Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive338

Oleg Yunakov

No action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Oleg Yunakov

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: RAN1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:08, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

21:57, 27 July 2024: Graphic war image and copyright violation (NSFW) removed from article by third-party.
NSFW: 13:15, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov reinserts the image.
15:19, 28 July 2024 and 15:42, 28 July 2024: I remove the image as copyvio.
Extended discussion under complaints about the image being too graphic.
16:13, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov knew the image was uploaded to Commons the day before the first revert after comparing the time with other sources. RAN1 (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NSFW: 17:48, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov reinserts the image again, violating 1RR.
18:05, 28 July 2024: Oleg Yunakov knew the image was published in Wikipedia the day before the first revert. RAN1 (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 02:14, 7 July 2024.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The image is clearly an upload from social media: Different crops were posted ~~on e.g. X~~ on X that show bystanders at the top (added 14:51, 29 July 2024 (UTC)) which could not be derivatives of the image uploaded to Commons. Since this is a copyright violation, I removed it as exempt from 1RR. Oleg Yunakov disputed it, and after deciding my exemption reason was invalid, proceeded to revert and violate 1RR.

I should mention that before I found out that Oleg Yunakov participated at AE, I reported this to ANEW. I withdrew that report before requesting here. RAN1 (talk) 20:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After Oleg Yunakov reverted to bring back the copyvio, I couldn't find a CT alert and the process diff I linked above didn't turn up in search because it was self-reverted. I did find a 1RR warning from a month ago (see here), but I didn't think that counted for awareness, so I ended up sending a CT alert and reporting to ANEW. Then I found the process diff. That's my bad, but reverting to bring back an NSFW suspected copyvio image, after being warned, is abusive at best. RAN1 (talk) 01:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: No, I did not warn 1RR or ask for a self-revert because of the previous discussion here. RAN1 (talk) 15:01, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov: My understanding was your notifications sent you about here, which was obviously not the bottom of the page, so I found it hard to believe you didn't know there was a previous dispute. That convinced me that you knew you had reverted somebody else when you reverted me. I don't know what else you could have understood from being pinged to the first section. RAN1 (talk) 08:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oleg Yunakov: I just found out you're a prolific uploader to Commons (contribs), you are well aware that only the creator of a photo can license it, and of the differences between creator-uploaded photos and plagiarized ones. I'm incredulous you think that image isn't a copyvio. As for the talk page, the fact that you replied to the bottom of the first section is not an assumption. RAN1 (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended my complaint to include diffs where Oleg Yunakov discusses when the image was uploaded and published. They show that Oleg Yunakov knew the image had been published in Wikipedia before the first revert around the time of the second. RAN1 (talk) 02:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: The underlying issue here isn't being addressed; Oleg Yunakov edit warred over an obvious copyvio image because the non-derivatives we found were published after the Commons upload. In any case, that turns the 1RR exemption on its head, and considering I brought up 1RR at 15:43, 28 July 2024, I request you explain why this should be closed with no action. RAN1 (talk) 16:46, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

20:09, 28 July 2024

Discussion concerning Oleg Yunakov

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

Statement by Oleg Yunakov

The info was provided here. Those continuous actions start to look like a harassment (1, 2, 3, 4). With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Till now still there is no confirmation of copyright issues or at least copies found which were published before the time when an image was uploaded to Commons as can be seen here. If someone thinks otherwise please provide reasoning why. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Also I did only one addition and just one revert after no valid argument were given on the copyright violation. Did no do any reverts after it. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 18:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RAN1: You understanding is incorrect. My main wiki is ruwiki and here I spend a very little time. I didn't check prior history of edits and only read what you wrote to me and any subsequential discussion. You could mention that there were prior reverts and not to assume things like your assumption that the image is copyvio when no one was able to provide any earlier posts of the image till now. If you perform two reverses and refuse to undo when being asked do no assume that others are like this as well. I usually speak and listen to the arguments and would revert if I see that any rule is violated. If that wouldn't be the case I'd not be a ruwiki sysop for many years and arbcom member and many other things. Communication is a great tool. But this was a good learning experience and now I know how to file arbcom requests here. With regards, Oleg Y. (talk) 11:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

First, the exemption only applies to "clear copyright violations". This is not a clear violation, being based solely on RAN1's suspicions, so it doesn’t apply here - RAN1 should not have violated 1RR, and should have self-reverted when asked.

