I was removing vandalism where the transphobia page was wrongly linked several times. The JK Rowling RfC (7) was because I felt that people put undue weight on recent news. For 9, at the time I didn't know people considered asexuals as LGBT (I still don't understand, but I'm no longer warring over it). I had no excuse for my phrases in 9, 3 and 4, but my views have changed in those three years. I don't group editors over their sexuality anymore unless there's a clear pattern where one side is mostly openly LGBT and the other side isn't. 10 was me seeing what I thought was original research, as I specifically remembered reading that Stranger Things interview.
+As for the edit war when I started my account, that was exasperation at [https://sigma.toolforge.org/usersearch.py?name=Serial+Number+54129&page=List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&server=enwiki&max= constantly reverting to a preferred version], in spite of multiple users agreeing that a lot of the content was wrongly removed, being considered "not warring", as well as an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=prev&oldid=970792931 name-calling] from the other user in said edit war, who didn't contribute to the discussion after said incivility. Once Serial Number and I directly interacted for the first time in years when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1224443396 he complained about me at ANI], he submitted misrepresented evidence against me; in most of the diffs in his comment where I supposedly can't listen to other users, I had come to agreements with said users soon after([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Unnamed_anon&diff=next&oldid=975260926 example]), which he conveniently left out. As JXpG suggested,
-{{ font color | darkolivegreen | '''The Azov Special Operations Detachment''' is a unit of the [[National Guard of Ukraine]], based in [[Mariupol]], southeastern Ukraine. It was founded as the '''Azov Battalion''' in [[Kyiv]] in 2014, a small paramilitary group of extremist Far Right and [[neo-Nazi]] political activists under the political leadership of [[Andriy Biletsky]].<ref>Umland, A. (2019)</ref> "Irregular Militias and Radical Nationalism in Post-Euromaydan Ukraine: The Prehistory and Emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014." Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1).<ref>Shekhovtsov, A., & Umland, A. (2014). The maidan and beyond: Ukraine's radical right. Journal of Democracy, 25(3), 58-63.</ref> Active participants in the [[Revolution of Dignity]], the militia became notorious in Western and Russian media for its tech-savvy online presence,<ref>Saressalo, T., & Huhtinen, A.-M. (2018). The Information Blitzkrieg — “Hybrid” Operations Azov Style. The Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 31(4), 423–443.</ref> relatively unfettered use of neo-Nazi symbolism,<ref>Chossudovsky, M. (2015). Ukraine’s neo-Nazi summer camp. Guardian (Sydney), (1701), 7.</ref> and its successful efforts in recruiting international volunteers.<ref>Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.</ref> However, after its forced absorption into the [[National Guard]] and the subsequent purging of its extremist political element - most especially [[Andriy Biletsky]] and his circle - the scholarly consensus is that the unit has for long now been largely "de-politicized".<ref>Umland, A. (2019). Irregular militias and radical nationalism in post-euromaydan Ukraine: The prehistory and emergence of the “Azov” Battalion in 2014. Terrorism and Political Violence, 31(1), 105-131.</ref><ref>Fedorenko, K., & Umland, A. (2022). Between Frontline and Parliament: Ukrainian Political Parties and Irregular Armed Groups in 2014–2019. Nationalities Papers, 50(2), 237-261.</ref><ref>Bezruk, T., Umland, A., & Weichsel, V. (2015). Der Fall" Azov": Freiwilligenbataillone in der Ukraine. Osteuropa, 33-41.</ref><ref>https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2017-08-01/how-ukraine-reined-its-militias</ref><ref>AFP in https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20220325-azov-regiment-takes-centre-stage-in-ukraine-propaganda-war</ref><ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/06/ukraine-military-right-wing-militias/</ref><ref>https://www.ft.com/content/7191ec30-9677-423d-873c-e72b64725c2d</ref></ref><ref>https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-europe-60853404</ref><ref>https://www.dw.com/en/the-azov-battalion-extremists-defending-mariupol/a-61151151</ref> }}
+I'd like a two-way interaction ban between me and YFNS; SN54129 as well, because I can't trust that the latter will criticize me in good faith. In both of these cases, it's clear that I don't react well when somebody is being blatantly uncivil towards me, as both users have shown. My reactions are probably inappropriate, but they're not unwarranted since the other party is usually uncivil first, which is why I think my Ibans should be two-way.
-[[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792|talk]]) 17:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
+:(@Serial Number 54129): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=prev&oldid=970792931 If you think calling me names isn't uncivil], I don't know what to say. While I now know that looking at my IP location prior to account creation isn't doxxing, that also felt wildly inappropriate for that discussion. I also do not appreciate the aspersions from you that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=970793308 every IP reverting your edits was me] or that I was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_My_Hero_Academia_characters&diff=next&oldid=974655020&diffonly=1 "bullshitting innocent admins"]. During the ANI thread, you told me to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1224485041 "Feel free to cry" and another aspersion that I "accept no responsibility"], when I had literally just said [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1224469521 "I'm not going to pretend I'm blameless"] You saying {{tq|"of course they're aspersions"}} in your reply below doubles down on why I don't trust you. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+{{re|Seraphimblade}} I think the discussion should be redirected here rather than ANI, as my grievances with one user I initially reported have seceded, while another user conduct dispute was reignited after years of inactivity because of the ANI discussion. I think the ANI discussion should close and discussion redirected here due to the user report switch. I'll also reiterate than I'm volunteering myself for two two-way interaction bans. If YFNS and SN54129 both agree with two-way interaction bans, then this case can be ended fairly easily. [[User:Unnamed anon|Unnamed anon]] ([[User talk:Unnamed anon|talk]]) 01:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
+====Statement by JPxG====
-'''Reply regarding GizzyCatBella:'''
+I suppose I am involved here because I commented at the AN/I thread about these same diffs running concurrently to this AE request ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Your_Friendly_Neighborhood_Sociologist_and_User:Licks-rocks_civility_concerns]]). I also commented at the MfD for this essay, where I said it ought to be userfied (which it apparently now has been). This AE request feels like basically the same thing as the AN/I thread, which is "one of the participants in a vicious talk page argument wants the other person gone".
+The diffs in the post opening this thread go back three years, which, well -- if you have to go back three whole years to find stuff to make a case, I think the case might not be that strong. They are also presented in the worst context possible: e.g. the thing about recommending that YFNS remove "friendly" from her name was not some random remark, it was made in the context of a several-week-long discussion in which YFNS was [[Special:Diff/1224357672|saying stuff like]] "{{tq|In any case, cry as much as you want}}" and "{{tq|If I was a little less inclined to assume that what seems to be constant dogwhistling from you is genuine concern, I'd say you were a queerphobic troll}}".
