Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive297

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Standard discretionary sanctions

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

1. 15 Nov 2021 Introduction of non-standard transliteration after warning
2. 15 Nov 2021 Introduction of non-standard transliteration after warning
3. 15 Nov 2021 Reverted edit to restore it

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Two blocks in September 2020 for disruptive editing

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Ds alert a week ago, I also gave them one a year ago.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a generally problematic user who does not speak English well but still attempts to edit articles on Ukrainian topics, usually to introduce POV. They have been blocked two times last year (once by me) since they were moving articles from Kiev to Kyiv against consensus (consensus currently is to use Kiev for the 19th century or earlier, and they were moving articles pertained to that period). This time, they decided to add non-standard Romanization of Ukrainian to the articles. The universal consensus of the editors is documented in WP:UKR, and it is explicitly against using this non-standard one. They were warned by Mzajac and asked to revert; their reply was . Mzajac asked them again to revert , they did not reply, and today continued adding this transliteration as if nothing happened, and even edit-warred with Mzajac (see the diffs above). I am afraid the user is not competent to edit Wikipedia at all, and certainly not anything related to Ukraine.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

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.

Yes, yes, I am guilty of using the historical Ukrainian Latin alphabet in the Romanization tabs.. —user:Jafaz Jafaz. 20:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

• Dennis Brown, Okay, sorry. I promise to continue to use only national transliteration. Jafaz - talk 22:17, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Jafaz is certainly capable of bettering Wikipedia if they can respect the guidelines: their contributions include a number of substantial new articles translated from Ukrainian Wikipedia. I hope they can find a way to continue. —Michael Z. 23:16, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Jafaz's preferred transliteration method is incredibly obscure, to the point i had to look it up to make sure it wasn't wp:or. Even so i can't find any references with more than a passing mention of it. The use of this transliteration method is wp:undue, except for possibly a tiny number of cases. There is absolutely no reason to us it at all in most articles, never-mind replace the contemporary transliterations in dozens of articles as they have done—blindlynx (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

• It's been a couple of days since they've edited. They did engage about the style of their edits, and yes, they kind of brushed it off. I don't think they fully understand what is about to happen or why we do things the way we do. The edits aren't POV or nationalistic, they are just style issues in an AE area. I would rather not swing the hammer if we can simply get them to come here and discuss instead. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• Jafaz, I guess what I'm saying is I need a statement from you saying you understand the complaints, and you promise to move forward using the accepted transliteration. You are always welcome to start a discussion or WP:RFC on your method, but until there is a consensus that accepts it, we need to know you intend to abide by the current system. Then we can just move on. It looks like you have something to offer the encyclopedia, you just have to comfort a little bit to our methods. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok, that is all I wanted. I don't think there was any intentional troublemaking, just a misunderstanding of how we do things. It is up to you to learn and be open when others say you're doing it wrong. I'm going to leave it open for a 2nd opinion from an admin, who is free to close it if they choose. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Kleinpecan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:59, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Agent raymond232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

1. 06:47, 17 April 2021: admission the user is only here to right great wrongs
2. 08:33: "Kindly do not silence dissent by threatening of edit-blocking.", after they were warned about edit-warring
3. 09:20: accusing other users of "typical bully behavior"
4. 11:57: "Of course, if the goal here is to make Wikipedia a playbook of left wing politics, sure go ahead. Revert anything that comes in the way."
5. 14:34, 20 April 2021: "Lol, no. What I have seen is it isn't worth my time arguing with losers on Wikipedia. ... Keep your stink with you."
6. 03:48, 1 May 2021: "my Wiki co-editors are either too lazy or complicit in spreading misnformation."
7. 21:35, 25 May 2021: "Removed poorly cited text."; the source was a peer-reviewed journal, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly
8. 21:47: "Can you read?"
9. 20:25, 16 November 2021: "I see how Wikipedia has colluded with the mainstream media to criminally remove all references to rioting with BLM." This comment was added by 49.205.129.210 (talk · contribs · IP contribs · WHOIS). Considering that the IP address geolocates to India and that Agent raymond232 has also expressed interest in India (2002 Gujarat riots, Godi media, Kunal Kamra, Demographics of Kerala, and Ramandeep Singh), as well as the fact that Raymond came to the discussion after several months-long hiatus, I am fairly confident that the IP belongs to Raymond.
10. 20:33: accusations of censorship after I reverted their previous comment; unreliable sources ( Fox News (RSP entry) and  Daily Mail (RSP entry))
11. 20:46: "What more evidences do you need? How deeply are you seeped in bias?"
12. 21:00: accusing another user of "intentional misinformation"
13. 21:30: "Don't care about me. Fix the bias you have spread on Wikipedia, where you try to find loopholes in every news story that goes against your biases, even if it is from Wikipedia's reliable sources."
14. 21:42: "Please dig more and don't let your bias blind you."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Warned about edit-warring on WP:ANEW.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Notified on 03:53, 1 May 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1055626168. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

• This looks like a textbook WP:NOTHERE problem with only one possible solution, but I would like more admin to review. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• With the constant personal attacks, assumptions of bad faith, and attempts to engage in clear synthesis, I would see that an indefinite block as a regular admin action is indicated here, and unless someone shortly objects intend to do so. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:29, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

NarSakSasLee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Echo1Charlie (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

India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan discretionary sanctions

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

Hello, several editors on Wikipedia are having multiple problems with a highly problematic user and we are at a point where administrative action is now required. These problems have lasted several days—and after having assumed good faith—we are all at the end of our ropes. Echo1Charlie has been exhibiting a history of multiple problematic behavioural issues when it comes to not listening to consensus (often disruptively going around and around in circles without refusing to actually listen to others, and then issuing false threats when this doesn't work). He also has a history of filing false reports in an effort to mislead others (particularly administrators) in an attempt to push POV. Users have engaged with him on the talk pages of the articles of concern, but he absolutely refuses to listen to consensus simply because he is not getting his way. He is additionally attempting to push POV through WP:CANVASSING now (yet again) through multiple avenues across Wikipedia, despite having been warned not to do so. Furthermore, and now more worryingly, is that he is now bringing race and ethnicity into the matter in a poor attempt to whip up racial and ethnic conflict to try and discredit the users who have been so patient with him and who have been trying to reach consensus with him. He is now clearly accusing me and another editor (Cipher21) of being Pakistanis simply because we disagree with him (I do not know the ethnic background of the other user, nor of Echo1Charlie, and I find it absolutely ridiculous and insulting that he is even attempting to brand me with an ethnicity I do not belong to). At this point he is being nothing but disruptive to the project, and thus some urgent help would be appreciated.

—NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Additional Explanation on How His Behaviour is Threatening: Echo1Charlie has unnecessarily been aggressive and uncivil throughout. Immediately after having had a content dispute he issued me with this (a "final" warning threatening to block me despite Echo1Charlie not being an administrator, falsely accusing me of vandalism—when my edits were anything but—additionally, he had issued this first and only warning to me; which was pretty unnecessarily aggressive) despite himself engaging in WP:3RR violations across two articles over the same issue despite me showing evidence I was originally first and foremost taking the dispute to the talk pages to reach consensus with him.

—NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

It looks like he's using another account as this user has responded to him on his page. I thought it strange he had suddenly gone silent. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 16 September 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified 18 November 2021, 21:09 (UTC)

Thank you for your help so far. I have attempted to work with Echo1Charlie to include whatever he wants in the article (as you can see in the links I've provided to the relevant talk pages) provided we include an additional citation that me and Cipher want but he absolutely refuses to and only wants to selectively insert his own POV sources. We have told him this is unacceptable, but he keeps taking it to various other places to force a change. At this point it is pretty clear he wants to WP:CANVASS support to as many discussion forums as possible to drum up support for his own POV views. NarSakSasLee (talk) 23:51, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I moved your comment up here, where non-admin comments are supposed to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

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.

Echo1Charlie's behaviour has been troublesome:

Racist attack on a user

Assumes nationality of editors disagreeing with him - textbook hyper nationalist inanity, "everyone who disagrees with me is Pakistani"

Racial profiling: "Respected admin, if they (both I assumed to be pakistani, their area of interest, edit say so) if they can block a proactive Indian editor they can further their agenda as seen here , here and here" and "how calling one pakistani become racial profiling??? I think it's proud for a pakistani to be called so."

• on these edits he made on two articles his intention are clear which is (1) spread false information on Wikipedia (2) mislead the reader (3) further the pakistani agenda - claims editor is trying to "further the Pakistani agenda" - WP:NPA

1RR violation, refuses to self revert even when informed (they were already notified when they edited the article). Instead copy-pastes my message onto the article in question's talk page, ignores everything I said before.

Throughout this discussion they demonstrate deliberate refusal to get the point despite being explained to multiple times - WP:IDONTHEARYOU - as well as:

• Misrepresentation of sources, falsely claims TOI contradicts itself.

• Claims opinion pieces can be attributed to the platform they were posted on - see WP:RSEDITORIAL - despite the fact that they had already been informed of this guideline in an edit summary, and were asked to re-read said summary again before making this comment.

• Misrepresents TOI again, despite multiple explanations.

Some glaring WP:CIR issues here, especially their refusal to accept consensus or WP:RS and attempts to paint disputes in ethnic colours (during which they make no secret of their obsessive hatred of Pakistani people). At the very least I'd suggest an indefinite topic ban.