Second, RAN1 did not follow the gentleman’s agreement by asking Oleg to self-revert before coming here.

I think a boomerang is appropriate. BilledMammal (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I don’t think "good faith copyvio concerns" Is sufficient to meet the standard of WP:3RRNO, as good faith concerns can exist without the copyvio being clear.

Further, the image js still on commons over a week later - at this point, I think it is time for RAN1 to self-revert. BilledMammal (talk) 17:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Oleg Yunakov

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

In my view, the copyright concern was reasonable enough that it meets the threshold for 3RRNO, or at least that I wouldn't take immediate action for the 1RR violation. RAN1, did you inform them of the 1RR violation and ask them to self-revert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:46, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is no other admin input in the next day I'll be closing this as no action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RAN1, I'm assuming good faith that what they said here was true, I didn't check prior history of edits and only read what you wrote to me and any subsequential discussion. They didn't think they had violated 1RR, you didn't ask them to self revert while explaining the situation, and you had good-faith copyvio concerns. The whole thing is a wash. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am okay with ScottishFinnishRadish's proposed closure. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis

There is a rough consenus of uninvolved administrators to close this as moot given subsequent topic ban. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Emdosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Emdosis (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: for WP:ECR violations, imposed at

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

logged at

      16:34, 21 July 2024

Administrator imposing the sanction: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: Yeah, I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Emdosis

I was about to post the following to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee when I saw I got banned. I'll post it here instead:

 (topic:ECR)

"The restriction applies to all edits and pages related to the topic area, broadly construed"

I'm guessing it's so broad that it includes user talk pages, and going even further, that it would allow a non-admin to remove an edit on another user's talk page (even though that would clash with WP:UP#OOUP). (To be very clear, I absolutely did not add that comment on Joe Roe's page knowingly violating ECR rules)

Statement by Emdosis²

Just found out the original block wasn't even applicable under the ARBPIA decision to begin with:

Definition of the "area of conflict"
4) For the purposes of editing restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area, the "area of conflict" shall be defined as encompassing

the entire set of articles whose topic relates to the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted ("primary articles"), and
edits relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict, to pages and discussions in all namespaces with the exception of userspace ("related content")

Passed 6 to 0 at 05:06, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Emdosis (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron:
"I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case."
Idk. To me, 'Userspace' means all space. Not just 'Userpage'.
"...seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that this edit falls outside of the CT regime."
And? Can you please point me to the part in the ARBPIA page that explains the exception to the exception as being "if it is contentious"? You know damn well no-one is going to read all of ARBPIA, let alone WP:CTOP. It would have been helpful if, instead of just a long and pedantic essay that reads like a legal document, it would simply say (in the first paragraph) what the goal of the restrictions are, and the scope of it. Because it seems to me you guys keep on increasing the scope of the restrictions (which weren't clearly defined to begin with) with every follow-up. It's also not clear (based on admin activity) what the purpose, or more precisely, the scope of the purpose, is. What are we trying to prevent here? Is this what we're trying to prevent here? Emdosis (talk) 23:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Just noting that I have indefinitely topic banned them as well, for WP:BATTLEGROUND editing and casting aspersions.[1][2][3] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Emdosis

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

Statement by BilledMammal

Emdosis made a comment that was in violation of ECR, it was reverted, and they reinstated despite discussion on their talk page saying they shouldn't. Reasonable block.

Emdosis, if I can give you some advice; this sanction is the equivalent of a slap on the wrist. I suggest that you withdraw this appeal and instead accept it. In a week, when it expires, you can return, make 200 productive edits and non-trivial edits in other topic areas, and join this topic area if you are still interested in doing so. Don't earn yourself a more permanent sanction over trying to contribute to the topic area a couple of weeks early.