-:I believe this editor's activities to be [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] to the point of being disruptive. Would I be correct in surmising that these diffs below (are they diffs?) are indicative of someone who is not, at this moment, here to build an encyclopedia? [[WP:NOTHERE]]
+It may be warranted to note that YFNS (under a previous username) was at one point subject to a [[WP:GENSEX]] topic ban at AN ([[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1121#Advocacy_editing_by_User:TheTranarchist]]), where CaptainEek's closing note was:
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081880215] - demonstrates she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion.
+:{{tq|All editors inherently edit topics they find interesting. Just because an editor writes about something does not mean they have WP:ADVOCACY problem. But there is a line between the two. The commenters ultimately agreed that TheTranarchist has passed this line: she goes beyond interest into trying to mold the topic area to fit her worldview. That is incompatible with Wikipedia. She has become a WP:TENDITIOUS editor. Given all the factors discussed, there is rough consensus for an indefinite GENSEX topic ban.}}
+Of course, as with many things related to contentious political topics, this thread was opened by a now-blocked sock, but the consensus was nonetheless pretty consistent that there was a pattern of disruption. It should also be noted in the interest of fairness that this restriction was appealed (first at [[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive352#TheTranarchist_GENSEX_TBAN_Appeal]] and later, successfully, at [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive356#TheTranarchist_Appeal]], with topic-based 1RR and 0RR restrictions).
+Now, while we're on the subject of "reports don't need to be made in good faith for the issues they mention to be serious and worth action" -- this may well be true here, and UA ''is'' acting pretty out-of-pocket. I think that something in the general shape of a two-way interaction ban may be appropriate here. I am not an "AE guy" so I cannot say for certain what's the most likely to actually have a meaningful positive impact.
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081875484] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen |  "After thinking about it - here is '''the issue''' with the above version. Do we have any source that says ''includes Neo-nazi elements''. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see [[WP:OR]]" }} -  there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.
+:Further comment (sorry if this busts me on word limit): ''in re'' "doxing" claim against Serial, see [[:File:Extended UI dropdown with IP lookup tools screenshot.png|this screenshot]] of the menu I have on every IP talk page; the link he posted was from this; well within the bailiwick and propriety of normal editing.
+====Statement by Serial Number 54129====
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081865629] - <u>Comment</u> - {{ font color | mediumseagreen |   Same here, <u>do we have any source</u> that says ''which used to be neo-Nazi'' ? }} - there are dozens. Demonstrating she hasn't read the Talk Page discussion, but is nevertheless commenting, voting, insulting, warning, other users that don't share her POV.
+Since I have been name checked, can I ask admins to request examples of the incivility I have used against User Anon. Without diffs... well, of course they're aspersions.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 22:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
+anon|talk]]) 23:02, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=prev&oldid=1081865359] - invited her to withdraw a personal attack, she clearly declined
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081865153] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen |   <u>Comment</u> - After thinking about it - here is '''the issue''' with the above version. Do we have any source that says ''includes Neo-nazi elements''. Do we? If not, I don’t think that can be used unfortunately. see [[WP:OR]] }} - demonstrating again she hasn't read the discussion
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081864599] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen |  Yay, I would go with this one, perhaps modifying it to '''''defined as neo-Nazi''''' }} - votes, despite not reading sources, and ends choosing the least supported of all the options. The sources in fact actively refute this allegation. But she votes that way all the same.
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081857395] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen |   "[[User:Disconnected Phrases|Disconnected Phrases]] ([[User talk:Disconnected Phrases|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Disconnected Phrases|contribs]]) has made [[wikipedia:Single-purpose_account|few or no other edits]] outside this topic." }} - accuses a new user that doesn't share her POV of being a SPA
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081719631] - adds "insignia used by the Nazi [[Schutzstaffel|SS]] divisions" to the text of the article lead! Very helpful!
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081718274] - replaces TWO BBC sources (2018 and 2022) about the Wolfsangel symbol, with a 2015 RBC (Russian state-controlled media) one specifically linking it to Andrei Biletsky, who, of course, was booted from the modern Azov unit way back in 2016. Demonstrating again, she is not familiar at all with subject or the the source material (8 years out of date).
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&diff=prev&oldid=1081681291] - {{ font color | mediumseagreen | "@ [[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] - Battleground mentality of Aquillion? I feel users who arrive here with such an obvious absurdity to safeguard their POV partner need to be cautioned. I'm referring to the remark left EnlightenmentNow1792." }} Tries to goad an admin to "caution" me because I am supposedly there to "safeguard my POV partner", who, as it happens, kept rv my edits as much as she did! lol
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=prev&oldid=1081618597] - this whole Talk Page exchange is bizarre. She has repeatedly, point-blank refused to even take a look at, let alone read, any sources. She has added no content herself. No sources. Well, except for the RBC one! What is the point of even being on Wikipedia if you're not prepared to look at sources or contribute any content?
-:When I provided her with a list of recent high quality sources on her Talk page, her response was this...
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GizzyCatBella&diff=prev&oldid=1081616783]
-:Apparently she's been blocked multiple times for edit-warring and [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]. This hasn't stopped her from spending much her time on Wikipedia trying to get others blocked for supposedly edit warring... only if of course they have the temerity to not share her POV.
-:[[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792|talk]]) 17:08, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-'''Comment regarding and replying to [[User:El_C|El_C]]:'''
-::This admin is not uninvolved. He has repeatedly threatened me with a TBAN on my talk page since he was first made aware of my presence in the topic area, in which I possess a high level of professional expertise and unusual level of access to sources (books, academic journals, Russian language sources, can speak/read Russian, etc). It's impossible not to respond to [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] behavior with retaliatory combative edits in this topic area, as editors who have a special interest POV are constantly pushing for new users - who don't share their nationalist/ethnic special interest - to be Topic Banned, blocked, etc. Admin who aren't familiar with the source material, the scholarship, and the political disputes in the region, then are often successfully goaded into banning new users, who don't know how to properly defend themselves (the the required competence WP:CIR [[User:El_C|El_C]]) refers to. - [[User:EnlightenmentNow1792|EnlightenmentNow1792]] ([[User talk:EnlightenmentNow1792|talk]]) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-{{ref talk}}
-====Statement by BSMRD====
-In addition to what has been provided above, EnlightenmentNow1792 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080313939&oldid=1080313833 seems] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080314190&oldid=1080313939 to] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080315853&oldid=1080315491 be] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080312173&oldid=1072850554 reverting] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1080316571&oldid=1080316428 any] messages regarding their behavior off their talk page as "personal attacks" (that's just a small sample, more can be seen [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&action=history here]). Now, by itself there is nothing wrong with that however, in addition, they have shown nothing but contempt for Wikipedia's administrative processes and ruling, shown both in the above posting, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Elinruby&diff=1081726167&oldid=1081580896 this comment] and their response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#AE_logged_warning this warning]. They clearly have no desire to change their behavior or regard any other editors or administrators encouragement to do so. In fact, they don't seem to have changed their behavior at all since the last time they were blocked, and I doubt anything short of a broader/longer block or TBAN will do anything. [[User:BSMRD|BSMRD]] ([[User talk:BSMRD|talk]]) 07:42, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by GizzyCatBella====
-I <u>always</u> advocate against sanctioning editors unless it's absolutely necessary and justified but this case requires administrative intervention, unfortunately.  Edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1080923185&oldid=1080913696&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1080925516&oldid=1080923515&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1081227443&oldid=1081149144&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Azov_Battalion&diff=1081947361&oldid=1081946032&diffmode=source] and [[WP:BLUDGEON]] on the [[Azov Battalion]] talk page including "hijacking" RFCs [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1081951652&oldid=1081950705&diffmode=source] (modifying other people's text to their liking [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081921114&diffmode=source] see the complaint that followed -->[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=next&oldid=1081922678&diffmode=source]), the repeated removal of other people's comments [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1081876508&oldid=1081791327&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=1081923872&oldid=1081890438&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792&diff=prev&oldid=1081934687&diffmode=source] are just samples that are outside criteria that must be followed.
