Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For other uses, see WP:AE (disambiguation).

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Makeandtoss and M.Bitton

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

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)

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, including multiple reverts and discussions (one, two, etc), over the lede's third paragraph; to resolve this I opened an RfC per dispute resolution. A few hours later, after three !votes including mine, Makeandtoss closed it, striking comments in violation of TPO. They had previously been involved in this dispute, in the article (example) and in discussions.

I reverted, but shortly after M.Bitton reclosed it. They weren't involved in the immediate dispute but are generally, including expressing strong opinions on related content. The RfC was necessary and lacked sufficient issues to justify a premature close making closing it generally disruptive, but more so here because of their involvement, locking in a status quo that they both appear to favor.

Previously discussed at ScottishFinnishRadish's talk page and ARCA, where Barkeep49 said they take a dim view of editors preventing this RfC and recommended AE.

M.Bitton declined to self-revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Makeandtoss:

1. 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
2. 19:38, 26 January 2024 Warned for edit warring, including at Israel-Hamas war

M.Bitton:

1. 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

Extended content

@Black Kite: I always sign with just a timestamp, as permitted by RFCST, because I believe perceptions of the opener can influence perceptions of the RfC and I don't believe that benefits the process. The reverts were because I didn't believe it appropriate for others to insist on full signatures, given RFCST and our restrictions on editing others comments. 14:36, 10 May 2024 (UTC) @Seraphimblade: To avoid misunderstanding, I don't intend to start putting my username on RfC's I start, as it is permitted and there are valid reasons not to. Regarding whether it was premature, the content had been restored and removed many times and heavily discussed: "Per the Gaza Health Ministry" Casualty count Hamas exaggeration in the lead "Hamas-controlled" attribution RfC on including casualty template in lede First para including number of Palestinian children killed Include number of women killed in lead? Lede addition suggestion, 20-30% of all Hamas fighters killed so far 9,000 militants etc It may be helpful to clarify whether it is appropriate for editors to add a username to RfC's started by others or if it is a violation of talk page guidelines; perhaps involved editors with concerns about signing with only a timestamp should contact the opener to attempt to resolve them, and if that fails contact an uninvolved admin? 21:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Regarding other disruption, they have engaged in slow-motion edit warring, misleadingly cited BURDEN in edit summaries, and gamed and violated 1RR.

For example, edit warring against attributing casualty figures in the lede - given the low pace it would be less concerning except they closed the RfC intended to resolve the dispute:

1. 20 May
2. 29 April (misleadingly cited BURDEN)
3. 13 April (described as "recently added nonsense")

May I have additional words and diffs to present the others? 18:47, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee, ScottishFinnishRadish, and Newyorkbrad: Ping regarding request; 300 words and 20 diffs should be enough? 03:04, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Newyorkbrad. In response to Nableezy and Makeandtoss, I present these because admins noted no other recent problems had been identified; I understood that as asking whether they existed.

Disingenuous edit summaries

Claiming BURDEN (an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution) was not met

1. 11:36, 20 May - Suggests BURDEN requires non-Israeli sources.
2. 09:52, 14 May - Reverted 7,797 children and 4,959 women to 15,000 children and 10,000 women. Sourced.
3. 14:24, 29 April - Removed Gaza Health Ministry attribution. Source says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza said.
4. 20:31, 17 April - Removed Amnesty International and others have described that use of the term as weaponization of antisemitism. Sourced.
5. 09:55, 1 April - Removed In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophilia. Source said He also said they were given permission to rape the corpse of a girl. Also reintroduced a MOS:ALLEGED violation without explanation.

Restored unsourced content while claiming it was sourced

1. 14:10, 19 May - restored where thousands ... were massacred by the Israeli military, saying restoring sourced content that was recently removed for no good reason; also clarifying perpetrator. Source contradicts this; the Christian Phalangists who committed the massacre were Israel’s allies in the war.