I realize you're only 100 edits from ECR, but I suggest 200 just to avoid any controversy in the future over the edits you made within the topic area contributing to you earning ECR.

In addition, I see you cited WP:IAR; for inexperienced editors, IAR is a trap that will only get you in trouble. Eventually you'll realize when it's appropriate to apply, but for now, especially within contentious topic areas, I suggest you stay well clear of it. BilledMammal (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

I know that in theory all blocks are appealable but I will say it again, non EC editors arguing about EC restrictions should not have any standing at this board. By the time we are done here, the block will have run its course. Selfstudier (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep: How to resolve the technicality, although I would have thought the later should override the earlier in case of ambiguity? An ARCA? Selfstudier (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

In my opinion, the belief that userspace edits are not in the ARBPIA topic area is well founded. Not only was the exclusion of userspace passed 6-0 by the arbcom decision that defined the topic area, but it is stated explicitly in the list of topic areas which is specified at WP:ARBECR (footnote 2) as the topic areas which are covered. Once userspace is deemed outside the topic area, even phrases like "all pages in the topic area" do not include it. Zero^talk 12:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Emdosis

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

Given the subsequent topic-ban, this appeal regarding the scope of ECR would seem to be moot. Any objection to closing on that basis? Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Good question NYB. I think in the end I have no objections. However, I will note that the contradiction between the "topic area" as defined and what areas ECR do not allow for is present. And so in a different scenario I would say this user shouldn't have to eat a block that could then be escalated if there are future transgressions. However, given that there was other conduct leading to a topic ban that factor doesn't seem to apply here. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with closing as moot as well, and endorse SFR's topic ban. I wouldn't immediately understand "userspace" to apply to another user's talk page in this case – seems more like wikilawyering than anything else to say that this edit falls outside of the CT regime. We can drag this to ARCA if we have to, but just agreeing that the filer made a vexatious argument is easier. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astropulse

Astropulse (talk · contribs)'s appeal of the seven-day partial block from Hamas that was imposed by ScottishFinnishRadish is declined. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Appealing user: Astropulse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Astropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 7 day block on article Hammas

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Astropulse

Administrator imposing the sanction: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#appealing

Statement by Astropulse

a) this was my first possible violation of 1RR - instead of a 24hrs block, a 7 day block was placed - which i think is undue.

b) there were never a disruption to Wikipedia. After a possible minor violation of 1RR, Most of my changes still stand on the page. Some of it were improved upon.

c) i believe the offending edit i reverted itself is violation of 1RR. This is because another editor reverted several of my edits in one edit. According to WP:3RR "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert." In this case, there were intervening edits by another user. The edit i reverted also violated WP:DRNC , WP:DOREVERT and WP:PRESERVE, also WP:ONUS

d) I was asked to revert my changes, but I refused because doing so would have introduced NPOV issues into the article. Several days have passed, and no one else has reverted my changes, as they are beneficial and have gained growing consensus on the talk page.

e) editor who accused me of 1RR violation - is not a involved editor. I have settled the differences with involved editor and everything is resolved. And hence a block at this point is undue. it is a punishment, rather than a genuine attempt to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. This violates wiki blocking policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy

f) I'm not convinced i violated 1RR -> I removed a tag on the page [[4]] -> this was being counted as a revert. But i think it is just a edit because that tag was not needed anymore. No one re-added the tag - after i removed it. I dont know what is the problem. The only revert was this [[5]] because another editor reverted two people edits here [[6]] which itself i believe is a violation of 1RR Astropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk first and third edit you quoted aren't reverts. these are changes to long standing lead. if you are calling it as revert, most change's on wiki will be a revert. As per WP:ONUS im entitled to make than change. second is questionable. i have good reasons to do it. No one added it back after i removed it. So there is no conflict or disagreement on that one. Astropulse (talk) 16:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk @Newyorkbrad @Vanamonde93

WP:3RR recommends a 24hr block for first time offenders. You also have to look at if there was disruption to wiki. I dont think there was. Like i said many times. Most of my changes still stand to this day. No one has reverted it fully. You are all punishing me for attempting to edit on good faith. I think this is against admins role and expectations

I still think this block is punitive instead of preventative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Purpose_and_goals

If there was disruption, a block might be okay for Deterrence.