-<small>(I could go on with more examples of disruptive behaviour but I believe these already presented are enough)</small> - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 12:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-*<s><small>'''Page needs a clerk intervention please. Everything written below this message is not mine''' - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 17:26, 11 April 2022 (UTC)</small></s>
-The [[WP:BLUDGEON]] at the Azov talk page continues (as I write this). Here is just a recent sample of it:
-*March 31 list of sources eg. Umland, A. (2019) etc - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1080299785&diffmode=source]
-*April 9 <u>again</u> Umland, A. (2019) etc - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=prev&oldid=1081683367&diffmode=source]
-*April 11 <u>yet again</u> (just a few minutes before coming here) Umland (2019) - [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Azov_Battalion&diff=1082154542&oldid=1082152339&diffmode=source]
-It's very challenging to navigate through that talk page as it is. We don't need to hear repeated argumentation, over and over and over. Sadly, I'll have to support a topic ban at least from that talk page, please. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 17:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-On top of the bizarre accusation of misconduct against our finest administrators [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1082164769&oldid=1082164440] and here too [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bbb23&diff=prev&oldid=1081678772&diffmode=source]
-I believe it's worth noting the strange remark posted here [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1082158333&oldid=1082157926] that has been copy-pasted from talk page of ToBeFree [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ToBeFree#Some_help_for_a_new(-ish)_editor?] where EnlightenmentNow1792 went on a block shopping journey just a day earlier. The editor exhibits clear battleground behaviour. I'm not sure 🤔 but perhaps they require also a break to recognize it. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-And now this [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EnlightenmentNow1792#WP:AE] .. contesting another fine admin. Oh Lord.. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 20:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-I also share the view of Firefangledfeathers -->[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=1082236247&oldid=1082235081&diffmode=source]
-EnlightenmentNow1792 has the potential to be a positive acquisition to our project if they only understood how to act accordingly to our standards. The <u>only issue</u> is their conduct which might be happening because of a lack of experience. I hope they learn from this incident and revise their behaviour. I really hope so and I would welcome rather soft sanctions. - <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:#40">'''GizzyCatBella'''</span>]][[User talk:GizzyCatBella|<span style="color:transparent;text-shadow:0 0 0 red;font-size:80%">🍁</span>]]</span></small> 03:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by Firefangledfeathers====
-I'll likely have more to say later, but I'd like to call attention to prior conduct issues raised at ANI in [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1086#EnlightenmentNow1792|December]] and [[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1091#EnlightenmentNow1792_is_NOTHERE_to_build_an_encylopedia|February]]. Both involved disruptive conduct in other topic areas. [[WP:TEXTWALL]] is a recurring issue with this editor. {{u|EnlightenmentNow1792}}, are you aware that there is a 500 word limit here? [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 17:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-: Since it seems some sanction is likely, I won't add to the pile of diffs, but if admins feel more are needed I've got them. For the record, EN1792 has a great strength in compiling and sharing quality source lists. They present themselves, convincingly, as someone with an extensive library and source access and the willingness to spend hours digging out the relevant info. I hope they get a chance to show off their more civil, collaborative side. [[User:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] ([[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeathers|contribs]]) 02:10, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by My very best wishes====
-The battleground attitude of this user is obvious, <s>but if a topic ban to be issued, I would propose it to be only ''for 2-4 months'' as their first sanction. The user seems to be agitated and profoundly disturbed because of the ongoing Ukrainian war, and especially the [[Siege of Mariupol]]. When these events end, and there will be more certainty on this subject as reflected in sources, perhaps she/he will be able to edit in a more reasonable and collaborative manner?</s> [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 18:54, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-:@Bishonen. Yes, I agree with you after checking their earlier edits, and not only in the EE area. This user seems to be non-cooperative in general, but the problem is becoming bigger in contentious subject areas. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 00:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 ====Statement by (username)====
 <!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
-===Result concerning EnlightenmentNow1792===
+===Result concerning Unnamed anon===
 :''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
 <!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
+*It looks like there is already [[wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist and User:Licks-rocks civility concerns|an open ANI thread]] about this matter, and we should generally not have multiple discussions open about the same matter in different places. Unless an uninvolved admin shortly objects, I'll close this with no action, with the option to bring it back here if the ANI thread ends without resolving the matter. [[User:Seraphimblade|Seraphimblade]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Seraphimblade|Talk to me]]</sup></small> 01:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
-*Recommend TBAN. This user is needlessly combative ([[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]) ''and'' they lack the required competence ([[WP:CIR]]) to edit the topic area at this time. Little if any reflection or introspection were ever shown (perhaps because they fail to realize that there ''is'' a problem), so it's probably for the best. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:22, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-:*This user does not understand [[WP:INVOLVED]]. I've interacted with them in an administrative capacity only, and of course, I made no {{tq|threats}}. That they call my warning that is further proof of intractable BATTLEGREOUND. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 18:27, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-::*That's right, I pretty much stopped setting TBANS to automatically expire a while ago. Been burned too many times before. Also, obviously, we can't tell when Russian atrocities are going to end in the Ukraine, so how do we set any kind of a clock on the ban? How can any duration not be arbitrary, in that sense? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-*Agree with El C. I'm particularly interested in the user's editing after they were warned by El C, and quite a lot of the diffs offered indeed postdate that warning. This is a very obvious case of disruptive battleground/steamroller editing, and a topic ban seems necessary. Indeed, I thought of simply issuing one myself, per my sole admin discretion, but it would perhaps be a pity not to reinforce it by having it come from multiple admins here at AE. I note and appreciate [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]]'s recommendation of a 2-4 months' ban only, but I can't agree. Time-limited bans can be simply waited out, and then users can return with their bad habits intact, without having had to show they can otherwise edit constructively. Topic bans should normally be indefinite, IMO. In this case, an appeal in three months' time could be entertained. EnlightenmentNow1792, if you are indeed topic banned indefinitely with a three-month wait to appeal, as I recommend, you can make that appeal more credible by showing good editing in other areas, and also in the EE area on our [[WP:SISTER|sister]] projects. (You would only be banned from the English Wikipedia.) [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 22:23, 11 April 2022 (UTC).