1RR violations and gaming

Gaming

Israel-Hamas war (Many edit warred over or part of the RfC):

1. 13:47, 12 May (+00:56)
2. 12:44 to 12:51, 11 May (+00:03)
3. 11:16 to 12:41, 10 May
4. 14:24, 29 April (+00:16)
5. 14:08, 28 April
6. 13:08, 14 April (+01:05)
7. 12:03, 13 April

2024 Iranian strikes against Israel:

1. 10:52, 26 April (+00:17)
2. 10:35, 25 April

Al-Shifa Hospital siege:

1. 10:50, 21 April (+01:29)
2. 09:21, 20 April

Unreverted violations

Destruction of cultural heritage during the 2023 Israeli invasion of Gaza:

1. 12:34, 1 May
2. 11:34, 1 May

Walid Daqqa:

1. Diffs unavailable (REVDEL)

South Africa's genocide case against Israel:

1. 10:07, 10 March
2. 21:09, 9 March

Other examples and issues exist, but were omitted because of diff and word restrictions. 08:20, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

To partially address Makeandtoss' response; the issue was misleading BURDEN allegations. Also citing other guidelines doesn't make those less misleading.

• BURDEN #3: Source says The health ministry in Hamas-run Gaza; it is disingenuous to quote only Hamas-run Gaza and say it isn't attributing to the health ministry.
• 1RR #1: Five weeks, with minimal activity or views; insufficient for status quo.
• 1RR #3: 10:07, 10 March reverted 22:23, 9 March, and 21:09, 9 March reverted 19:54, 9 March.

14:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@Makeandtoss: The meaning is unchanged, just reworded for conciseness as I was 600 words over; I believe this is allowed and sometimes required here. FYI, you are 1200 over, so you may also want to reword. 15:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

In full context, #2 still says you cited BURDEN disingenuously, #3 still says you restored content lacking a source. I can't find #1 in the former version, sorry. 15:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

May I have 200 words? I'm still 100 over; the other 100 to respond to Nableezy. FYI, word counts are out of control, making it difficult to remain within limits - enforcement may be helpful. 16:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

@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)

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

@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)

@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)

@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)

I will gladly answer for whatever is brought here, but I am feeling that this is turning into something other than a request to deal with an issue and now into an open-ended request to sanction a user. In that case, I think the editing behavior of all involved users should be closely examined as well in an open case aside from this venue here. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Responses to extended request

First, thanks to all the admins who are taking a lot of their precious time and effort to diligently examine this extended request as well and the responses.

Regarding the citing of WP:BURDEN:

1. [8] Yes, relying exclusively on 3 Israeli sources for a controversial sentence is a conflict of interest (WP:QS section of WP:BURDEN).

2. [9] Misleading. My edit summary also cited the lack of consensus on talk page as well as the WP:ONUS and WP:BRD guidelines.

3. [10] Yes, according to the "Gaza Health Ministry" is not equal to the source's "Hamas-run Gaza".

4. [11] Misleading. My edit summary stated that there is no need for attribution for Amnesty International, and that editors should seek consensus for this addition, for which there is an ongoing RFC now. Here I actually meant WP:ONUS.

5. [12] Yes, here the controversial sentence was only sourced to an Israeli reference, contravening WP:QS of WP:BURDEN, and in the same edit summary I cited a source saying that these torture confessions were questionable. This removal came immediately after being reinstated following an initial removal by another editor, showing clear lack of consensus.

Alleged violation of WP:BURDEN

1. [13] The sentence that Palestinian refugees were massacred in Sabra and Shatila massacre is a universally sourced fact. I meant to say that the IDF helped facilitate, not perpetrate. After being corrected, I didn't pursue this further and did not restore, which is explicitly mentioned in WP:BURDEN as best practice.

Alleged "Gaming"

As seen in my timecard, my most common edits either take place on 10:00 and 11:00 after having started the day and/or 13:00 and 14:00 after having finished my lunch break, so this is a coincidence on different days with no deliberate editing.

Alleged 1RR violations

1. False. This move is not a revert since the article's name had been stable for 6 weeks.

2. False. I had written most of the Walid Daqqa article and as evident by the still existing (6) edit summaries [14], these reverts were made against non-confirmed users.