Cipher21 (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Some other recent instances of Echo1Charlie's questionable behaviour in Saffron Terror

• Bulk removal on a disputed, protected page without any discussion, based on misinterpretation of sources

• Removed reliable sources' dead links without effort at finding new; when presented with newer links, claimed ignorance and didn't correct

--Hemanthah (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Hemanthah I just noticed he does this a lot. He'll delete vast swathes of well cited information and then leave a small edit summary saying it was contested or contradicted by so and so. Well if it contested or contradicted, why doesn't he just simply add that information in instead of deleting whole paragraphs? He's clearly just out to be disruptive. Thank you for bringing this to attention. Can you gather any more instances of this? NarSakSasLee (talk) 14:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Came across this recently, had filed away as a possibly one-time issue but added a short watch on his talk page. When I saw the Arbcom action, it seemed to be a pattern and followed up. Not sure of other instances. Hemanthah (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

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

• This and this was in less than two hours and is substantially the same content, so a clear violation of the 1RR restriction on the article. That alone is blockworthy, will need to look at the rest. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

I can see why you are frustrated. He is going out of his way to not understand how citations work. Not sure if that alone has risen to a DS issue at this point, but per the above, that isn't all that is going on. Waiting for more input other other admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:30, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

HighInBC, the more I look, the less convinced this is going to be a learning experience, so my thinking has shifted toward preserving the peace. I would think a 90 day topic ban from ARBPIA is justified given the totality of circumstances, with the understanding that another tban would likely be indef. From my experience, a light touch isn't beneficial in this area. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• User was aware of the sanctions. Made a 1RR violation, was made aware of the 1RR violation and given a chance to self-revert. Failed to self revert. At the minimum a 1 week DS block for a 1RR violation is called for. I have not yet looked in detail at the other issues but will in the next day or so. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The more I read through these diffs the more I find myself agreeing with Dennis Brown. In addition to competency issues there is also the issue with the user being concerned more with who the users are than the arguments being made. The nationalistic basis of these concerns is especially troubling. A 90 day topic ban from the area is justified, however I feel it is short. My opinion is that it should be at least 180 days. That being said in the interest of consensus I will support a 90 day ban. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:24, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TH1980 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Hijiri88 (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

] :

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

1. November 23 IBAN violation – directly links to and asks about the IBAN between Hijiri88 and TH1980
2. November 23 IBAN violation – Hijiri88 elaborates on that link on his talk page and indirectly accuses me of hounding him AFTER the closure of the Arbcom case and AFTER the IBAN was implemented (he expressly says that he is one of the parties of the IBAN)
3. November 23 IBAN violation – Hijiri88 elaborates on that link posted above and accuses me of "one-way hounding"
4. November 23 IBAN violation – Hijiri88 falsely accuses the person who he was IBANed with during the aforementioned Arbcom case and who he is still IBANed with of presenting "tainted evidence" during the Arbcom case

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. June 20 2020 Hijiri88 was previously indefinitely blocked for doing the same thing as he just did recently.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I was informed by e-mail of a series of recent IBAN violations by Hijiri88. According to Wikipedia IBAN policy, IBANed users are prohibited from making "reference to or comment on each other anywhere on Wikipedia, directly or indirectly". However, the links show that Hijiri88 has repeatedly made clear reference to me directly and indirectly. There are three BANEX exceptions: "asking an administrator to take action against a violation, asking for necessary clarifications about the scope of the ban, appealing the ban". However, none of these exceptions apply to the talk page posts or arbitration committee elections that I linked above.

Furthermore, directly linking to the IBAN in question and repeatedly describing it as being the result of "one way harassment" is an inaccurate personal attack. The Arbcom case presented dozens of diffs and incidents of Hijiri88 harassing me and stalking me to articles. Hijiri88 was also later found to have repeatedly evaded the IBAN by explicitly asking other users to make IBAN-violating edits for him. Furthermore, Hijiri88 has been subject to six IBANs over the last decade, all of which were two-way.

All these points above are proof that Hijiri88 should not be allowed to openly describe this as "one way harassment" as he repeatedly did above. I have never needed more than one IBAN and I have never been sanctioned for violating the IBAN, whereas Hijiri88 was at one point indefinitely blocked for mentioning the IBAN in essentially the same manner he is again doing right now. I have been told that the admin Wugapodes noted just a few months ago that Hijiri88's older IBANs "would be unremarkable if not for the continued imposition of IBANs and the repeated inability of Hijiri to abide by them." TH1980 (talk) 18:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

It was my understanding that asking (potential) arbitrators about their receptivity to a future appeal of this IBAN was, by definition, covered by WP:BANEX. The last diff referred to by User:Dennis Brown as being problematic is elaboration in response to an apparent misunderstanding from the candidate. I am sorry that I was unable to report the hounding in 2016 via the proper fora, but I felt the need to explain the context of why that was the case in this situation; if it is the consensus that mentioning it on-wiki in a form like the above diff is itself a violation of the IBAN, I will not do so going forward. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Understood, and thank you. You will appreciate why I am choosing to say no more on this matter. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

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

• The first three diffs don't bother me, likely fall under "usual exceptions". The last diff , is a problem, as they are making it personal and making claims of being hounded, etc. So the first three demonstrate a pattern, but again, it is that one that clearly breaches the restriction. I'm not lost of the fact that he is understandably frustrated by the iban, which has been in place some time now, but this isn't the way to go about getting it lifted, via violating it. Not sure what the best response is. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Hijiri88, this is why I said the first three weren't a big deal but once you start making personal claims against the person you are iban'ed with, you are no longer discussing the iban in the abstract, and BANEX no longer applies. My compatriots below are a bit more forgiving in this, perhaps, and I won't buck consensus, but realize that there is every justification to block you 2 to 4 weeks, based on the past record and the current situation. That isn't harsh, that is a typical response from AE. I'm not opposed to just a warning (although I find it EXTREMELY lenient), but you need to realize how lucky you are, and redouble your efforts to abide by the iban. Just drop the subject completely. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
• Probably @Hijiri88: just needs to agree to drop the stick. I think they've shown the continued IBAN is still needed. Don't see why they need to keep picking at this scab. It'll never heal. This is as bad as the conduct of a now banned user who had to bring up the past repeatedly. Learn to let go. Leave it in the past. Move forward. Wikipedia is not therapy.--Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree with logged warning. @Hijiri88: Nothing further about TH1980. Please. This behavior argues for continuing the IBAN. If it continues, an indef block is a certainty, and it would be nearly impossible to appeal. Please do find something else to do/think about. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• This is certainly not ideal, though I do note that in at least one case (diff #1), Hijiri88 was actually invited to go into specifics by the candidate, so there also may be some confusion around this. Asking about a possible future appeal is at least arguably covered by BANEX, but using that as a platform to complain about how the editor covered by the interaction ban behaved at the time is very much out of line. Basically, I would say this should be treated as a final warning to Hijiri88 to drop it, period. If you want to file an appeal, file one, making sure to discuss yourself and not your gripes about the other editor. It either will succeed, or it won't. Other than that, leave it alone and stay well away from anything that could even be remotely interpreted as you discussing TH1980. BANEX is not intended as a "back door" way for you to complain about and pick at them; don't use it that way. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  I want to be very clear, in regards to Dennis Brown, that this is not intended as leniency so much as recognition that a block of a couple weeks would be rather pointless. Rather, this is intended as a logged, on-the-record warning to Hijiri88 that this was a violation of the interaction ban, and that if future violations of the ban occur, the result is very likely indeed to be an indefinite block; this is a last chance. That is of course not the ending that I would want to see, so I would like to make it very clear so that, hopefully, that outcome can be avoided. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• To me the first diff is a only not a violation of the IBAN if you take into account the motive stated after the fact. The way it is worded does not seem like an appeal or request for clarification, rather an attempt to assess the candidate based on the topic. I am willing to assume good faith that this was indeed an attempt at asking about a future reprieve. I also take into consideration that they were asked to elaborate by the candidate, though that is typically not an invitation to discuss a matter that one is banned from.

The last diff is a clear violation. This does not fall under BANEX and they are very much stating claims about the person they are in an IBAN with.

I feel either a short block or a very stern and logged warning is called for. I also feel that this incident will negatively affect any future appeal made anytime soon. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:04, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with HJ Mitchell's recommended block duration of 2 weeks. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• This was clearly a violation of the interaction ban. I see the argument against a block and would generally be sympathetic to it, but Hijiri has a long history and extensive block log for interpersonal disputes which have interfered with the business of the encyclopaedia. I feel a block of some duration is necessary to uphold ArbCom's decision to impose the ban, to be clear that the conduct was unacceptable, and to enforce the distance between Hijiri and TH1980 that the interaction ban would have been providing had it not been violated. I would suggest a duration of a week or two. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

AshiK Jonathan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:24, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

AmirahBreen (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:Edit-warring

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user has been edit-warring against long-standing consensus, without waiting to gain new consensus in talk page for his or her radical changes, despite being reverted by multiple editors in the span of less than 24 hours. Also I believe there are additional restrictions about this topic that the user is not respecting.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

There have been long term issues with her editing, including possible COIs in the horn of Africa topic area. There has been at least one BLPN thread and at least one ANI thread related to her editing in that topic area. Unfortunately, I'm stuck on mobile for the time being, so pulling diffs and such is going to be difficult. The diff below shows insertion of WP:SYNTH and edit warring. The history of that article around that time, and a bit before shows a pattern of NPOV editing and edit warring with no discussion, or ignoring previous discussion. Due to their editing, and lack of any resolution of behavior issues, I just removed any articles they edited from my watchlist.