-*I support an indefinite topic ban. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 10:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-==Anonimu==
-{{hat|Indef TBAN from ARBEE. Thanks,  [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] for the summary. [[User:Volunteer Marek|Volunteer Marek]], [[triage]], please! [[User:El_C|El_C]] 01:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)}}
-<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
-===Request concerning Anonimu===
-; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Volunteer Marek}} 23:46, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
-; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Anonimu}}<p>{{ds/log|Anonimu}}</p>
-<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe Eastern Europe]
-<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced --->
-; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
-User:Anonimu has both been extremely [[WP:TENDENTIOUS]] in their edits to articles related to the Russia-Ukraine war, and extremely uncivil, uncooperative and insulting as well.
-For the record, Anonimu is still under a 1RR restriction, a civility parole and an admonition to "behave impeccably" [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonimu/Complete_Works/Tom_1_(2009)#Ban_suspended]; although this restriction was imposed quite some time ago as a condition of removal of their indefinite ban from Wikipedia, it was never lifted and still applies. Anonimu acknowledges that it still applies in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081031753 this edit summary] although they claim that these restriction only apply to "Balkans" and not "Russia". There is no indication anywhere that this is the case. The original restrictions apply to ALL of their editing.
-Anonimu has violated all three of these restrictions, and even if one regards these restrictions as "stale" on account of their vintage, their behavior is still sanction worthy. Indeed, this seems to be a reversion to exactly the same kind of behavior (both in terms of civility and POV/WP:TEND) that led them to get indefinitely blocked back then.
-The most vexatious issue is Anonimu repeatedly referring to my edits as vandalism:
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081080187 First instance]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081794586 and then more seriously here] - also accuses me of using "fake descriptions". To be clear, there are two photos there and I did mislabel label one as from Bucha instead of Mariupol. Anonimu could have simply corrected that or pointed it out. But this wasn't the gist of the dispute - they wished to remove that both of these are attributed to Russia by RS. --- I then asked Anonimu not to refer to my edits as vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081797002]. '''First time'''.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081813220 He ignores my query], doubles down referring to me as a "vandal" personally --- I again ask him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081797828]. '''Second time'''.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081814368 In response he starts a talk page section] with header which again calls me a vandal. It's becoming obvious that he's purposefully using  "vandal" as a way to antagonize and insult ([[WP:BATTLEGROUND]]) --- [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081815021 I again] ask him to stop accusing me of vandalism, and point him to the relevant policy about it, [[WP:NORESVAND]]. '''Third time'''.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815021 Anonimu doubles down on the accusation] (edit summary is straight up personal attack) --- I ask them again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815350]. '''Fourth time'''
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815404 They respond] by repeating the attack. --- I removed their attack from header [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815796] and ask them (again!) to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081819901]. '''Fifth time'''. Someone else chimes in [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081820004] also telling Anonimu to cut it out.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081874964 Does it again] and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081875182 Anonimu] restores section header. Yet another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081876809 collapses the section] and then informs them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081882765] as to how their offensive headings violate policy. This is at least '''Sixth time''' Anonimu was told their comments are inappropriate.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081882765 They respond] with more! [[User:Mathglot]] also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081883749]: ''"these four edits constitute repeated accusations of vandalism against another editor, at the wrong venue, and without supporting evidence."'' and asks them to ''"most especially, please refrain from accusations of vandalism at the article Talk page. A pattern of unfounded accusations may be seen as [[WP:DISRUPTIVE]], or a [[WP:NPA|personal attack]]"''. '''Seventh time''' Anonimu was told to cut it out. We're wayyyy past [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] territory here. See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081893908 this assessment by Mathglot]. The previous user, [[User:Chuckstablers]] complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081896553] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082015462] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082016519]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082071854 Anonimu responds] by repeating the personal attacks --- it's explained to them again - '''Eight time''' - why these are problematic  [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082074564] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082078372]
-#Also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881518 Anonimu continues to refer] to my edits as "vandalism", and restores the personal attacks to the section header [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881952] that Mathglot changed to remove them. --- I also ask for the '''Ninth time''' for him to stop calling my edits vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082156114]
-#Yup, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082166092 he responds by doing it again]. it's pretty clear that this isn't just [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] but just straight up TAUNTing.
-#And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082161918 more]. Repeats false accusations. It's almost like he wants to make sure that I see him insulting me. --- '''TENTH warning''' from [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166664 me here] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166799 here]
-#Yup, he does it again and even uncollapses the section [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166900]
-And here we are. I've been about as patient as it is humanely possible here with Anonimu. Ten warnings, from myself and other users. Each one seems to only embolden him.
-Anonimu's edits to article space have likewise been problematic. On [[War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine]] their edits generally try to deny, whitewash or minimize Russian war crimes reported on in reliable sources:
-*Removing well sourced info [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077622632] (more of the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171202], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171689] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1077622632])
-*Typical edits [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078604283] where he adds "according to Ukrainian authorities" to anything that makes Russia look bad, EVEN IF sources report it at face value (CNN in this case). More of the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079172290] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1080985297] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081077162] (replaces "human rights groups", which is what source says, with "Ukrainian authorities"), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081084980] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077863956] [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/20/us-decries-disturbing-accounts-of-ukrainians-deported-to-russia]
-*Restores text to lede against consensus [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078783948] (trying to "bothsides it"). Then edit wars about it (violating 1RR which he is subject to) [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078858378]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171076]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079782551]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081029753]
-*More 1RR violations [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079782058], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079791263] with new flimsy pretext [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080441200] (text not backed by source)
-*WP:TEND [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080980531] because apparently because Russian soldiers killed NOT JUST civilians but also some soldiers, then it wasn't a war crime.
-*Removes well sourced text because "it fails verification", meaning, he didn't check it himself [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080984071]. Inserts whitewashing language such as "apparently dead bodies". Yeah, "apparently" they were dead. This is a subtle pushing of the [[conspiracy theory]] being pushed on pro-Putin social media that the massacre was staged by Ukrainians with crisis actors. He re-inserts the conspiracy theory [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080986444 here] (although attributed)
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081081890] (not actually "per source"), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081258586] (more conspiracy theory insinuations), [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081564690] (false pretext - source mentions two beheadings, it's just that one was "partially beheaded", so he changes it to singular)
-Note that's there's likely a dozen or so 1RR violations in the above, in addition to [[WP:TEND]] and [[WP:NPA]] violations.