3. False. This is not a revert as the content removed had been stable since at least 6 weeks [15].

While I am assuming good faith and I am sure that BilledMammal is nobly seeking all editors comply with Wikipedia's guidelines, it is important to note that they have been warned by AE in 2021 that "groundless or vexatious complaints may result in blocks or other sanctions," with one admin then commenting that "It is time for a more robust pushback against the use of this page to knock-out opponents."

I genuinely hope that this large extended request, which suddenly came after the original request was reaching its conclusion, is not one of these vexatious incidents, as there is clear lack of assumption of good faith, as well as cherrypicking parts of edit summaries and decontextualizing the circumstances behind these edits and away from the talk page, not to mention the multiple false claims made. These are edit disputes which are discussed on talk pages and not violations of guidelines.

I am certain that the experienced admins here are able to identify between editors who spend their time contributing to improve Wikipedia, and editors spending their time tracking others over months to use at AE, in which they inevitably create a harmful culture of battleground. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I kindly request that you promptly revert your recent far-reaching changes to your participation in this discussion by reinstating the original phrasing that both myself and others have relied upon to formulate our arguments. These retroactive changes violate WP:REDACT: "But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided." I feel that this is an unacceptable behavior and urge administrative intervention to restore respect for everyone's invested time and efforts here. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:00, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

BilledMammal, it seems this is even further misleading to claim that the meaning is "unchanged", given that everything has been changed, and to cite only three examples:

1# "remove WP:BURDEN" => "misleadingly cited WP:BURDEN"

2# "Falsely claiming WP:BURDEN" => "Claiming WP:BURDEN"

3# "Restored content in violation of WP:BURDEN" => "unsourced content"

Below WP:REDACT further elaborates that: "Persistently formatting your comments on a talk page in a non-compliant manner, after friendly notification by other editors, is a mild form of disruption."

@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Valereee: @Newyorkbrad: I respectfully request your kind intervention to remedy this situation. Makeandtoss (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by M.Bitton

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)

Statement by Nableezy

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

less relevant at this point
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
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) 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) @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) 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) 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)

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)

I think this getting exceedingly unfair, this supposedly was about an RFC being closed out of process. It has now turned to a user being allowed to dig through diffs over literal months in an attempt to sanction another user. That is something more suited to an actual arbitration case than it is to one user presenting a case against another user in a forum where any single administrator can institute a sanction, largely without examining the full context, that is the behavior of all involved. nableezy - 00:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

The added diffs are largely content disputes, and the characterization of them as disingenuous is, to me at least, quite disingenuous itself. Just looking at this one, the material that was replaced, lowering the number of children killed, was later clarified by the UN to be only about those fatalities who have been fully identified by the Ministry of Health. Many of the others is BilledMammal pretending like a claim by Israel should be treated as fact, such as this one which said In an interrogation of Hamas militants, one militant said they were given permission to perform necrophilia cited to Times of Israel which itself says
Israeli security agencies published video footage Monday from the apparent interrogations. BM themselves re-added that material, falsely claiming that it was attributed when it was not. If anything is disingenuous it is BM's edit summary there and their description of the edits here. BM took a source that says that an "apparent interrogation" released by a combatant in an armed conflict, a combatant with an established history of engaging in deceit and propaganda, and then simply said that in an interrogation somebody said this. If youre going to start adjudicating content disputes as BM appears to be asking that you do, maybe look at the entire story and not just one user's self-serving characterization of it. All the above is to say this forum is not suited to this type of request, and if anything should be done here it is should be to open an arbitration case where all party's actions may be reviewed. nableezy - 15:54, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

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)

@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)

@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)

@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)

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)

@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)´

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)

@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)

There was this RFC, then there are some more diffs and now, here are even more diffs. Was any of this raised at the user talk page at any point? As was done with respect to complainant's editing at User talk:BilledMammal#RSN. Selfstudier (talk) 09:40, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. Now there are diffs about diffs. Selfstudier (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

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

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

Statement by Newimpartial

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)

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Number 57

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)

Statement by Alaexis

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)

Statement by Iskandar323

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

I 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)

@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)

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 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)

Statement by Coretheapple

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)

Statement by Vice regent

@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)

@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[16][17] 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)

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.