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive325#Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1065#WP:NPOV,_WP:OWN,_and_copyright_violations_at_Mohamed_Abdullahi_Mohamed

General note - a brand new account (initiated 11 days ago) with 30 edits to his credit not permitted to edit the Israel-Palestine conflict area (see -->) but is loosely allowed to post enforcement requests here concerning the above-mentioned topic?

This loophole needs to be corrected by ArbCom eventually.

PS - @HJ Mitchell - please, keep in mind the standing of the filing person while deliberating further sanctions such as page ban and/or longer-term partial block against AB. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

GizzyCatBella, I considered it, but this a pretty cut-and-dried violation rather than a matter of framing. Of course, if anyone wants to make a case against the OP I'll consider it with an open mind. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:17, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, the violation was very clear, and you handled it correctly. (with perhaps a minor point that now the blocked editor is not able to comment in his defence for the next 72 hours). But I'm only concerned about possible loopholes where potential throw-away accounts, not risking anything, such as WP:BOOMERANG as an example, freely arrive here to file enforcement requests. - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

PS - I do have an idea who the filer might be. Do you want me to present the case here below or at SPI? - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:44, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• @HJ Mitchell I filed it here --> - GizzyCatBella🍁 20:29, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Nableezy - ..non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the "Talk:" namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions. (WP:ARBPIA) - Is A/R/E considered a noticeboard? If yes, then the above applies, if not, we have a loophole. Anyway, I filed an SPI, see above for the link. - GizzyCatBella🍁 00:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the block (and there are way too many tags on that page), I also echo the concerns of GizzyCatBella, I would not normally expect a very new editor to be filing a complaint like this.Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I might ask the complainant what prompted them to file the complaint? Unless I missed something, they had no prior involvement at that article? Selfstudier (talk) 18:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yesterday, AmirahBreen put a warning on another user's talk page about the 1RR in place on that page, so they were well aware of the restrictions.

Today, they engaged in two reverts an hour apart in addition to earlier reverts they had done.

I don't know if any action beyond the 72 hour block is appropriate or not, but knowingly violating the 1RR does seem more serious than an incidental mistake. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This entire report is invalid, a violation of WP:ARBPIA which disallows new editors from editing in the WP namespace about the A/I conflict topic area. When a user with 34 freaking edits shows up to AE understanding discretionary sanctions, maybe stop and think hey should I be concerned with obvious sockpuppetry in a DS topic area? nableezy - 23:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

GCB, look at the template at the top of this page. Yes, this is a noticeboard. This should be collapsed, the reporting user blocked, the end. nableezy - 00:14, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

While a 1RR violation is straightforward and needs to be enforced when it comes to light, I broadly agree that 30/500 restrictions should bar people from making AE requests. Beyond that I would argue that AE requests from accounts that seem likely to be throwaways should generally not be allowed (though this gets tricky, of course, for WP:BITE reasons.) One only has to look at the recent incident with Icewhiz to understand why - identifying all but the most obvious sockpuppets takes time, since they need to produce enough edits to make patterns obvious. As a result, "well you can bring any charges against the filer if you want" isn't helpful - obviously we can't usually do that if someone's entire edit history are a handful of trivial edits and a single AE report. The result of allowing reports like that, coupled with a refusal to automatically reverse the results of AE filings made by blocked sockpuppets when they are caught, is to allow socks of banned users to spam AE with reports against people they disagree with and want to remove from a controversial topic area (worse, we can't go after them for making frivolous reports or demonstrate a sustained effort to abuse AE, because, again, the use of socks makes it impossible to establish a pattern.) Maybe there's a more precision-targeted solution that still allows new users to submit valid reports, but we do need some way to deal with the problem. Note that I'm not accusing the filer, specifically, of being an inappropriate sockpuppet (though I think it's reasonable to at least assume that this isn't their first account), the point is that allowing AE enforcement to follow from reports like these inevitably means that all banned users will be able to file AE reports freely via sockpuppets, and often accomplish the things they want to accomplish, without there being any particular recourse or way to discourage them. --Aquillion (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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

• I've blocked AmirahBreen for 72 hours for violation of the 1RR (it would have been 24 hours but thy have a previous 48-hour block for similar conduct). I'll leave this open because I'm tempted to add a page ban and/or longer-term partial block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
• I can't argue with the block but I'm inclined to topic ban AshiK Jonathan. It's just not acceptable that new editors can pop up to take out an opponent in this area. Their account was created on 15 November 2021 and has a total of 34 edits, none of which are to the target article or its talk. Johnuniq (talk) 01:07, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
• Without comment on the merits, I would simply note that AshiK Jonathan (the filing party) has been indef blocked as a puppet of User:יניב הורון via an SPI case . Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:41, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Interfase (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

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

1. 26, November 2021 Reverts added source about alternative origin of a dance with an edit description of "X information was removed, so Y should be removed as well". Says "no consensus", no consensus of what? Unduly reasoning.
2. 26, November 2021 User edit-wars, saying that: "it contradicts what reliable source say" without explaining why this source exactly can't be added as an alternative view, especially given the nature of the subject and it being spread through the whole Caucasus region. Again, asking to "get consensus", abusively using guidelines as some sort of a revert reasoning.
3. 26, November 2021 Reverting yet again while discussion was happening in the talk page, same "get consensus" reasoning and "I will report you" threats.
4. 26, November 2021 Breaching WP:3RR

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 27, February 2014 Indefinite topic ban from topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan
2. 10, March 2014 Indefinite topic ban lifted with specific conditions

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I believe this user's topic ban should be reinstated. For starters, their talk page is full of warnings, notices and whatnot, like multiple edit-warring notices (diff) and 3RR warnings (diff). Yet the user has no problem with edit-warring and breaching 3RR without even giving a valid explanation for most of the time. The user has been previously banned for edit-warring (see block log), and they have been topic banned from AA area, including for edit-warring (see previous enforcement case). Their topic ban has been lifted since, but the user doesn't seem to have changed much at all. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Again, consensus of what? You were removing sourced content without giving proper explanation for your reverts. And you're still failing to stay on topic. This report is about you clearly breaching WP:EW and WP:3RR, which you've been notified (and blocked for) multiple times in your talk page. Thank you for showing my only two reverts at the time , where I asked you to at least provide a valid reason for your reverts. And I wasn't even the one who added the source, see actual diff of the addition.

It wasn't until I actually asked you to justify your unduly reverts, but the damage was already done. And it didn't even stop you from breaching WP:3RR, about which you've been clearly aware from your past edit-warrings. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly the battleground mentality that got you tbanned for in the first place. Why do you keep saying "POV pushing" when I only made 2 reverts and was simply asking for a valid revert explanation? And you still didn't give a valid explanation even after I specifically asked you in the talk page. Volkova isn't RS, I already explained this to you multiple times in the talk page. You tried to add her already but as evident by the publication, Global Vision Publishing House, the publisher has no research or academic goals, its only goal is to serve clients. It's not reliable and is self-publishing.

On the other hand, the source that you removed and edit-warred over is published by Viltis (magazine), which to me seemed like a 3rd party RS publication. And please, try to assume good faith which you also had difficulties of doing in Talk:Uzundara#Lead_edit discussion. This report is about your WP:EW and WP:3RR breaches, I'm not here to discuss content issues with you. I already discussed it with you extensively in the talk page and also tried my best to explain guidelines to you, which you were citing so irresponsibly like casting aspersions of "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT" (diff) without actually understanding what it means. I had to make a separate comment and explain guidelines, just for you to stop your battleground mentality and unfounded accusations, which you have been tbanned for in the past.

To be honest I did not pay attention that I did 4th revert in the article. – this is exactly the reason you shouldn't be editing in contentious areas like AA. You've already been banned for edit-warring, you've been tbanned, you've been warned multiple times for edit-warring and 3RR, your page is full of notices and whatnot, and your only excuse now is "I didn't notice it"?

Robert McClenon I don't mind moderation, but I won't drop this complaint. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell I think this report should proceed because it in regard to their clear breach of WP:EW and WP:3RR. While I don't mind another discussion in DRN, please see the extensive discussion in Talk:Uzundara#Azerbaijani_origin_of_the_dance_noted_by_Volkova, where they tried to use non RS published source as their desired claims and much more. The user refuses to listen despite multiple users explaining to them the problem with their source, and that no WP:RS is saying anything exactly about "Azerbaijani origin". Moreover, they attempted to synthesize sources to achieve their desired outcome multiple times in that discussion. And I actually commented and replied in the DRN extensively, please see my comments.

The user also casted a number of WP:ASPERSIONS in that talk discussion, citing guidelines and unduly accusing others of misconduct without understanding the meaning of said guidelines. They have shown the same behavior in the past, as evident by the previous AE report. And they have been edit-warring in the past and were full aware of their actions as evident by their numerous talk page warnings, so "I just didn't notice" is no way near a convincing justification in my opinion. At this point, the user should've already learned and been a lot more careful about the relevant guidelines which they had past difficulties of adhering to, should they not? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell with all due respect, did you read my linked comments? I already said I was going to report Interfase way before any DRN conversations, exactly when they started to edit-war. See the comment (diff) that I also linked above. Quote:

"explain your unduly revert reason, and what do you mean by "it contradicts the more reliable sources on Azerbaijani origin"? What "more reliable" source mentions Azerbaijani "origin"? I hope you don't mean the Baku published one or WP:SPS "Global Vision" publication, because if that was the reason for your revert being, it is an unduly revert and you'll be reported. Kindly self revert yourself, as there was no origin claim. On contrary, it says the dance may be brought from Ottoman Empire by Armenians, that isn't a heavy claim. The source for it is perfectly fine, please explain the problem with the source also just like I did."