-There's even more at [[Kramatorsk railway station attack]]
-*Inserting the conspiracy theory that Ukraine bombed its own station [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940]. And again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1082192861]
-*Pretends that who the attacker is is disputed out there among reliable sources [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1082197765]
-<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
-<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu#Anonimu_was_blocked_indefinitely] Indef ban
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Anonimu#Anonimu_banned] ArbCom ban on top of 1 year ban.
-Yes, both of these are very old. But these were the reasons he was placed under 1RR restriction and civility parole as conditions of removing the indef ban [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonimu/Complete_Works/Tom_1_(2009)#Ban_suspended]. The restrictions were never removed.
-As mentioned above Anonimu recognizes the restrictions are still in place but likes to pretend they only apply to the Balkans. This is not true. And in fact, their original indef ban was over edits to the topic area of Balkans AND Russia.
-<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 00:18, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-;If [[Wikipedia:AC/DS|discretionary sanctions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts]]):
-<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081052550]
-; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
-<!-- Add any further comment here -->
-Like I said above, I'm out of patience here. Four different editors have tried to explain to him why their behavior is problematic. The response is just [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] and escalation in incivility and battleground. And that's NOT EVEN considering the WP:TEND content of their edits. While I don't think their indefinite ban should be restored (although it's exactly the same problem that led to it) a topic ban from anything Eastern Europe and especially Russia related is a minimum here.
-; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :
-<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. -->
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Anonimu#WP:AE]
-<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
-===Discussion concerning Anonimu===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by Anonimu====
-====Statement by My very best wishes====
-I also noticed that recent editing by Anonimu in this subject area was very problematic. Some diffs:
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077623135&oldid=1077622632] - Anonimu believes that bombing pregnant women in a hospital was not a war crime
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077622632&oldid=1077574942] - Anonimu believes that mass bombing of civilians in Mariupol was not a war crime, even though  it was described a "humanitarian catastrophe" by International Committee of the Red Cross in text he removes
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1079171202&oldid=1079171076] (edit summary by Anonimu: "source mentions not reports, but rumors heard by locals") - This is a misrepresentation of the source by Anonimu. The article in Haaretz [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-panic-in-captured-ukrainian-city-russians-are-entering-houses-there-s-looting-1.10651066] tells about reports by eyewitnesses, not rumors.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1080115720&oldid=1080115332] (edit summary by Anonimu: "rv vandalism ..."). Here, Anonimu includes to the <u>lead</u> of the page that "Ukrainian authorities have been accused of ... indiscriminate shelling on civilian areas" with a reference to [https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/situation-ukraine this]. No, the body of page (and the source) do not include any credible claims that Ukrainian authorities indiscriminately shell their own civilians.  [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 01:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1076387437&oldid=1076386506] - Anonimu believes that use of cluster munitions is legal, even though [[Human Rights Watch]] found that it was not (in the text Anonimu deleted in this diff)
-====Statement by (username)====
-<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->
-===Result concerning Anonimu===
-:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
-<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
-*{{u|Volunteer Marek}}, you are well over the 500-word limit (over 1,600), please trim with that baseline in mind. Also, please sign + timestamp at the end of your statement. Thanks. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 00:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 {{hab}}
-==Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Anonimu==
-<small>''Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Enforcement|here]]. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.''</small>
-<small>''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]]).''</small>
-; Appealing user : {{userlinks|Anonimu}} – [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 14:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-; Sanction being appealed : Indefinite topic ban from Eastern European topics, imposed at [[WP:AE#Anonimu]], logged at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2022#Eastern_Europe]]
-; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|El C}}
-; Notification of that administrator : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:El_C&diff=1082324978&oldid=1082320358 dif]
-===Statement by Anonimu===
-I did not have the occasion to make a statement on the original AE request, since it was closed in just 2 hours. Since enforcing admin said the ban was applied for supposed "tendentious editing", I'll just go through the "offending" diffs and show that they were just strict application of [[WP:5P2]] (more specifically [[WP:V]], [[WP:NPOV]], and [[WP:ATT]]). Do note that this is a current topic, thus should be judged according to data available at the time of edit, not info which appeared later:
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081794586] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077863956] add a neutral description to photos published by a non-independent, non-reliable source (the Ukrainian government); the first diff also fixes a obviously wrong caption (a photo the Ukrainian gvt says was taken in Mariupol is presented as taken in Bucha), and introduces text from [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61036740 BBC]: "accused Russia of using its Iskander short-range ballistic missile with a cluster munitions warhead. But he later corrected himself, "Russia's defence ministry also said that Tochka-U rockets were used in the Kramatorsk strike, blaming Ukraine's armed forces for the attack." "The ministry insisted it did not use the type of Tochka-U missile that was fired, whereas the Ukrainian military did."
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082166092] Moves source to the supported text and clarifies info from [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-61036740 BBC] source: "analysts point to images and videos on social media that appear to show the Russian military using the Tochka-U."
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1077622632] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1077622632] removes text that violates [[WP:ONUS]]. While sourced, the text does not indicated how exactly is relevant to the article, and none of the sources warrant its inclusion in a page about "war crimes". The same for [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171202], which moreover misrepresents [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-panic-in-captured-ukrainian-city-russians-are-entering-houses-there-s-looting-1.10651066 Haaretz], which says about the subject "Abrazhevich recounted, adding that she had also heard reports of looting"
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079171689] This is simply fake sourcing, [https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/26/in-pictures-disbelief-and-resistance-as-russia-invades-ukraine Euronews] does not support one word of the article text.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078604283] is attributing text, as the [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/03/20/mariupol-art-school-civilians-russia/ Washington Post] says "About 400 women, children and elderly people had taken refuge inside Art School No. 12 in the Left Bank district of eastern Mariupol before it was bombed by Russia on Sunday, '''according to Mayor Vadym Boychenko and the city council. The Washington Post could not independently verify the claim.'''". [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079172290] is also attribution, as [https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/16/europe/ukraine-mariupol-bombing-theater-intl/index.html CNN] states "'''according to local authorities''', as hundreds of thousands of people remain trapped in the coastal Ukrainian city that has been encircled for weeks by Russian forces.", while [https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mariupol-theatre-where-hundreds-of-people-sheltering-bombed-by-russian-forces-officials-claim-12567393 Sky News] says "People are buried under rubble after a theatre in Mariupol - where hundreds of people are reported to have been sheltering - was bombed by Russian forces, '''local officials have said'''". So is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1080985297], as [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ukraine-bucha-atrocities-civilians-russia/ CBS news] says "'''Ukraine documents alleged atrocities''' by retreating Russians" and "Ukraine's troops found brutalized bodies with bound hands, gunshot wounds to the head and signs of torture after Russian soldiers withdrew from the outskirts of Kyiv, '''authorities said''' Sunday"."'''Authorities said''' they were documenting evidence of '''alleged''' atrocities". The [https://archive.ph/DWVsn Times] never calls the massacre "war crimes".