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  I think the expansion of word limits back and forth was the wrong call, since now we're getting far beyond the original complaint and into arbcase territory. With the battleground editing going on anyone could pick 50 not great diffs of any of the active editors in the topic.

  To restate, I think that the behavior after a block and a warning demonstrates a need for a forced time-out from the topic area. The disruption caused by the battleground editing is evident because it's still causing a disruption, after my talk page and after a trip to ARCA, and now here. However my judgement isn't the final arbiter and I wasn't comfortable taking unilateral action, so here we are.

  Let's try and focus on the report and if the behavior reported, in light of prior sanctions and warnings, requires action.

  If administrators believe this requires Arbcom case level word and diff allowances maybe we should just refer it to Arbcom. If any editor believes that this needs Arbcom intervention they should feel welcome to it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:52, 26 May 2024 (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? Black Kite (talk) 13:56, 10 May 2024 (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 ... Ealdgyth (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2024 (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) Ealdgyth (talk) 15:33, 10 May 2024 (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. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:36, 21 May 2024 (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 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)

  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)

  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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  I've got no problem with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 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? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2024 (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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:21, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  Hold on, hadn't seen NYB's post. 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. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  • 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)

  Given their fullthroated response, I'd be willing to just warn. They sound sincere. 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:44, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Makeandtoss: Please respond briefly in your section to ScottishFinnishRadish's last post above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

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

  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)

• @BilledMammal: The extension request is granted. @Makeandtoss: You are granted an extension of the same length if you wish to respond to what BilledMammal posts. We should try to wrap up this thread within the next couple of days. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• (placeholder comment) I'm at a family event today and will review the recent posts and comment here either tonight or in the morning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
• I understand ScottishFinnishRadish's view that the extension has allowed this thread to run far afield, though I do think it's helpful to evaluate the edit that led to the thread being opened in the context of the editor's other contributions. I adhere to my view that that original edit, of a type that the editor promised not to make again and indeed has not made again, does not warrant a sanction. With regard to the broader array of diffs cited by BilledMammal, while I do not personally agree with all of those edits or edit summaries, Makeandtoss appears to have a good-faith explanation for them. Given the ongoing disagreements about the facts (let alone causes or implications) of what is happening in Gaza, it is to be expected that editors will disagree about what should be contained in these articles and what the best sources for them might be. I would stress the need for everyone to be on their best behavior in this topic-area (including in edit summaries), difficult though that might be, but I would impose no other sanction at this time. Leaving the thread open, although hopefully not for too much longer, for other admins to comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Galamore

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

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)

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)

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)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

11:20, 14 April 2024

Discussion concerning Galamore

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

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)

Statement by BilledMammal

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)

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)

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)

Statement by Zero0000

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

Result concerning Galamore

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)

  @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)

• 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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  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)

  Logged warning for what, though? The NPOV stuff wasn't out of the norm. For me it really comes down to concerns about resuming an edit war where socks and canvased editors were originally taking part. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

AtikaAtikawa

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 AtikaAtikawa

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Alalch E. (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

AtikaAtikawa (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, WP:ECR

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

Background evidence: 18 May 2024 AtikaAtikawa knows how to post an edit request

Various comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war (permalink)

1. 16:29, 22 May 2024 Left prior to being notified about the extended-confirmed restriction at 16:36, 22 May 2024
2. 17:29, 22 May 2024 Continues to comment after being notified saying "sadly I can't talk there", but he can not talk on the concerned page either
3. 23 May 2024 Not an edit request
4. 23 May 2024 Not an edit request

Creation of Israel–Palestine conflict userboxes

1. 23 May 2024 Creates "From the river to the sea!" userbox
2. 23 May 2024 Creates a repugnant userbox equating violent acts against Israel and Israeli population which includes atrocities against the Israeli population to a law of nature (action and reaction), thereby excusing even atrocities as natural, necessary and just
3. 23 May 2024 Creates a polemical text as an apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians to prop up the repugnant userbox

Polemicizing in MfDs for the aforementioned userboxes:

1. 25 May 2024 Polemical comment
2. 25 May 2024 Polemical comment
3. 25 May 2024 Polemical comment with a dose of wikilawyering
4. 25 May 2024 Further comment
5. 25 May 2024 Further comment

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, at 16:36, 22 May 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic: 17:29, 22 May 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor has eight mainspace edits. All of their mainspace edits have been made between January and September 2020. The editor has 177 total edits, of which 31.1% have been deleted. 69.7% of their live edits have been to userspace. The user is generally inactive as an editor of Wikipedia, but has increased activity probably due to interest in the Arab–Israeli conflict, but instead of resuming normal editorial activity, which would mean making edit requests for a while, the activity has been predominantly polemical. Therefore, seeing all of this user's edits in total, the user is WP:NOTHERE.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• diff

Discussion concerning AtikaAtikawa

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 AtikaAtikawa

As for the comments on Talk:War crimes in the Israel–Hamas war. I acknowledge that I failed at understanding ECR limitations when I made them; A rookie mistake that stems from the fact that I just started having interest in editing Wikipedia, and I'm still familiarising myself with the rules. In fact I was warned and I did obey. Briefly, I acknowledge my mistake here.

As for the userboxes. I hope that you take into consideration my arguments in their MfD entries. Basically, I think that Alalch E. is assuming bad faith since he is accusing me of endorsing violence and deeming atrocities as just with no basis, and I think that I actually clarified that through the documentation that the filer deemed as "apologia for violence including atrocities against civilians" when it is just a statement of a viewpoint, that is against violence from both sides.

As for the polemical comments. They were basically just answers to comments that were polemical themselves rather than referring clearly to policies that I did break. I totally understands that two wrongs don't make a right, but I'm really open to advices that concern how could I have handled this better.

As stated above, I'm well aware that I'm unexperienced, and I hope that my niche interest in the Arab-Israeli conflict will not be somehow held against me, rather I hope for whatever answer I'll get to this to contain referrals to the rules I broke in order to be mindful to them from now on.

I acknowledge that my behaviour was suboptimal, and I acknowledge that it did stem from a potential lack of understanding the rules from my part, and I welcome any decision that comes from your part with the hope that it will serve the noble goal of making me a better editor with a better service to the encyclopedia rather than punishment just for the sake of it.— Yours Truly, ⚑ AtikaAtikawa 15:23, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Selfstudier

Technical picky point, defendant is non EC and not permitted to make statements here (or anywhere, really). An admin could/should deal with this? Selfstudier (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

By the power invested in me as an editor (or admin, if you insist), IAR :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by The Kip

Seconding Selfstudier here - the defendant is several hundred edits short of XC status anyways, so this should be a fairly textbook warning (or TBAN) for violating the ARBPIA XC restriction rather than a drawn-out AE case. The Kip ^(contribs) 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Vice regent

@Alalch E.: can you remove this inflammatory comment? There are AGF interpretations of AtikaAtikawa's userbox, and these were given by Robert McClenon and Chaotic Enby. AtikaAtikawa themself wrote that the userbox doesn't support political violence, yet you still throw words like "pro-terrorism" around, and that raises the temperature.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning AtikaAtikawa

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

• Blocked one week for ECR violations. Didn't go with a topic ban because they're already prohibited from editing about the topic except for making constructive edit requests on article talk pages. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:16, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
• User has managed to land themselves at AE at 183 edits, ~170 which have no effect on mainspace (and of those remaining 13, most are from 2020). That rings some WP:NOTHERE alarm bells for me... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:56, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I just went with my standard block for ECR violations. I have no objection to further sanctions, or just letting it ride and seeing if their behavior improves. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Afv12e

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 Afv12e

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Afv12e (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

1. 27 May 2024 Multiple issues here. Image copyright status isn't clear; immediate source appears to be this instagram post, though a link isn't specified. The content in the caption isn't sourced, failing WP:V.
2. 21 May 2024 Copyright violation: the modified version of the first sentence is copied word-for-word from this source. It's also an egregious mis-use of the source, which uses that language to describe the Khilafat Movement more broadly, not the Malabar rebellion specifically. The source paints a different, and far more complex, picture of the Malabar rebellion.
3. 25 May 2024 Inappropriate use of a primary source.
4. 22 May 2024 The user's entire participation in this discussion demonstrates a lack of competence. They have clearly not read the article they wish to change; they have not provided sources supporting the content they wish to add; they do not understand our policies on verifiability; and they are unable or unwilling to engage constructively in the discussion.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No previous sanctions, but a number of warnings for issues similar to the ones I have highlighted.