Sure enough, the user then replies with what I had thought of already, saying (again) that a non-RS published source is fine apparently. This was the source we were talking about, which is not RS (see my comment above for more thorough explanation) and which they were trying to add in a separate edit. Sure enough, after this unconvincing edit-war "explanation", I was already decided that a report was needed. I only had time to report yesterday during weekend, because of my IRL responsibilities. Hope this clears the air regarding "timings".

And I really don't understand the suggestion to get me banned from the article. Most reverts I made in 24hrs were no more than 2, I always communicate, my contributions' history is a strong example of that. I rarely if ever engage in edit-wars or breach Wikipedia guidelines, especially the more I started to understand them and grow as an editor. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

Here user ZaniGiovanni threats me that if I am going to add another source that was biased for him it will be disruptive, and he'll have no other choice but to report me. But in case of another biased source he returned it back several times breaching WP:CONS. As per this rule if he didn't agree with the further edit (in this case it was revert) he should seek a compromise and only after that implement an edit. But user ZaniGiovanni tried to return this exceptional information based on unreliable source and violating WP:WEIGHT to the article by force. This text was reverted with the comments and there were the arguments on the talk page. Actually these edits of ZaniGiovanni is clear POV-pushing attemt. It seems that user ZaniGiovanni thinks that the rules of the Wikipedia does not for him. He can threat other user and tell him not to add disputed source to the article, but adds another disputed source himself. --Interfase (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually I gave proper explanation on a talk page regarding the revert. As per Wikipedia:Consensus, when an edit is made, other editors may either accept it, change it, or revert it. In this case it was reverted, and user ZaniGiovanni should seek a compromise as per WP:CONS instead of continuously POV-pushing. To be honest I did not pay attention that I did 4th revert in the article. I promise that next time I will be more attentive and in case of any POV-pushing will not do 4th revert and warn the user, who broke the WP:EW and WP:CONS, and report him if he continues POV-pushing and WP:CONS breaching. --Interfase (talk) 03:36, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

A request for moderated dispute resolution has been made at DRN by User:Interfase. This conduct complaint appears to have been filed by User:ZaniGiovanni a few hours after the DRN filing, and ZG was aware of the DRN filing. I can try to mediate the content dispute if the editors will drop the conduct complaints, or I can fail the content dispute because there is also this conduct dispute. A case is not handled at DRN if there is a dispute in any other forum. I will fail the DRN case unless the parties agree to dismiss this conduct issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Robert. The request for moderate dispute resolution was send by me before this complaint and all involved users were informed about this request at the article's talk page. Since I raised a request I did not make any edits at the article, did not add disputed source back. I tried reach a consensus on a talk page, but no any results. For that reason I did not see other way to resolve the issue. I am ready to drop the conduct complaints if the content dispute will start to mediate. Regards, --Interfase (talk) 05:18, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

• I would suggest allowing dispute resolution to proceed at DRN. If that fails because of the conduct of one or both parties, the matter can be referred back here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:54, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
• Very well. There is a 3RR violation so, if we're going down the enforcement route, a block for Interfase is inevitable. I'm inclined to make it 72 hours or a week given the previous sanctions in the topic area (looking at the log, I see I imposed one of them seven years ago), including a couple of blocks for edit warring, along with a longer page ban or perhaps a 1RR restriction. But I'm not impressed with ZaniGiovanni. Although they haven't gone over the 3RR, they have been involved in an edit war and continued to revert while discussion was ongoing (credit where it's just due, Interfase actually started the talk page discussion, complying with the restriction I imposed seven years ago). They then filed an enforcement request after Interfase requested dispute resolution. To me, that's not a good-faith effort to resolve a content dispute. I'm inclined to ban ZaniGiovanni from the article Uzundara for as long as Interfase is blocked with a warning that stronger sanctions will soon follow if this conduct becomes a pattern. I'll leave this open for a while to see if any other admins have an opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shrike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:44, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

AmirahBreen (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

]

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

1. 22:58, 1 December 2021 First Revert
2. 11:53, 2 December 2021 Second Revert

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 26 November 2021 Block for 72 hours for edit warring

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Right after returning from the user have edit warred again This content was previously removed by him as part of big revert "Five of the activists who were killed had previously declared their desire to become shaheeds (martyrs)"

The original diff are linked above. The user started edit warring right after returning from his last block. What more could be done and he was engaged in the talk page by other user and seeing his response here he doesn't underhand what WP:1RR means --Shrike (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I made one reversion today and one yesterday. I am not clear is a 24 hour period counted from midnight to midnight or from one reversion to the next? I have made no further edits to the page today. I have opened discussions about it on the article talk page and am participating in those discussions to reach consensus.

Please also consider that the information which I removed was defamatory and original research. The sources were clear that their primary motive was to bring aid to Gaza and to cherry pick from the sources what they said may happen as an alternative if they failed and to place that in the text with the implication that it was their primary motive is defamatory. Although this is not a BLP and those people are not still alive, there are still people alive who were part of this aid mission who it can effect 'by association'.

GizzyCatBella wouldn't it be clearer if the warning said 'editors who revert this article should seek consensus before further reverts, and must refrain from from reverting the article again for at least 24 hours'?

IMO there should also be warning there that if Wikipedia policies are not followed it could also lead to a block due to discretionary sanctions. I am not one to go straight for arbitration, but reverting my edit in a rollback with no explanation in the edit summary as to why, as was done here and then reverting it again for no other reason than that the editor considered it a 1RR violation as was done here despite the fact that I had still not been given any explanation either in edit summary or on talk pages as to why it had been reverted in the first place, is that really in line with Wikipedia policy? If there was more emphasis on adhering to Wikipedia policies in the warnings then this shouldn't have happened in the first place. Editors should give clear edit summaries and particularly when making reverts on an article which is under discretionary sanctions. You are enforcing 1RR yet you are not enforcing Wikipedia policies.

What is more Daveout actually contravened the 1RR in one fowl swoop with a rollback of two completely separate edits with an edit summary which explained only one of them, but did you see me running straight to AE? He's also made a 3rd revert which is only just outside the 24hr mark and he's had talk page warnings for similar behaviour.

Daveout also broke the 1RR by doing this and this which resulted in me getting blocked after being reported by a sock-puppet of a banned editor. I warned him about edit warring on his talk page. and yesterday morning he went straight back and started another edit war, by reverting my edit with no explanation or edit summary, immediately followed by reverting another editors edit, for which he gave an edit summary but it turned out to be invalid. I've certainly learned a thing or two in all of this myself, but has Daveout learned anything at all? Has his username even been mentioned in this or the previous discussion in which I was not allowed to take part?

When he reverted my edit yesterday with no explanation in the edit summary I actually thought he'd probably made two reverts, one immediately following the next, by mistake, being that his edit summary only covered his second revert. I reverted back asking him to provide an edit summary (or discuss on the talk page), not with the intention of starting an edit war, but because I thought he had mistakenly rolled two reverts into one, and the edit he'd provided an edit summary for had absolutely nothing to do with my edit as far as I could see. I hadn't even questioned the reliability of the source, I had questioned the way in which the source had been cherry picked.

WP:WAR Referring to 3RR - 'Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside of the 24-hour slot may also be considered edit warring.' Is this any different for 1RR? According to WP:1RR it isn't.

WP:1RR also says that 24 hours may be replaced by 'a week', 'a month' etc. If it's talking about the time between one revert and the next then why not arbitrary figures such as 6 hours, 18 hours etc. If a revert was made this month then it implies that a revert made next month would not be within the month, even if it were made on an earlier day of the month. A month is not a set number of days, so how can you count from revert to revert if a month could be 31, 30 or even 29 or 28 days. How do you know which length of month to choose? The length of this month or next month? I'm not saying that I don't understand now what has already been explained to me, what I am saying is I still feel that the policy pages don't explain clearly enough and that I should be believed when I say I did not fully understand if it meant 24 hours from the time the first revert was made or if it meant 'on the same day'.

WP:3RRNO Point 7. also says under exemptions 'Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.' Due to the comma after 'unsourced' but no comma after 'poorly sourced', I would read this to say that libelous, biased, and unsourced, may also refer to articles other than BLPs. I still maintain that the text I removed was libelous and biased in the context it was placed and in the way it was picked from the source which distorted it's meaning, it also turned out to be poorly sourced. If I am not reading this correctly, then a comma should be placed after 'poorly sourced' in point 7 to make it clearer.

Cullen328 I don't even understand your comment, at the start of this discussion I was not asking if 24 meant 24, I was asking 'is it counted from midnight to midnight or from edit to edit'.

Anyway, I have exceeded my wordcount now. Perhaps you will take into account that I was not allowed to make a statement in the last discussion, if you are counting the results of the last discussion against me too.

Amirah talk 02:52, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I would say that a 1RR violation is obvious but I agree with Nableezy that the filing party could (and most likely should) ask for self-revert first. This resembles an "I got you now!" approach. (sorry Shrike, that's my humble opinion) (this changed my mind.) One also should keep in mind that the initial report, that resulted in 72 hours block above, was produced by a sock-puppet of a banned user. I definitely would not agree with a topic ban proposed, not yet. - GizzyCatBella🍁 22:02, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

@AmirahBreen

The warning was posted and visible here -->

WARNING In accordance with Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.