It also article says "For eg. Deterrence is based upon the likelihood of repetition. For example, though it might have been justifiable to block an editor a short time ago, such a block may no longer be justifiable right now, particularly if the actions have since ceased or the conduct issues have been resolved."

I think, Refusal to revert is not indication of likelihood of repetition in this case.

I already said many times - issue were resolved by the time i was asked to revert and there were growing consensus on the article talk page. Editor who i reverted said, they are fine to remove the NPOV tag after the recent changes. I also think you have to balance your actions with other policies. Wikipedia:Mistakes are allowed Wikipedia:Assume good faith Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers

WP:AMENDLOG says "Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings or other negative events in a user's block log. The practice, typically involving very short blocks, is often seen as punitive and humiliating." Astropulse (talk) 05:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cc @Barkeep49 Astropulse (talk) 05:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk two admins have indicated they wouldn't have put a p block - but warning instead. Why is it that you still wish to decline the appeal ? Astropulse (talk) 05:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish You said "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" - This was never my defense. Its something you are making it up. You decided to place a 7 day block - after i owned up to my mistake and explaining all the context. (Everyone can read my last reply in original enforcement request.)

You are now claiming that the some text i removed as per Wikipedia:ONUS which was written weeks or months ago is a revert. I didn't even know this is the case. Astropulse (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Their appeal demonstrates that they still don't understand what a revert is, and that they believe their own view of NPOV exempts them from 1RR. Everyone believes their edit is the neutral one, which is why it is not an exemption as listed in WP:3RRNO. This lack of understanding leads me to believe we're going to be back here fairly soon. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red-tailed hawk, first revert, second, and third.

Newyorkbrad, a warning is fine if they remedy their violation, which is how I normally handle this. When there is a refusal to remedy a blatant violation and the behavior is confined to a single areticle I generally start with a one week pblock, which you can see in the report immediately before theirs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. That is what almost every edit war in the topic area is about. One side thinks NPOV is violated, and the other feels it is violated if the prose is changed. That is why "but I don't like what it said before I changed it" isn't an acceptable edit warring defense. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AstroPulse

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

Statement by The Kip

Just my 2 cents as a frequent AE observer - the most recent response is, at least to me, beginning to give off the impression that the user is simply WP:NOTGETTINGIT at this point. The Kip ^(contribs) 08:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Astropulse

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

@ScottishFinnishRadish: For posterity's sake, can you link to the diffs that violated the 1RR? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Red-tailed hawk: The offending diff and the context are given in the original enforcement thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that. I do see a clear violation of WP:1RR there. The user was aware that this is a contentious topics area. This looks like an extremely ordinary case, where a warning or reminder would have been sufficient had the appellant self-reverted after being asked, but the appellant refused to do so.

Restrictions like WP:1RR require editors to limit their own editing behavior, as there is no technical mechanism to enforce them directly. As such, they require an editor to acknowledge them and choose to abide by them, even if this does not generate a content outcome that they desire. If they do not choose to abide by these restrictions, such as by blowing through 1RR and also refusing to self-revert, then that justifies the use of more restrictive measures (such as partial blocks). A partial block of one week is reasonable in this circumstance (though one of 72 hours probably would have been equally so).