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 November 2023
• Alerted again in March 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has, IMHO, had too much rope: despite numerous warnings, they seem unable or unwilling to learn our PAGs. I would suggest a TBAN, but a normal indefinite block would not go amiss. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:10, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified.

Discussion concerning Afv12e

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 Afv12e

• • 1. Image Copyright Status (27 May 2024)

I apologize for the oversight regarding the image source. The image was sourced , and the copyright status is provided. I will ensure that all future images have clear and verifiable sources. The caption content was intended to summarize the image and it was taken from here [18]; however, I recognize the need for proper sourcing and will add references to support the information provided.

• • 2. Copyright Violation and Misuse of Source (21 May 2024)

I acknowledge that the sentence was unintentionally copied. I have rewritten the sentence to better paraphrase the source. The source used describes the broader Khilafat Movement, and I have now included additional sources that specifically discuss the Malabar rebellion to support the content.

• • 3. Inappropriate Use of Primary Source (25 May 2024)

The primary source was used to provide a firsthand account of the events. However, I understand that secondary sources are preferred. I will replace the primary source with Secondary Source to ensure better adherence to Wikipedia's guidelines.

• • 4. Lack of Competence in Discussion (22 May 2024)

I have actively participated in discussions, as seen in [19][20][21]. I admit that there were misunderstandings, but I have since reviewed Wikipedia's policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing. Moving forward, I will ensure all contributions are well-sourced and properly vetted.

• • 5. Previous Sanctions and Warnings

I have taken past warnings seriously and have made significant efforts to improve my editing practices. Recent contributions such as [22] [23] demonstrate my commitment to following Wikipedia's guidelines and making valuable contributions.

• New User Status

I am a relatively new user on Wikipedia, with around 300 edits and 8 months of experience. I am still learning and navigating Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. I appreciate the feedback and am committed to improving my contributions to the community.

I am committed to learning and adhering to Wikipedia's guidelines. I respectfully request the committee to consider my improvements and my genuine intent to contribute positively to the community. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely, Afv12e

Statement by 86.23.109.101

I agree with Vanamonde93 that a topic ban or block is required here. A couple more examples of disruption from the last few days:

• [24] [25] Using "This is Indian!" type talk page disruption from an IP as justification to make unsourced changes to an article. The section "Protected edit request on 23 January 2024" above on the same talk page is also worth reading.
• Edit warring [26] to reinsert this edit [27], which misrepresents the content of the cited source. The source mainly consists of interviews with a number of activists and makes the claim that Some South Indians and Tamils don’t feel ‘Desi’ includes them, which is insufficient to support the sweeping, black and white statement added to the article.

This AN thread [28] from a few days ago may be relevant here. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by BlackOrchidd‬

• I think sanctions are not required this time. They have admitted their shortfalls on many occasions in their reply.
• Also, They use talk pages often and are WP:CIVIL [can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Narendra_Modi&diff=prev&oldid=1225771528].
• AE requested for meagre Inappropriate Use of Primary Source AE request seems frivolous by an Admin.