Whats the first a revert of? Did anybody ask the user to self-revert? Did you try to engage on the talk page? With the user on the user talk page? Curious. nableezy - 21:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting a user who goes around telling others to review ONUS and start an RFC for challenged material reverts on the basis of a supposed 1RR without identifying the original revert too. This numbers game thing leaves a bad taste in ones mouth. The whole escalating the reporting without engaging the user at all on their talk page, when they have at the very least already stopped reverting, was unable to self-revert because they had already been reverted, and was never even asked to self-revert makes that bad taste more intense. nableezy - 21:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Here Shrike, I tried to help you out with the whole not using AE as a weapon thing. Maybe see for example User_talk:Bob_drobbs#1rr for how a user might try to engage another and ask that they correct their actions prior to escalating things here even if they oppose their edits. nableezy - 21:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it is inappropriate to report a user for a 1RR violation without ever asking for a self-revert. We always ask for a self-revert. I dont think its appropriate that the initial report was made by a sock of a banned user and now an admin is escalating this report without any attempt to engage the user for a topic-ban. I think the users who lecture others on ONUS while violating it left and right themselves should be looked at as well. nableezy - 21:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

HJ, nobody has tried to engage this person with anything besides threats at all. This was the sequence of the first block. Notice. AE report (by a since blocked sock). Sanction. Those are consecutive edits to their talk page, and not one person stopped in between to give her (I think from username?) even one chance at learning how to correct the issues. And here, again, no request to self-revert. You have one user reverting their edit so they could not self-revert, and another reporting them, and nobody offering a chance at a self-revert. And all the while, users are violating WP:RSEDITORIAL and WP:ONUS. That is, um, sub-par. nableezy - 22:26, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is covering themselves with glory here. I'm not sure how several of the regulars don't understand the dummy links ("difflink3") in the reporting template. I'm not sure I believe that AmirahBreen doesn't understand the 1RR rule after being blocked over it a week ago. I'm not sure why Nableezy thinks this filing is inappropriate after that block and after this talk page disucssion that suggests AmirahBreen thinks they did nothing wrong.

As far as what should be done, a week-long page ban from Gaza flotilla raid (but not the talk page) seems to me to be both gentle and justified. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Because when I was blocked it was for edits which were done on the same day. This arbitration request is for two edits which I made on two separate days. In my understanding a day is another word for a '24 hour period', or is it not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmirahBreen (talk • contribs)

@AmirahBreen: Multiple editors are telling you that you are wrong about the policy, and that 24 hours means 24 hours, not a calendar day wherever you are. If you refuse to acknowledge this, you are certainly looking at a longer block to prevent you from continuing to violate that policy. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:57, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

1. A polite notice of 1RR violation was put on AmirahBreen's talk page.. There was no request to self-revert because someone else did it for them. AmirahBreen didn't accept this, but instead doubled-down with seeming annoyance and frustration. And this was immediately after a 72 hour ban for the same violation.

It would appear that for whatever reason, AmirahBreen is unable or unwilling to follow the rules.

2. Digging a deeper hole. In the latest edit AmirahBreen tries to argue that we should excuse this additional violation of 1RR, because it was their opinion that this text was problematic. That's not how 1RR works. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

3. While I appreciate the wide variety of human experience, the simple fact is that we all have to work together abiding by the same set of rules. AmirahBreen hasn't just slightly exceeded the 500 word limit in here, they've more than doubled that. It's another example, that at this point in time, this user isn't following the rules. They pointed out their own rule violation, yet they did not correct it. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 19:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• This is a clear 1RR violation, and, since it is coming immediately after the user has been to this noticeboard last week, I am afraid we need a PIA topic ban.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• It is a clear 1RR violation (the first revert was restoring content that was subject to the edit war they were blocked for previously), and some form of sanction is inevitable. I think a broad topic ban is overkill at this point. I'm more inclined toward a short-term sitewide block (of around a week) for the 1RR violation, and a longer-term ban from the article Gaza flotilla raid (but not its talk page). Obviously if their editing continues to cause problems, a topic ban from all of ARBPIA is the next step. I can see why Nableezy has a bad taste in his mouth wrt weaponisation of AE, but the easiest way to avoid having AE used against you is to avoid violating bright-line rules. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• The user has been around long enough that the "I don't understand what 24 hours refers to" doesn't hold water. However, I agree with H J Mitchell that an escalating block (1 week) may be more appropriate than a topic ban. Enough time for that down the road if it becomes necessary. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:29, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agreeing with HJ Mitchell, a week block, and I would say a short-ish page block/ban of 30 days for the article, but not the talk page. That should be seen as the last chance before full blown topic bans come to play. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:37, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
• AmirahBreen, firstly, please write any comments in your own section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE, nor are comments anywhere but in your section. That aside, if coming off an edit warring block to immediately start edit warring again doesn't merit a topic ban, I'm not sure what does. But if the consensus is for a "last chance" type block, one hopes this time will be more effective. I would remind AmirahBreen that the 24 hour cycle is a limit, not an entitlement—edit warring is not good in general, and if you get the idea that you should just wait a little longer between repeated reverts next time, you're rather missing the point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
• I am unconvinced by any claim of failing to understand that 24 hours means the period of time right between 23 hours and 59 minutes and 24 hours and one minute. I endorse Seraphimblade's request to take on board the spririt rather than just the letter of the policy against edit warring. I am not prepared to support a PIA topic ban at this time but will advise the editor that they are on the brink of such a ban. Support a one week block and a pageblock from the article in question though not its talkpage, with an instruction to be productive not argumentative on that talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 05:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Inf-in MD (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:ARBPIA4#ARBPIA General Sanctions (standard discretionary sanctions)

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

1. 01:10, 10 December 2021 accusing an editor of lacking competence (this was just struck, the others remain)
2. 00:23, 10 December 2021 same
3. 01:00, 10 December 2021 same
4. 01:31, 10 December 2021 same

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Notified of DS on 13 August 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Inf-in MD, after having previously accused me pompous ignorance only to redact it when told he would be reported, has several times now accused me of lacking competence to edit here. The basis of this is my saying that a group known as "Jewish Human Rights Watch" There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing. Inf-in MD did indeed find that it was a registered corporation in the UK under a slightly different name, but has claimed that I what I wrote "is completely false, nonsense by an editor who hasn't done even minimal research on the topic". One part of what I wrote was incorrect, that it does not have a board. The rest remains completely true. Regardless, claiming that I lack competence is inflammatory and uncivil, and if Inf-in MD feels I lack competence to edit here then the correct thing to do is raise the issue on an administrative board. Not drop a CIR link, four times, in article talk pages. As I had previously asked Inf-in MD to not make such personal attacks, and they have seen fit to ratchet that up substantially, I ask that he be restricted from participating in a topic area subject to discretionary sanctions.

The first diff was later struck. nableezy - 01:43, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

That's a pretty blatant misreading of my question, I was asking if it was a competence issue for me that I did not find the group listed under Jewish Rights Watch. Because I looked for Jewish Human Rights Watch and came up with zilch. I was asking that if I did not find it under a different name does that mean I lack competence. Not turning the question around. nableezy - 02:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, Im a little confused as to how an account with 2k edits and registered on July 16 of 2021 has any idea what I have a habit of doing. I haven't made a single request for enforcement here the entire time he has been active with this account as far as I can recall. nableezy - 02:45, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

The response is incredibly disingenuous. He does not doubt my good faith in the first paragraph, but its time somebody put a stop to me in the second. Doesnt have any idea about anybody was doing in years past, but offers this commentary about long-time editors supposedly being unsanctionable. Also, linking to a website I dislike is a very peculiar framing for linking to a website that outs several editors and attempts to out several more. Im already on record as to what prior accounts would have informed these views over the years, but I find the game in which one pretends to be assuming good faith in me in one paragraph so that they look like they arent doing what they so obviously are doing and in the next paragraph retreating to form to be disingenuous. nableezy - 15:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

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.

As I explained on that page, WP:CIR says "Sometimes editors have good intentions, but are not competent enough to edit in a net positive manner. They create work that others have to clean up." - that seems to be the case here. I don't doubt the editor's good intentions but he's simply not up to the task as demonstrated by his editing. He did not perform the most basic of research that would have shown that what they claimed ("this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed. There is no website for it, no charity information, no known board, no nothing.") is false. As the links I gave him show , it is a registered corporation (a PLC) in the UK, with a board that is named, with an address etc.. He further did not understand that 'Jewish Rights Watch' is the legal name for "Jewish Human Right Watch" (and seems to still not understand this, per his comment above), despite the fact that I gave him a link that made that connection explicit (and then he had the audacity to accuse me of failing CIR for confusing these entities which he incorrectly assumed were different ones - "your link to the UK company information services is to "JEWISH RIGHTS WATCH", not Jewish Human Rights Watch. Is that a competence issue?" the same thing he's accusing me of doing here!).