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081077162] is also attribution. Per [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/20/us-decries-disturbing-accounts-of-ukrainians-deported-to-russia Al Jazeera], "Thomas-Greenfield said the United States '''had not yet confirmed the allegations made''' on Saturday '''by the Mariupol city council'''", "Kallas said '''the allegations''' of Ukrainians deported to Russia", while [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/04/hundreds-of-ukrainians-forcibly-deported-to-russia-say-mariupol-women The Guardian] says "Russian forces are sending Ukrainian citizens to “filtration camps” before forcibly relocating them to Russia, '''according to the accounts of two women'''".
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081084980] completes attribution presented in source, per [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/02/ukrainian-children-used-as-human-shields-near-kyiv-say-witness-reports the Guardian] "'''Ukraine’s attorney general is gathering a dossier of claims''' about the Russian use of local children to avoid fire when in retreat from around Ukraine’s capital and elsewhere. Coaches of children '''were said'''... '''It was further alleged''' that children had been taken as hostages"
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1078783948] restores consensus version as indicated by talk page [[Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#The_lead|here]]; there was no consensus for removal, as evident from the discussion [[Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine|here]]. Consensus for inclusion is also proven by the fact the phrase, reformulated and more clearly attributed, is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&oldid=1082284109 currently]] still in the lede.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080984071] fixes misrepresentation of sources, and violation of [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NPOV]], as [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/02/bucha-bodies-russia-retreat-kyiv/ Washignton Post] says "showed at least nine people, including one child, lying in the street of a residential area in the town of Bucha, north of Kyiv, after Russian forces retreated. '''They appear to be dead.'''" Words such as "evidence" and "atrocities" are not used at all. The type of source presented by The Kyiv Independent (probably non-RS in this context) is qualified, and text is presented as allegation, as [https://kyivindependent.com/national/hundreds-of-murdered-civilians-discovered-as-russians-withdraw-from-towns-near-kyiv-graphic-images/ Kyiv Independent] attributes it to a photographer: "'''According to the photographer Mikhail Palinchak''', under the blanket are the bodies of one man and two or three naked women that Russians attempted to burn down". [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60967463 BBC] does not mention executions, so I corrected the article text.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1079782058] restored text sourced to [https://edition.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-27-22/h_6e158d3fc5bc5efe7fc3f10b69b7aeee CNN]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080441200] restores text sourced to [https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/2022-03/HRMMU_Update_2022-03-26_EN.pdf UN Human rights watch] (page 8, section D). As evidence of consensus for inclusion, they are still in the article and have not been removed in the past week.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080980531] adds information from [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60949791 BBC]: "two are wearing recognisable Ukrainian military uniforms".
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1080986444] introduces information from [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2022/04/03/bucha-ukraine-graves-war-crimes-calls-icc/ Washington Post]: "Russia’s Defense Ministry [...] claimed some of the footage of bodies in Bucha was “fake” and accused Ukrainian forces of killing people by shelling Bucha." "Kyiv’s mayor, Vitali Klitschko, said the discovery of the graves could “only be described as genocide.”", "Ukraine’s foreign minister, Dmytro Kuleba, [...] accusing Russia of carrying out a “massacre,” requested that the ICC visit the scene “to collect all the evidence of these war crimes” "
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081081890] fixes misrepresentation of the [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/04/03/world/europe/ukraine-war-russia-trostyanets.html New York Times]: "the town’s hospital was shelled. '''It is not entirely clear who hit the building''', but local residents accuse the Russians of firing into the structure" "In the morgue, beside the three dead Russian soldiers, Dr. Volkova pointed to '''a body''' bag in the corner of the room. “This person was tortured to death,” she said." "war crimes" are never mentioned.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081258586] add lack of information as explicit from [https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/associated-press-journalists-bucha-civilian-killings-bucha-1.6409330 CBC] "'''It was not clear who the people were or under what circumstances they were killed.'''"
-:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940] adds Russian claims, as reported by several RS, including [https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/08/europe/kramatorsk-railway-station-strike-intl/index.html CNN] "At least 50 people [...] were killed after Russian forces carried out a missile strike [...] '''Ukrainian officials said'''", "'''Zelensky said''' that the "Russian military hit the railway terminal"", "On April 8, the Russian armed forces did not conduct or plan any artillery fires in the city of Kramatorsk. We emphasize that the Tochka-U tactical missiles, the wreckage of which was found near the Kramatorsk railway station and published by eyewitnesses, are used only by the Ukrainian armed forces." [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1082192861] removes fake attribution to this same CNN source.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1080115720&oldid=1080115332#cite_note-:2-1] restores info reported by the [https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/situation-ukraine UN High Commissioner for Human rights]: "We are also looking into '''allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces''' in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’."
-I fail to see how adding info from sources such as BBC, CNN, The Guardian, The New York Times, Euronews, CBS News, and the UN High Commissioner for Human rights and reporting the original attribution (explicit in these RSs) instead of presenting Ukrainian claims in [[WP:WIKIVOICE]] can be considered [[WP:Tendentious editing]].[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 15:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Additional statement by Anonimu====
-I am able to provide "clear evidence" of [[WP:VANDALISM|"malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia"]] by Volunteer Marek. Therefore, per [[WP:SPADE]] and [[WP:GOODFAITH]], I think adequately describing his actions does not qualify as incivility. I will only list diffs if requested to do by administrators (just collecting the ones from last month will take three or four times as much as my original statement).[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 15:39, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-:RE to [[User:Jayron32]]: [[WP:GOODFAITH]] says explicitly "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of obvious evidence to the contrary (e.g. vandalism). " I restate that I'm open to list such "obvious evidence" if requested to do so.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 16:00, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-::Ok, maybe I was wrong in my interpretation of policy and calling Volunteer Marek directly a vandal was unnecessary, I can admit to that. How about the diffs related to content, could you point out exactly which ones are in violation of what policy? Please also read my statement relate to diffs presented by MVBW (I left them out initially for the sake of brevity). I can only improve if I'm told what I'm doing wrong. [[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:20, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-:::I politely ask you again to indicate effective bias in my mainspace edits. Anyway, if I were to accept a temporary topic ban (which I don't find warranted), topic area is too broad, letting me very little space to contribute (if you check my edit history, it is mostly related to Eastern Europe, all articles [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Anonimu I have created created] would be covered by it). I already have [[User:Anonimu/Romanian_resistance_movement|about 6 articles in the pipeline]], but all are about Romania, which will fall within the scope and thus I won't be able to move them out of userspace. Basically, the point I'm taking home right now is that I'm indefed for calling another user a vandal.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 17:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-:RE to [[User:El C]]: I do agree that every person's death is tragic and cannot be justified unless done in immediate self defence. However, that does not mean WP editors can [[WP:OR|make a judgement call]] and declare that one specific death qualifies as a war crime, considering that even legal experts fail to agree what exactly constitutes a war crime. Unless, of course, there's a RS saying that, and, '''at that moment''', there were none.[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 18:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement regarding diffs provided by MVBW====
-MVBW's statement is actually a list of personal attacks, at it attributes to me beliefs I do not hold. Do note that per [[WP:V]] and [[WP:NOTTRUTH]], one editor's personal beliefs are irrelevant as long as he edits according to [[WP:NPOV]]. So here we go:
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077623135&oldid=1077622632]. This was removed per [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]]. [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60734706 BBC] does not use the expression "war crimes" anywhere in the article.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1077622632&oldid=1077574942] This was removed per [[WP:ONUS]] and [[WP:DUEWEIGHT]]. "war crimes" are not mentioned by [https://www.space.com/mariupol-ukraine-damage-satellite-photos Space.com], [https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/13/more-than-2000-killed-in-mariupol-since-war-began-officials Al Jazeera], [https://apnews.com/article/russia-ukraine-war-live-updates-e4ccdd9cf82e868ad8854f6f97cadb27 Associated Press] or [https://english.nv.ua/nation/russian-missiles-attack-kyiv-first-residents-of-mariupol-leave-encircled-city-updated-50224803.html The New Voice of Ukraine]. Note that the refs to Maxar link to the company's home page and its presentation of its general work, thus we have a case of fake referencing.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1079171202&oldid=1079171076] I already discussed above: [https://www.haaretz.com/world-news/europe/.premium-panic-in-captured-ukrainian-city-russians-are-entering-houses-there-s-looting-1.10651066 Haaretz] says about the subject "Abrazhevich [a young student in Kharkov] recounted, adding that she '''had also heard reports of looting'''". That's a rumour, not a witness account.