Statement by Abhishek0831996

See Afv12e's edit warring on Malabar rebellion, especially this type of editing and edit summary. He is clearly not serious about what he is editing. This edit particularly confirms that he is editing to impose his agenda. His behavior on a recent WP:AN report was also very bad.[29] I agree Afv12e should be topic banned or blocked. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Grabup

As far as I can see from his edits, I am convinced that he should get a topic ban. Surely, he is promoting an agenda. This Diff confirms he is pomoting an agenda. GrabUp - Talk 07:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Afv12e

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

BlackOrchidd

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 BlackOrchidd

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Capitals00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:00, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPAK

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

1. 5 April 2024 - posted a frivolous warning on my talkpage for this accurately described edit.
2. 11 April 2024‎ - Falsified sources by treating prosecutors' statements as facts
3. 28 April 2024 - edit warring to replace a proper section title with a misleading section title
4. 20 May 2024 - Removes entire critical edit, which cited 1 English and 1 non-English WP:RS, by falsely claiming that only English sources are preferred.
5. 27 May 2024 - Re-added his already reverted edit by falsifying the talk page discussion that was completely against this edit.
6. 28 May 2024 - Wants people to discuss outright unreliable sources on WP:RSN. See WP:CIR.
7. 28 May 2024 - Disparaging the above report as "frivolous" to the extent that he went ahead to make a specific edit to disparage the report in the edit summary as well. See WP:BATTLE.

His talk page is full of recent warnings for his misconduct. Capitals00 (talk) 06:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

[30]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[31]

Discussion concerning BlackOrchidd

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 BlackOrchidd

Dear ArbComs

• I am writing to bring to your kind attention and a serious concern regarding the Narendra Modi page. It appears that Capitals00 and Vanamonde93 are engaged in an apperant coordinated effort to block/censor me and Afv12e from contributing to this page.

• I urge you to review the page's archives, where you will find a "truckload" of different users and IP addresses who have engaged in countless discussions, providing various arguments and reasoning in an attempt to make this page more neutral [Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narendra_Modi/Archive_19#Bias_in_the_introduction].

Context

• Narendra Modi : Narendra Modi is a highly popular figure and the Prime Minister of India who is predicted to win a third term on June 04th 2024.
• Wikipedia’s Bias: There is a perception of bias in the wikipedia platform, against the current ruling political party and the current Prime Minister of India Mr. Narendra Modi.
• Donation appeal by Wikipedia : @Jimbo Wales: frequently make appeals for donations in the Indian subcontinent. The Indian population, particularly the Hindu majority, is dissatisfied with this lack of neutrality on Wikipedia and its anti Hindu bias. As a popular X(Formerly Twitter) user, I am aware that there are calls on the social media for the biasedness of wikipedia and boycott calls [ https://theprint.in/india/biased-anti-hindu-campaign-begins-against-wikipedia-after-it-urges-indians-to-donate/472980/] of donation appeals of Jimbo Wales. There is a significant risks of potential financial implication in particularly India if these boycott calls and hashtag trends grow to significant size.

• Capitals00 and Vanamonde93 misusing their privileges to maintain a biased perspective. Vanamonde93 has a history of preventing the Narendra Modi page from becoming neutral. They actively obstruct efforts to add positive content and suppress alternative viewpoints, creating a skewed representation of the topic. This abuse of power is unacceptable and detrimental to the integrity of Wikipedia and its WP:PURPOSE.
• First and foremost, esteemed members of the Arbitration Committee, please accept my sincere apologies for bringing this matter to your attention through this channel. However, I earnestly hope you will recognize the gravity of this situation. This ongoing issue has frustrated many users, editors and potential donors, and it is crucial to address the bias that is currently prevalent on the Narendra Modi page. I request your immediate intervention.

Statement by Grabup

I warned him not to add unreliable sources to a BLP, which appeared to be a blog site and not reliable. I also warned him not to add any type of analytics data or earnings from Socialblade. His response was not to acknowledge his mistake; instead, he said to discuss the reliability at RS.

He has been warned many times for his edits. On one occasion, he was questioned by Admin BlackKite. In an edit summary, he said, “To maintain a neutral point of view (NPOV), we're adjusting this article.” Where he like of misbehaved with him.

He removed well-sourced material because it told the truth about Modi, providing a poor edit summary that said Hindi sources should not be used if English sources are available. I reverted that edit and said that English sources should be cited if available, but Hindi sources can also be used. Later, he had to add that portion back.

I think there is a full team behind this account or accounts. Their edits are not about improving Wikipedia at all; rather, they are promoting an agenda of PM Modi. GrabUp - Talk 08:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning BlackOrchidd

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