He thus created work for other editors (me) who had to do this basic research , and more work to explain this basic stuff to them and clean up the wrong and misleading stuff they posted. This user has a habit of trying to weaponize discussion boards like this one (or even Afd! - "sanction the creator" , or this, same AfD "you should be blocked and topic banned per WP:POINT and WP:TE") to sanction people who disagree with him. It's time someone put a stop to this behavior. Inf-in MD (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

User:力 , I provided links to their corporate registration and filings. There have been 3-4 employees, since 2014. Not that it really matters, many organizations are sole proprietorships or two partners, that does not make them any less of a real organization. But I take your point about invoking WP:CIR not being a good idea. Inf-in MD (talk)

User:力, Oh I agree, if the article is to include it, it is because the report was covered by reliable sources, not because of the number of employees the commissioning organization has. but let's not turn this into a debate about what the article should say, that's what the article's talk page is for. Inf-in MD (talk) 02:56, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I accept that invoking CIR was wrong , and have struck those references out .Inf-in MD (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

With that said let address some of the other comments:

• I don't generally edit in the Poland topic area. I saw a report about COI and read the information provided there it - that a number of editors were editing an article to remove mentions about themselves that were made in an external source - and commented that this seems like a clear cut case of COI, as did many other editors.
• I have no idea what Nableezy was doing here in years past, but I gave examples that happened just recently -asking for a ban of an editor who created an article he didn't like, and I have seen others, like a recent attempt to drag me into an ANI report I was not directly involved with report because I linked to a website he didn't like.
• I didn't "gnome" my way into becoming eligible to edit in the topic area - I edited for 2 months, making edits small and large. I was editing in the topic area from early on () until I was told I can't do that, so I left until could, then returned. What was I supposed to do?

Bringing up WP:CIR on an article talk page is almost never a good idea, especially with editors who aren't new. Also, I'm not convinced that "Jewish Human Rights Watch" is anything more than a doing-business-as for an individual activist or two, based on the talk page discussion. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Inf-in MD: I agree that it is more serious than "some guy who had a whim one night". That doesn't mean it's necessary to include something (I'm not exactly sure what diff the dispute is about) in the article. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 02:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Accusing a 14-year-old veteran of lacking competence is a bad, bad, bad idea. Particularly when it comes from somebody who initiated a journey with Wikipedia 4 months ago Let's study it all a bit closer... - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Inf-in MD opened an account on July 16th, 2021 editing an area entirely unrelated to WP:ARBPIA. One month later, on August 22, 2021, Inf-in MD reached 500/30 status with this edits and immediately (within 9 minutes) proceeds to WP:ARBPIA area with this edit.

Since that time, Inf-in MD remains in the WP:ARBPIA topic area participating in AE reports, here too, noticeborards, here too, warns editors of possible topic bans breaches or 1 RR violations

On October 14, 2021, Inf-in MD is investigated for possible sockpuppetry -->

On November 27, 2021, Inf-in MD knowledgeably commented at the Holocaust in Poland topic area (WP:APL) regarding the banned editor's report to Haaretz --> and WP:COI issue.-->, , despite never editing that topic area before.

In my humble opinion Inf-in MD is not a 4 months old user. They are remarkably familiar with both WP:ARBPIA and WP:APL (Holocaust in Poland) issues. They target their likely prior rivals selectively with the intention of eliminating them from editing. The examples are this report where Inf-in MD accused his potential rival of WP:CIR and others (User:Piotrus and User:Volunteer Marek) of WP:COI. I don't think it is worthwhile to file another SPI at this time since WP:ARBPIA topic ban is on the table. If implemented, that should be sufficient. If I'm mistaken and Inf-in MD is indeed a new user (is it?) who accidentally stumbled into both topic areas, they may edit other subjects and appeal the ban at a later time. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

First, per WP:ONUS, nobody is required to do your research for you. That means that even if nableezy had been completely and unequivocally wrong, it still wouldn't have been appropriate to accuse him of WP:CIR issues - he's entirely within his rights to evaluate a source based solely on what has been presented by the people who want to include it. Inf-in MD's complaint that nableezy made them do the work of researching the source that Inf-in MD presented is not appropriate, because that work was always Inf-in MD's responsibility. But on top of that, nableezy's argument wasn't even obviously wrong! Arguing that the source is WP:UNDUE because this is not an organization in any meaningful sense. It is a Facebook group and a Twitter feed is an entirely defensible position to take, and trying to argue that it also having a registered corporation drastically changes this is, at best, a bog-standard sourcing or content dispute, not something so glaringly right or wrong that it justifies repeatedly accusing an editor of competence issues. If Inf-in MD had dropped it after the first time, it wouldn't be a big deal, but it seems like he keeps fixating on it (to the point of doubling down on it above!) That, at least, needs to stop. Inf-in MD accuses nableezy of trying to remove them, but surely they are aware that WP:CIR is a policy intended to be used as a threshold for the removal of editors; constantly accusing someone of lacking competence to that degree across multiple forums seems reflective of both WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct. --Aquillion (talk) 03:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Nableezy complain that editors weaponize AE but he doing the same such filing were at AE multiple times and maximum what happened is mild warning that editor comments are not "ideal". It would be strange if there would be different outcome --Shrike (talk) 05:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnuniq You said you didn't check the report but you already think that indef tban is needed it that what are you saying? It would be very strange if any sanction will come as there were no personal attacks in any of the diffs in the past users were sanctioned for filing such reports Shrike (talk) 07:16, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

To editor Shrike: Counting has never been my strong suit, so apologies if I'm wrong. As far as I can tell this filing brings Nableezy's count for 2021 up to 3. In the same time period, your count is 4. Maybe you should withdraw your "multiple times" remark. Zero^talk 08:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• I confirmed the comments above regarding Inf-in_MD's account. It was created on 16 July 2021 and has made 2208 edits. I'll look at the details of this report later but the drama makes me suspect that an indefinite topic ban is required because a new account pulling CIR against one of the regulars on the other side looks like an attempt to prompt an over-reaction that might lead to that regular being sanctioned. Johnuniq (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course I've checked the report and confirmed that the reported user is using a new account and has used WP:CIR in what looks like an attempt to provoke an over-reaction. I have not yet checked details such as all the diffs in the report or the background to the dispute. Johnuniq (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Personally I'd say that someone who uses an accusation of CIR against a 14-year-old account - four times in an hour, no less - probably has CIR issues themselves. However, there's a familiar pattern here. New account, gnomes its way to extended confirmed, immediately dives into ARBPIA issues, has a remarkable knowledge of that and related issues pre-dating their account creation, ends up at AE... we've been here a number of times. Topic ban. Black Kite (talk) 10:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

• And after I made that posting, User:Shrike has tried to claim I'm uninvolved here, by dragging up diffs up to 12 years old that I've made on IP articles. See this conversation. Needless to say, I'm pretty unimpressed by this behaviour. Black Kite (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Bob drobbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Nableezy (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

Repeated calls in an AFD and article talk pages calling for me to be banned IMO cross the line into intimidation and harassment violating WP:CIVIL:

1. 11/30 "Delete, and sanction the creator" in response to the AFD for Collier
2. 11/30 "Exactly why you should be blocked" over a disagreement about wp:coatrack.
3. 12/9 "... you will find yourself reported to arbitration enforcement" in response to a non-violation of 1RR while I'm trying to get consensus.

This is especially true as he continued this behavior after I asked him to stop. "Please stop making threats - if you're going to report me, then report me. But I think your accusations are groundless. Stop making threats implied or otherwise"

David Collier (political activist) has personally attacked Nableezy (I cannot share the link), and I believe Nableezy knows this, but he denies that he has any COI in regards to the person who attacked him. Below is how Nableezy refers to Collier. This might violate WP:COI or WP:OR among other things.

The RS which are being used generally refer to Collier as an "independent journalist" or "researcher", though a few mostly older sources do refer to him as a "blogger". His blog is never mentioned in anything more than passing, but his reports on antisemitism are covered in depth in RS. Nableezy's personal opinion that material covered by RS is "wild claims" should play no part in these discussions.

1. 12/7 "...handful of partisan sources parroting a blogger's claims"
2. 12/7 "...incessant push to include the rantings of a blogger"
3. 12/8 "This fetishization of the most breathless recounting of what is uncorroborated innuendo by a blogger"
4. 12/9 "This fetishization over the "report" of a blogger making wild claims"

Regarding COI, I recognize something of a Catch-22 if anyone with a wikipedia page can attack a wikipedia editor, and then that editor can no longer edit their BLP page. But on the flip-side, if a notable or possibly notable person attacks an editor, that editor must be extra careful editing their page or pushing for exclusion of their work. Nableezy seems to be completely failing there.

Finally, this isn't any sort of "gotcha" trying to silence an opponent. I repeatedly told Nableezy that I felt these calls for me to be banned felt like threats or intimidation and asked him to stop He refused. Then I asked if he'd join me in a mediation process. Again he refused.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 5/2011 Topic banned for 2 months
2. 1/2012 Topic banend for 6 months - ban on "Palestine" wording

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date
• Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date.
• Placed a {{Ds/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

He just filed a report:

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regarding WP:POINT, ...

As for edit warring, Huldra systematically went through wikipedia removing every mention of Collier outside of his page with the exact same edit comment: "WP:ONUS and WP:DUE and WP:RS...". I did put much of that text back at one point or another while making good faith efforts to engage in talk pages. And in at least one case, she was right so I undid part of my revert. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Rosguill: I respect your opinion. But every time that I've asked him to stop with these implied threats in talk pages, he's refused. I'm legitimately not sure exactly how much harassment I should put up with before filing here. If I had waited until the next time, and does anyone doubt there will be a next time, would things be different? My goal in regards to the harassment section is simply a change in behavior. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: You might not see the difference, but there is an important difference between saying "I believe you violated a rule" and shouting to a room "sanction this user". If you're willing to (1) try to take these comments to talk pages, and (2) try to voice them as opinions unless it's factual (e.g. a clear 1RR), then that is all I'm looking for. Somehow I couldn't get that through to you through comments in article talk page, through a comment on your talk page, or through a request for mediation.