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1080115720&oldid=1080115332] This is restoration of content per [[Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#The_lead|apparent consensus]] on talk page. The source is the  [https://www.ohchr.org/en/statements/2022/03/situation-ukraine UN High Commissioner for Human Rights]:  "We are also looking into '''allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces''' in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’. "
-*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=1076387437&oldid=1076386506] I don't have an opinion since I'm not a legal expert. However the word "illegal" is used neither by [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/russian-military-commits-indiscriminate-attacks-during-the-invasion-of-ukraine/ Amnesty] [https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2022/02/ukraine-cluster-munitions-kill-child-and-two-other-civilians-taking-shelter-at-a-preschool/ International], nor by [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/02/25/ukraine-russian-cluster-munition-hits-hospital Human] [https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/04/ukraine-cluster-munitions-launched-kharkiv-neighborhoods Rights Watch]. HRW does say "An international treaty banning cluster munitions has been adopted because of their widespread indiscriminate effect and long-lasting danger to civilians. Cluster munitions typically explode in the air and send dozens, even hundreds, of small bomblets over an area the size of a football field. Cluster submunitions often fail to explode on initial impact, leaving duds that act like landmines. '''Neither Russia nor Ukraine is among the ban treaty’s 110 states parties'''." Thus, while it is undoubtedly immoral, we have no source saying the use of cluster munitions is illegal. My edit removed [[WP:OR]].[[User:Anonimu|Anonimu]] ([[User talk:Anonimu|talk]]) 16:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-===Statement by El C===
-Let's be clear, VM's report was terrible. So long, needlessly so. Which then unsurprisingly reflects in this appeal. And the weird thing is that VM actually knows better. He has argued multiple times, on this very noticeboard, about how a responding party needs ''more'' space than the complaining one. And yet here we are.
-I looked at a couple of other examples from VM's lengthy complaint that were questionable. Like, claims of 1RR vios for pages not subject to 1RR. Also, RE: [https://www.euronews.com/2022/02/26/in-pictures-disbelief-and-resistance-as-russia-invades-ukraine Euronews source,] I'm not sure what happened there, but "terror" is mentioned in the aforementioned titled "Ukraine war: Distress and destruction as Russia continues its assault," which can be found [https://nnm.world/2022/02/28/ukraine-war-distress-and-destruction-as-russia-continues-its-assault/ here.]
-Anyway, I digress. What I was getting at is that the evidence submitted by MVBW was what prompted me to act so decisively. Otherwise, the report from VM seemed pretty TLDR-impenetrable. So I would advise the appellant to focus on those diffs rather than on those submitted by VM. Personally, I believe that that evidence is rather damning, but if the general feel is that this was too hard too fast on my part, I'll definitely take note. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-:{{u|Jayron32}}, point taken and understood. [[User:El_C|El_C]] 16:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-::RE: {{u|AdrianHObradors}}' defense of the appellant, let's just look at the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=1077623135 first diff] they list. It concerns mention of a pregnant woman who, after Russians bombed a maternity and children's hospital in Mariupol, was seriously injured and her infant stillborn, and who later succumbed to her wounds. This was the appellant's edit summary upon removal of this mention (in full): {{tq|the hospital air strike has been described as a war crime. The death of that woman has not been}}. Am I the only one confounded by this... (I don't even have words)? [[User:El_C|El_C]] 17:44, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-===Statement by Volunteer Marek===
-El_C imposed the topic ban on Anonimu for tendentious editing (well deserved, even if not ALL of Anonimu's edits were problematic). I'm guessing from El_C's statement (replying to MVBW) that the tendentious editing by itself was enough to merit a topic ban. My initial AE report in good deal also focused on persistent incivility by Anonimu, refusal to tone down attacks, and general [[WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT]] attitude. Anonimu is also still under 1RR restriction (which they've broken numerous times) and a civility parole (see original report). Here are the diffs which show Anonimu making repeated and escalating personal attacks and refusing to stop calling my good faithed edits 'vandalism' despite being asked/instructed to do so by several editors:
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081080187 First instance]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081794586 2nd instance] --- me requesting he stop: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081797002].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081813220 3rd time] --- I again ask him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081797828].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081814368 Escalates, 4th time] --- I again ask him to stop[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081815021]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815021 Again, 5th time] --- I ask them again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815350].
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081815404 And again, 6th time]  --- I ask them to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081819901]. Someone else asks them to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081820004]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1081874964 Does it again, 7th time] and accuses the other user of being my sockpuppet (lol)
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081875182 And again, 8th time] restores section header. Yet another user [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081876809 collapses] and then informs them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=prev&oldid=1081882765] as to how their offensive headings violate policy.