As such, I think that the sanction is reasonable in light of the appellant's refusal to abide by 1RR, and I would decline this appeal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. If this is indeed a "first offense," I would probably have warned rather than p-blocked, and certainly would not have p-blocked for a full week. A block (of any reasonable length) from just a single article is not a severe sanction in and of itself, but it can have a stigmatizing effect and will also be invoked if this user's comes to be scrutinized again. In short, I am somewhat troubled, but I am not sure my disagreement rises to the level of !voting to overturn the sanction. Looking forward to other admins' thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't think I'd have p blocked in this instance. However, I think it was with-in the range of admin discretion given the facts in play here - if at the very upper end. As such I don't think the standard to repeal has been met and so I also am in favor of declining this appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a shorter p-block could have done the job, but before p-blocks were rolled out a site-wide block would have been considered quite normal for a 1RR violation. This is far from the most severe block we could have handed out. And loath as I am to disagree with Newyorkbrad, I agree with SFR's assessment above; every single edit-war in this topic has participants who believe they are the ones correcting an egregious NPOV violation. That is not, in my view, reasonable grounds for leniency. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- My point was not that an editor's strong belief in the correctness of their edit is ground for an extra revert. It is that such a belief can sometimes explain what might otherwise seem to be a pig-headed refusal to self-revert an identified violation, which would put their own name on the content they strongly disagree with. Here, the editor's declining to self-revert seems to have made the sole difference between a warning and a weeklong p-block. I understand the value of offering an opportunity to self-revert as an alternative to blocking immediately, but especially given that the offense seem isolated and has not been repeated, I remain somewhat troubled by this scenario. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  "I recognize what I did was wrong, will fix it, and make promises to not do it again" does suggest to me that the preventive need is less than for someone who refuses to make amends. In this case the editor refuses to even acknowledge that they violated 1RR and so I don't really get to weighing the legitimacy of the reasons they give for not wanting to revert. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absent any substantial change among responses by admins here, I will be closing this in ~18 hours as declined. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Astropulse: Merely on a bean count, we have multiple admins that have affirmatively said that they would not overturn this, including me and Barkeep49 (I also am in favor of declining this appeal). For the other two: there's one who appears to be somewhat sympathetic to the appeal but expressed they were on the fence on whether or not to accept or deny the appeal (Newyorkbrad), and one who hasn't explicitly stated that they would accept or decline but seems to argue that they don't think that NYB's arguments are in any way mitigating and that they agree with the sanctioning admin in that regard (Vanamonde93). For sake of argument, even assuming that none of the arguments here are so strongly out-of-policy that the would be downgraded when looking at their strength when viewed in light of policy, I do not know how one would close this any other way; the relevant guidance for overturning an appeal is a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE to accept an appeal and overturn a sanction, but we appear to have a rough consensus of administrators that lean towards affirming the partial block.

Since there were comments from uninvolved admins today, I'll wait another 18 hours before closing this with the appeal not being accepted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 18:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Astropulse: I think the partial block is/was preventative because you don't acknowledge you violated 1RR. The 3RR guidance was written before partial blocks became possible and so likely needs ot be revised to reflect modern practice. Short blocks was referring to very short blocks - like minutes or hours - which were once a thing some admin did. While I wouldn't have chosen this particular sanction myself, I think it is one with-in admin discrestion for contentious topics. WP:CTOP advises that When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced and here we are. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bajaria

Blocked by Theleekycauldron for two days for violating ECR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Bajaria

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: The Kip (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ARBPIA ECR

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

User in question initially made two edits to Portal:Current events/2024 August 4 concerning the Israel-Hamas war and related:

They were subsequently given the standard CTOP alert on their talk page, although the edits were not reverted.

I later noticed them while editing the current events portal - after receiving the CTOP notice, they've been on a rush of additions to prior (often months-back) CE portal entries, almost entirely concerning the Israel-Hezbollah conflict and related:

I subsequently placed the ARBPIA welcome template on their talk page at 07:55 on 10 August, with an additional warning that they are not extended confirmed and therefore not allowed to edit in the area. They failed to respond, and later went right back to their additions:

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Initial CTOP notice given 07:47 on 4 August.
Template:Welcome-arbpia given 07:55 on 10 August.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive in the way that a lot of WP:NOTHERE non-extended confirmed editors often are within the ARBPIA area - looking through their CE contribs, I don't really detect an attempt at POV-pushing. The problem is that they've thus far been unresponsive to the notion that they're simply not allowed to be editing in the area at the moment, and they're also far further from XC than their contribution count makes it appear, given that a fairly large portion of their 430ish edits are ECR violations. The Kip ^(contribs) 20:16, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive..." you mean I am not being disruptive enough? Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service? Bajaria (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bajaria I meant that as more of a compliment to you actually, as in you’re not the NOTHERE disruptive type that usually gets slapped with ARBPIA ECR-related sanctions - your edits, for the most part, seem constructive. The problem is that you’re simply not allowed to be making them until you’re extended-confirmed. The Kip ^(contribs) 02:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bajaria To make it clear as possible:

I am not encouraging disruption.
I was complimenting you; I meant that it's unfortunate that this case had to be filed, because your edits seem far more constructive than those of many others who've violated ECR in this topic.
It had to be filed, however, because you did not respond to, if not outright disregarded, the warnings that you're simply not allowed to edit in the topic as you are not extended confirmed.

The Kip ^(contribs) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified at time of report.

Discussion concerning Bajaria

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

Statement by Bajaria

"The unfortunate thing is that their edits don't seem to be disruptive..." you mean I am not being disruptive enough? Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service? Bajaria (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

The fact that the editor chose to respond with "Do tell me, how can I be more of a disruptive entity to your service?" rather than something like "Oh no! I didn't realize I wasn't following the rules. Apologies. I'll follow them from now on." is worth highlighting. Editors shouldn't get to pick which policies and guidelines apply to them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I'm an independent free spirited adventurous out-of-the-box-thinking soul with a biting sense of sarcastic humor, rather than just immediately being a sheeple but then again is; "I meant that as more of a compliment to you actually..." by The Kip meaning they is encouraging any kind of disruptive behavior? But then again it might be a cultural difference. Bajaria (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bajaria

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

Blocked for 48 hours, since they're literally making ARBPIA edits as the case goes on. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

O.maximov

O.maximov (talk · contribs) is warned against inserting content without appropriate sources in support in contravention of policies on no original research and verifiability. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning O.maximov

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

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

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

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

Other similar issues:

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

alert, response

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Vanamonde93's question about talk page edits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1238598820

Discussion concerning O.maximov

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

Statement by O.maximov

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

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

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

Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish, Barkeep49

The article talks also about British Politics, MPs and their remarks in the body. [7] [8], [9], [10] , [11] , [12], [13] , [14], [15] The article also talks about Jewish community being scared of what some say is a conspiracy theory. [16]. Here sources talk about Israel/Zionist lobby as exaggerated as a conspiracy theory. [17],

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

[19] , page 1,7,8

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

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

[22] , page 110 - 112, all relevant, specific sentence also relevant “The conspiracist element of ‘new antisemitism’ is most obvious in discussions about the existence and the machinations of what has become known as the Israel/Zionist/Jewish lobby. A common assumption of left-wing anti-Zionist critique is that Israel commits its fiendish acts with the unwavering political, military and financial support from America and to a lesser extent Britain, whose governments are in the grip of the menacing and all powerful pro-Israel lobby”. , [23] “A more recent example of how such ideas can appear in mainstream media coverage of Jews, Zionism and Israel was found in the 2009 dispatches documentary by the British journalist Peter Oborne, entitled “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” … This misses the point that using such a framework to explain Jewish or Zionist political activism relies, however unwittingly, on ideas and common understandings drawn from preexisting antisemitic conspiracy theories in order to make sense to its audience. At the very least, it was inevitable that antisemites would, and did, interpret it as an endorsement of their own conspiracy theories about Jews”. , [24], [25] pg 60, 65,66, [26] page 31 to 32 from “Within Labour” to “modern Labour politics” [27] “Labour MPs were found to have used “anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that the complaints of anti-Semitism were fakes or smears.” A case cited in the report involved former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who said “the Israel Lobby,” which aimed “to undermine Corbyn’s leadership,” was responsible for allegations of anti-Semitism against fellow Labour MP Naz Shah. Livingstone later resigned from the party. The EHRC found a further 18 “borderline cases” involving local councillors, election candidates, and branch officials. It also noted several incidents of political interference by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office in addressing complaints of anti-Semitism. ”. My mistake was not to attribute to Haaretz in the lead. I am sorry about it. I know about WP:NOR and WP:V but I thought that it was established enough without written attribution in the lead. O.maximov (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Barkeep49

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Checkusers should be run on O.maximov and ABHammad.