I still think you're incapable of showing anything resembling impartiality toward David Collier's reports on antisemitism, and you should excuse yourself from such conversations. That's not based solely on his attacks against you; it's also based on your comments about him. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nableezy: I appreciate polite notices on my talk page. Just recognize that sometimes you will be right and sometimes wrong.

Admins: -> I'm now fine with closing the harassment half of this report. As for Collier, he certainly has his faults, but even his critics acknowledge that his reports uncover and document legitimate antisemitism. These reports have significant coverage from RS. All mentions of these reports should not be removed from wikipedia, based on the views of someone who seems unable to see Collier as anything more than a "blogger". This is contrary to solid RS. The Jerusalem post calls him an "investigative journalist", and The Times an "antisemitism researcher".

@Huldra:: AR was completely the wrong venue, a mistake which I acknowledged and corrected with a move to ANI. And yes, there was zero result, but here's how two non-involved editors described your behavior:

• Ravenswing: "near to hysteria ... doesn't greenlight you to lash out at random editors"
• Coretheapple: "The kind of behavior noted above ... is not acceptable, and creates a chilling effect'

Johnuniq made an early comment in that ANI, but for whatever reason did not weigh back in after those comments.

I've been editing on and off, for 10 years not just in the IP area. I may get permanently banned for daring to question an admin, but Johnuniq's call for a permanent ban, when I've never even been reported before, feels like an attempt to silence one side of these discussions. I'm imperfect, but so is almost everyone who edits IP pages. On the positive side, if you look you'll find examples of me making real effort to work with the "other side" including Nableezy , and when I misgendered Huldra, I apologized profusely.. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 02:51, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Huldra: I did not systematically go through and add everything possible about Collier. I carefully evaluated things and only added content which I felt was well supported by multiple sources. The Amnesty International text, for example, has two solid sources. When there was only one source, or a bad source, I did not include it. When you pointed out things that were badly sourced, I agreed with you and removed them . I treated you with real kindness once. You are under no obligation to return that favor. But I'm going to ask you to speak up on my behalf anyways, so we can work together to make pages better in the future, fairly representing all sides. -- Bob drobbs (talk) 04:13, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notification

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

David Collier is a blogger. That is how he is referred to by the BBC. The US State Department describes him as pro-Israel blogger. Do I think Bob should be sanctioned for violating WP:POINT? Yes, I do, his creation of the Collier article, really a hagiography, was on the heels of a dispute at NPOVN about using some material from Collier. He, after creating the article, wrote on NPOVN that David Collier is notable now. He very purposely created an article as part of his push to include material in other articles, material that a consensus at NPOVN found should not be included. COI? Because Collier called me a terrorist? How does that make it so I have a conflict of interest with him? I dont give half a shit what some random person on the internet thinks of Nableezy. That somebody thinks I am a terrorist is their problem, not mine. I have never engaged with Collier in any way whatsoever anywhere, and the idea that one can make up some wild claim, and yes I am going to say the idea that I am a terrorist is indeed a wild claim and a ranting on a blog, and can then disqualify that person from editing their article is asinine. OR? What edit to an article have I ever made that was not cited to a reliable source directly backing it up? Yes, there has been an incessant push to include Collier's claims, in which he demonstratively fabricates material as documented here, carried out by Bob and the now blocked latest reincarnation of NoCal100. And yes, I do think that is a problem. A content problem that I am addressing on talk pages. Warning Bob that if he continues to violate WP:ONUS and edit-warring (not 1RR as he claims above) is what we are supposed to do. We let people know what they are doing is against policy before reporting them. Such as when I gave him the opportunity to self-revert previously. Bob seems to be under the impression that if he does not violate the 1RR that he may edit-war to enforce his position, as he has done here, here (and again same article same revert), here, and here. Every single one of those is a violation of WP:ONUS, and yes every single one is part of an incessant campaign to include a bloggers view in our articles. nableezy - 20:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Collier has attacked a large number of editors here, claiming that we are antisemites, terrorist-supporters, literal Nazis. The idea that somebody can disqualify a set of users so that only those users whose views align with his own may edit material about him is so silly that I cant quite put into words how dumbfounded I am that somebody would seriously suggest it. By Bob's standards, only Collier's fans can edit material about him, and if I or anybody else does not want a blogger quoted at length in encyclopedia article then we fail COI. I have no external relationship with Collier. I have no financial relationship with Collier. He has tried to out me, he has tried to out others. That does not mean I have a conflict with him. I very literally do not give a shit about David Collier, or anything he has ever written or said. I do care about our articles, and I will continue to make sure that they remain encyclopedia articles and not filled with unimportant trivia like what some blogger thinks. nableezy - 21:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

FFF (if I can call you that), youre not wrong and I will make a better effort to bring up user conduct issues on user talk pages. But informing a user that they are violating our policies and telling them if they continue doing so they will be reported is not harassment, as Bob says above, and calling it that is nonsense. nableezy - 22:23, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob, I can honestly say I dont care what you think about my views of Collier or his reports, and no I will not be excusing myself from discussions about them. But I will try my best to only warn you on your user talk page. If youd prefer I just report you for edit-warring I can do that too if you like, but I always appreciated a heads up that a report was going to result if I did not correct some error; if you do not then no worries I dont need to give them. nableezy - 23:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Add another ONUS violation and instance of edit-warring here, having previously reverted multiple times (here and here. nableezy - 00:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Appreciated, nableezy, and FFF is fffine with me. I feel much the same about 'harassment' as I do about 'threat": we're on the internet, and enable anonymous editing, which means actual threats and real harassment are ever-present. Firefangledfeathers 22:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I will not directly address the complaint filed but rather discuss issues I raised on complainant's talk page, if I may.

Re the BDS article & Approaching Inf-in_MD & The "one last chance" refers to the discussion mentioned by "FFF".

Complainant has a tendency to overreact when things are not going the way they would wish & "I have a busy day and don't have time right now to figure out how to do it myself" The whole talk page may be read to get the gist of my argument, it's not that long and elements of it explain in part why Nableezy is justifiably exasperated.

There are other issues around use/misuse of dispute resolution procedures that I will address if needs be. Selfstudier (talk) 23:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Just this month, Bob drobbs first reported me to arbcom; link

Then he reported me to WP:AN/I; (see link); both with zero result.

And now he reports Nableezy here. And we are still only the 10th of the month. If you don't topic-ban him; can you please at least ban him from filing more "reports"? Far, far too much time has been wasted on this.

And just the idea that if people are harassing you off-wiki, then you are disqualified to discuss them on-wiki? This is 100% absurd, IMO. (Alas; it would of course be wonderful for the harassers iff it was true) Huldra (talk) 23:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Bob drobbs: I would never, ever want anyone sanctioned for making an honest mistake; I even thanked you after you fixed your mis-gendering mistake, remember?

BUT: after I have showed that Collier falsifies in his "report" about Ireland, you still insists on using the "report" in the Antisemitism in Europe-article.

AND; after Zero has shown that there are similar problems with Collier's "report" about Amnesty; you still insists on adding it to the Criticism of Amnesty International -article.

And yeah; I "systematically went through wikipedia removing every mention of Collier"; but you forgot to mention: that was after you had "systematically" added each and everyone of those addition of Collier. Basically: I was "cleaning up" after you. Huldra (talk) 20:57, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• I don't see much merit to the complaints relating to David Collier, which leaves us with 2 incidents of Nableezy stating that they think Bob drobbs should be blocked, at which point Bob drobbs asked them to stop. 9 days later, Nableezy asks Bob drobbs to stop edit warring at Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, where they did go back and forth a few times with Huldra, as part of the discussion to resolve the dispute on the talk page. This case is flimsy enough that I would consider WP:BOOMERANG sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:32, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Rosguill. Nothing much in the complaints (though FFF makes a good point that the user page is the better location). A short (possibly circumscribed) topic ban for Bob Drools may be warranted if only to give them the opportunity to show that they have at least a passing interest in Wikipedia beyond this area. I'm a bit concerned, for example, with the edit warring on Criticism of Amnesty International. Repeatedly pushing a point through edit warring or excessive talk page postings can be very exhausting for other editors. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Kitchen-sink enforcement requests like this provide evidence of battleground behavior. The complaints concern disputes regarding David Collier (political activist) which was deleted at 22:26, 10 December 2021 as a result of this AfD. The first link is which shows Nableezy making very valid points at an AfD with a mild "And possibly block creator per WP:POINT." At the time this request was filed (19:54, 10 December 2021) the AfD did not support keeping the article and in fact it was deleted 2+1⁄2 hours later. Continuing with this issue does not show good judgment. I don't see any evidence showing Nableezy making anything other than reasonable policy-based comments. Mother Teresa might not have included all of Nableezy's text but if there is something sanctionable there, I don't see it (that's an invitation for anyone to post a single link with an explanation). The final item of evidence is "He just filed a report: " which refers to the report above (#Inf-in MD) where the reported user has been blocked as a sock. A topic ban of Bob drobbs seems appropriate in order to reduce the disruption. Re the request to extend past 500 words, please post more within a limit of 1000 words but all that is needed is, say, two links showing something actually bad, with a brief explanation. Re the duration of a possible topic ban, I think indefinite is the only useful approach in a topic like this where the editor needs to show an understanding of why the sanction occurred and why it would be reasonable for it to be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with a topic ban for the OP plus a warning about weaponising dispute resolution forums to "win" content disputes. I see some of these previous frivolous dispute resolution filings are now being characterised as "daring to question an admin," which further illustrates that the OP doesn't understand WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:TE, or why their approach is disruptive to collaborative editing. More positively: agree with the topic ban being indefinite but not infinite - a good record editing unrelated articles might pave the way for a future appeal. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• May as well proceed to closing as this has been sitting here for a few days without further input. There is consensus for a topic ban of the OP but less consensus on its length (indefinite vs shorter). Have therefore gone for a milder option with a six-month ban. I note Rosguill's comment here re ban length: in the spirit of AGF am content to assume that six months editing in other areas of Wikipedia will induce a less battleground approach. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Aman.kumar.goel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bringtar (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:ARBIP