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081882765 And again, 9th time]. [[User:Mathglot]] also explains to Anonimu what is and isn't vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081883749].See also [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081893908]. The previous user, [[User:Chuckstablers]] complains to Anonimu about the accusations of sockpuppetry [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1081896553] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082015462] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082016519]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082071854 Anonimu does it again, 10th time] --- again is asked to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082074564] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Anonimu&diff=next&oldid=1082078372]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881518 And again, 11th time] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1081881952 12th time] --- I ask again for him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082156114]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=prev&oldid=1082166092 Responds doing it again, 13th time]
-#And [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082161918 14th time]. --- Again ask him to stop [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166664] (and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166799 here]
-#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:War_crimes_in_the_2022_Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine&diff=next&oldid=1082166900 Chooses to do it again immediately, 15th time]
-I've been extremely patient, but dealing with someone who does this over and over again is simply impossible. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 15:29, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-===Statement by My very best wishes===
-I did not even read any diffs and comments by VM in his request. However, I provided 5 diffs which clearly demonstrate that Anonimu should not be editing in this subject area. And yes, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940 that diff] (see comments by RandomCanadian) shows exactly the same. It does not matter why exactly Anonimu does it. Hence, I would definitely endorse the topic ban by El_C. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-===Statement by (involved editor 3)===
-===Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Anonimu ===
-<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
-====Statement by RandomCanadian====
-Some of the edits mentioned above are clear instances of [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]], and, unfortunately for the OP who does not seem to agree with the wider community, it is indeed tendentious to insist otherwise (for example [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kramatorsk_railway_station_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1081710940]). [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]])  15:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-:The diffs by Marek could on their own (IMHO) be enough for a [[WP:CIVIL]]/[[WP:NPA]] block... [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]])  15:38, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-::@Anonimu: [[First law of holes|Stop digging]]! Calling edits by others "malicious" and accusing them of vandalism is well beyond the usual norms here. You disagreeing with someone does not make it vandalism. Even if it were actually disruptive editing (as in edit-warring), it would still not be vandalism. On the other hand, as I was saying, the evidence presented so far in regards to your edits is rather damning, and you're not helping your case. [[User:RandomCanadian|RandomCanadian]] ([[User talk:RandomCanadian|talk]] / [[Special:Contributions/RandomCanadian|contribs]])  15:47, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by AdrianHObradors====
-I just saw this, and I am not sure if I am doing this correctly, is my first time on a discussion about an appeal. Also don't know how uninvolved I am as I have been keeping an eye over the subject and have been seeing the edits made by both Anonimu and Volunteer Marek, and sometimes trying to reach a compromise between them. I think they are both a bit biased, but they did find a bit of an equilibrium between each other. And I don't think Anonimu deserves the block (in regards of his edits of the article). The articles involving Ukraine are very hard to keep NPOV, and his contributions actually help balance it a little bit. Sometimes it is balanced a bit too much, but still helps.
-I want to go over the statements made by My very best wishes:
-#{{diff2|1077623135}} - The edit isn't about what Anonimu believes, source makes no mention of war crimes. It is probably a war crime, but either a better source should be found or he did well removing it. (See [[WP:SYNTH]])
-#{{diff2|1077622632}} - Again, this shouldn't be about what Anonimu believes, but his edits. And a humanitarian catastrophe is not the same as a war crime. War crimes cause humanitarian catastrophes, but so does war by itself.
-#{{diff2|1079171202}} - The source is about local reports, which by themselves are not very reliable, and it is something that is often talked about on the talk page. Reports by locals or by the Ukrainian government that hasn't been verified by third parties are very unreliable.
-#{{diff2|1080115720}} - I disagree with the call of vandalism, but what MVBW said is untrue. Source says "We are also looking into allegations of indiscriminate shelling by the Ukrainian armed forces in Donetsk and in other territory controlled by the self-proclaimed ‘republics’".
-#{{diff2|1076387437}} - See [[Cluster_munition#International_legislation]]. Neither Ukraine nor Russia (or the USA) subscribe to the Wellington Declaration, so calling it illegal is a bit confusing.
-I do think Anonimu should stop claiming vandalism everywhere, but I do understand it is a very sensible thread and many get a bit heated up over it. In short, I think removing Anonimu from editing would actually be more negative than positive and make it harder to keep those articles with a neutral point of view.  [[User:AdrianHObradors|AdrianHObradors]] ([[User talk:AdrianHObradors|talk]]) 16:36, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-====Statement by (uninvolved editor 3)====
-===Result of the appeal by Anonimu===
-:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
-<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the discretionary sanctions log below where their sanctions is logged. -->
-*I was a bit taken aback, as well, by the speed of the initial close by El_C, but their response, and especially the diffs by VM provided above, which outline clear tendencies towards [[WP:TE]] in this topic area, including repeated mischaracterization of good-faith editing by others as "vandalism" (a pervasive and almost ''sine qua non'' hallmark of TE in my experience) and the mis-representation of source material presented by MVBW in the initial report leads me to believe, as an uninvolved admin, that the prior close was the correct one.  I '''Endorse''' El_C's initial sanction.  A few points in both directions 1) To Anonium: there is no requirement that any report be open for any particular length of time.  While borderline cases can be left longer, when something is a very clear-cut violation of existing Arbitration-enforced sanctions, then quick responses are not uncommon here.  This is not a court-of-law, this is a place to get admin's attention.  2) To El_C: the initial close was impenetrable from an outside reader, to say the least.  I had a hard time following your rationale for closing, it consisted mostly of an admonishment of VM for exceeding word/diff counts, and very little explanation as to why you were issuing the sanctions.  In the vein of "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"; having a clear rationale for a sanction would have helped immensely.  It doesn't need to be verbose, but it should leave little doubt in anyone's mind that the correct action was taken.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 15:54, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-**Anonimu: Please spare me the talking-down to.  I've been an active admin for 14 years and an editor for several years longer than that.  I am not discussing the fineries of what is and is not vandalism and bad-faith editing.  I am ''telling you'' that you are wrong.  Straight up.  The edits noted by VM above are ''not'' vandalism in any way, despite your calling them such, and disagreements can exist between two people editing in good faith.  Every word you type denying that is not going to convince anyone that the sanctions imposed by El_C above are unjust, indeed, your continued stance on your indefensible position is likely to convince people that they ''didn't go far enough''.  Don't try to defend yourself, because you're so obviously in the wrong here, it is basically indefensible.  Convince us you intend to change.  I haven't seen any of that yet.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 16:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
-***Anonimu: Thank you for your change in tone here.  This board does not deal with content issues, only behavior.  As admins, our role is in making sure that editor behavior does not interfere with smooth operation of the encyclopedia, and that conflicts are handled the ''correct'' way (by using article talk pages, by building consensus, by seeking [[WP:DR]] and outside opinions when there is a disagreement) and NOT the wrong way, such as using reverts, or characterizing other editors as malicious or their edits as vandalism, or whatever.  My concern here is with the behavior, not with the content itself.  Your behavior has been a problem, and it is for that you were rightly sanctioned by El_C.  My recommendation is that you ride out the sanction and edit collegially in other areas of Wikipedia for a while.  6 months is usually the standard amount of time between appeals; if you can show 6 months of improved behavior while editing outside of the [[WP:ARBEE]] area of concern, then you stand a better chance of succeeding with your appeal.  --[[User:Jayron32|<span style="color:#009">Jayron</span>]][[User talk:Jayron32|<b style="color:#090">''32''</b>]] 17:30, 12 April 2022 (UTC)