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

1. 11 December: Wants to apply WP:BLPCAT on a person who died centuries ago.
2. 11 December: rejects his own edit summary by telling "it removed due to failed verification and not because of BLPCAT" but the added sources supported the information
3. 11 December: Falsely claims other user is vandalizing. See WP:NOTVAND.
4. 11 December: When presented evidence of his wrongdoing, he removes discussion with edit summary: "removing false claims and lies".
5. 11 December: Edit warring to restore misrepresentation of sources and BLP violations.
6. 11 December Files a disruptive SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Georgethedragonslayer in retaliation.
7. 12 December: Adds a name on List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism in violation of WP:BLPCAT; the article does not mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism".
8. 12 December: Same as above.
9. 13 December Edit wars when above additions are reverted in violation of WP:BLP and shows his lack of understanding of WP:LINKVIO.
10. 13 December: Adds a quotation to establish a conversion but the quotation does not verify his claim.
11. 13 December: Same as above; quotation does not verify conversion.
12. 13 December Edit wars to restore another name by adding 2 sources, none of which mention "Hindu"/"Hinduism", thus violating WP:BLPCAT again.
13. 13 December: Restores his another BLPCAT violation when neither sources confirm the subject's admission of conversion from Hinduism to Christianity.
14. 13 December: Showing lack of WP:AGF by alleging me of "using WP:LINKVIO at your whim".
15. 14 December: Edit warring to restore his misrepresentation, LINKVIO and BLP violations with edit summary: "undo disruption"
16. 14 December: Engages in WP:IDHT by repeating himself and shows his failure to understand WP:LINKVIO. Claims that there is no LINKVIO violation because the "youtube video is not uploaded here" on Wikipedia. See WP:CIR.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The above diffs are recent and they show that the user does not understand that who is alive and who isn't, what the sources say, what is a personal attack, what is a WP:LINKVIO and the importance of WP:SECONDARY sources. While the user shows a clear lack of understanding of WP:BLPCAT on the mentioned articles above, he happens to be strict about the policies when the article's main subject happens to be opposite. This shows intended POV pushing.

The user is an WP:SPA with whom, together with several other editors, I have already tried enough to guide on the basics of Wikipedia for months but this user is unwilling to learn. Given the continued display of WP:CIR and battleground mentality, I have zero hopes with this user. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 03:20, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I don't see how this is an India-Pakistan issue. There have been some problematic editing at List of converts to Christianity from Hinduism and List of converts to Islam from Hinduism, where all sides have made bad edits: some have added insufficiently sourced content while others have removed sufficiently sourced content. If you click on those histories, you'll see half a dozen additional parties to this dispute (besides OP and Bringtar).VR _talk 19:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• This is a religion not an India-Pakistan issue. I will close this in 24 hours if there are no objections from other AE admins --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 13:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

I haven't examined every diff, but this does look troubling. Should it be moved to ANI instead of closed? Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

probably. I think all of the Conversion to X articles need some sort of look at them due to how they are used to further disputes -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Mmm. I had some involvement in this (as an admin) and I note that the person who is edit-warring with Bringtar is the filer, and I also note that the filer has brought multiple previous AE cases to try to remove their ideological opponents from the subject area. I would simply decline this unless there's a socking issue. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

TheTimesAreAChanging (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

The History Wizard of Cambridge (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Standard_discretionary_sanctions

1. Revert of Nug on 21:34, 11 December 2021.
2. Revert of Volunteer Marek on 22:00, 11 December 2021. Mass killings under communist regimes is under a strict 1RR.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Received a 48 hour block for edit-warring earlier this year at Cecil Rhodes on 09:06, 3 April 2021.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on 06:29, 10 December 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I explained the discretionary sanctions and asked The History Wizard of Cambridge to self-revert the 1RR violation prior to filing this AE report, deliberately declining to revert it myself or to take any particular stance on the underlying content, but The History Wizard of Cambridge refused to do so.

The History Wizard of Cambridge previously deleted content in two non-consecutive edits on 5 December (, ) although those edits were not reported here because it was ambiguous whether they qualified as reverts and whether the user was then aware of the discretionary sanctions in effect at Mass killings under communist regimes (notwithstanding the prominent notice that displays whenever editing the page).

Under the former account name of BulgeUwU, which was considered obscene and had to be changed, this user was the subject of an ANI report by Pudeo detailing what other users called "mass POV changes" (Pudeo), "ridiculously blatant POV-pushing" (Ineffablebookkeeper), "deliberate falsification or just incompetence" (Red Rock Canyon), and "improper synthesis" (Fences and windows). Among other things, The History Wizard of Cambridge/BulgeUwU wrote in wikivoice that British historian Robert Conquest (author of The Great Terror: Stalin's Purge of the Thirties) "committed plagiarism" using a source that failed verification, after which the user conceded: "Even though the word plagiarism is not used , I don't know how else to accurately describe actions."TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 04:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

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

I myself noticed this edit war, and I posted this warning on the talk page. There is a clear 1RR violation here, but before making a decision, two considerations must be taken into account.

• First, this edit by @Nug: restored the source that is, according to this RSN discussion is unreliable. In addition, several users (, ) objected to that. Therefore, the user whom The History Wizard of Cambridge reverted clearly violated consensus. Similarly @Volunteer Marek: repeated the same edit, and that action also was against a consensus.
• Second, there is a serious reason to suspect that the opposite party was acting as a tag-team. I believe, many admins are aware of that reason, but if they aren't, I can explain it, either here of by email.

My opinion is that this article has a very bad karma, but we currently are starting to work productively and collaboratively on fixing its problem. Thus, a dispute resolution is currently in progress, and Nug is an important participant in it. I think that AE sanctions will bring unneeded drama, which will immediately create a very toxic atmosphere. However, if admins decide that sanctions are needed, then both warring parties must be sanctioned. In my opinion, a final warning to all parties would be the most fruitful solution.

@RegentsPark: I think you are absolutely right, but in addition to that, I propose to look at the problem that I partially discussed in my previous statement. This article is a focus of interest of two warring groups of users. The 1RR restriction does not prevent an edit war between the groups, as each user in the group only makes one revert in 24 hr. It is easy to see that this type edit war has already begun. The reverts made by The History Wizard of Cambridge are just a part of the long series of reverts and re-reverts made by the two opposing parties: the full history is this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and this). As we can see, we have a full scale edit war between two parties. More importantly, three users who restore this text are ex-members of WP:EEML. And, in this situation, to block or warn just a single user, who was not patient enough to wait 24 hours, would be the least logical step. It would be a clear signal to all parties: "You may continue your conflict, just try to observe some formal decorum". Therefore, it would be fair to apply additional restrictions prohibiting the execution of the second revert independently on whether the first revert was done by the same user or by another editor. If necessary, I can make it a subject of a separate request. --Paul Siebert (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to ping @Seraphimblade: too, for it seems there are some aspects in this story that he overlooked.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

• Update: the 'tag-team' edit war still continues. I am seriously contemplating a separate AE request.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:38, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Does the filing party really think that the best way to improve this article, which was the subject of the largest AFD in the history of Wikipedia, is to identify an editor or editors who have violated 1RR and sanction them? I don't think so. I suggest that we warn the reported editor, and advise the reporting editor that this sort of enforcement by clock isn't useful either. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if uninvolved persons are allowed to comment..if not, my apologies. @RegentsPark: and @Seraphimblade:: I strongly urge you both, as well as any other admins that may happen to review this, to thoroughly read the statements by the editors directly above and carefully consider the entirety of the whole situation here; first of all, 1RR is clearly failing to prevent disruption on this page. 1RR does no good if there are a tag team of 10 (or whatever many) editors each taking their turn to revert once a day! To block one editor for reverting twice against a tag team of editors - who were adding unreliably sourced (per RSN consensus) material, no less (which is not just some frivolous content dispute, mind you, and is a violation of WP:V), is not reasonable. On a final note, I remind all admins reviewing that WP is intended to not be a bureaucracy, that IAR is a core policy intended as a safeguard against situations when the enforcement of the letter of the rest of policy would result in a broken system, as well as a countermeasure against editors, or groups of editors gaming the system. And that's all. Do the right thing! Peace! 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:C2:BB5:D65F:F72A (talk) 19:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

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

• This is a clear cut 1RR violation, and on highly contentious articles, 1RR is an absolute bright line. I'm also not at all impressed by the failure to self-revert when notified of the issue. I was waiting for the reported editor to respond here, but by now they have had plenty of time to do so. I would suggest a week or so block from editing the article (though not the talk page or any other page, so that discussion may continue), but the point needs gotten across that 1RR means 1RR, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree that this is a clear cut 1RR violation that was pointed out and not self reverted. But, I think a warning is probably a better bet than a block. Everybody has a bad moment and the response here seems like one of those. That offending edit was reverted by someone else, History Wizard seems to have taken a cool down break of their own accord, time to move on. --RegentsPark (comment) 16:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)