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

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

Statement by ABHammad

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

Statement by FortunateSons

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

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

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

Statement by fiveby

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

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

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

Statement by xDanielx

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

Result concerning O.maximov

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

Nableezy, which material are you talking about? The Nakba in the lead of Israel?
I'm seeing some fairly straightforward partisan editing, but not anything severely out of the norm in the topic. Although that is a bit concerning, I'm more interested in where their editing has violated established consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanamonde93 about those most recent diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fiveby, unilaterally changing the topic of an article from lobbying efforts by a country in another country to a conspiracy theory or groups and individuals seeking to influence UK foreign policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still parsing some of this; to me the distinction between tendentiousness partisanship is at least partly determined by whether the user is justifying edits on the talk page and/or otherwise engaging in discussion; I'm less happy with reverts or substantive changes in the absence of consensus without accompanying substantive talk page engagement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still struggling to wade through the morass of talk page discussions. But Levivich's recent diffs are extremely concerning, these two in particular: [28], [29]. I would consider a TBAN for those edits alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A unilateral POV change would be concerning, per SFR, but to me it's more than that; it's a unilateral change to the lead and framing, without supporting sources and without an equally substantive change to the body. The statement justifying it here at AE is bordering on a competence issue. This source (the 9th O.maximov provided, the first I clicked on) speaks of a single British MP, who claimed Tony Blair was being influenced by a coterie of Jewish advisors, and who was roundly criticized for saying so. It has no bearing at all on the claim that the Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory, or otherwise; because there is no substantive analysis of the phenomenon in the source at all. I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of an Israeli lobby; but if someone writes that it is a conspiracy theory, I expect that claim to be backed up by multiple heavyweight sources explicitly supporting that. O.maximov needs to show they can comply with WP:NOR and WP:V before they are allowed to mess around in a contentious topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your errors go a lot further than that, O. maximov. There is a profound difference between "Criticisms of UK policy toward Israel have veered into anti-semitic conspiracy theories" (which your sources support) and "The claim that an Israeli lobby exists in the UK is a conspiracy theory", which is effectively what you wrote. You appear to be unable to separate that nuance, which to me shows you have gotten too close to the material you're trying to edit. Further argument here isn't going to fix that; you need to show that you can edit within the bounds of policy, outside the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't investigated this, but presuming what Vanamonde writes is true (and I do) conflating anti-semetic conspiracy theories and Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory is more than just a failed nuance. It is, in my mind, POVPUSHING. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So I have now examined many (but not all) of the sources presented. I do find there to be support to the idea of the Israel Lobby being called a conspiracy in the UK. I think this is most clearly seen on p.10 of Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Not all the sources I looked at make the grade, but enough of them do that I feel more comfortable saying that we're in content, rather than conduct, territory with that particular piece. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Levivich (cc fiveby): I agree with That book does not say that the Israeli lobby in the UK is a conspiracy theory, it gives examples of conspiracy theories involving the Israeli lobby in the UK, which doesn't mean that the lobby itself is a conspiracy theory and your subsequent freemason comparison is a good one. But in the diff you then cite it says The idea of an Israel lobby in the United Kingdom has been used to raise conspire theories (emphasis added). I think you're focused on the italics part where as I think the bolded part is drawing that distinction - though the italics part would need to be reworded to avoid the problem you're seeing. I'm not sure this line should be in there at all, but all of this strikes me as with-in the bounds of a content discussion. Someone can be wrong/out of consensus on content in a contentious topic, even with regularity, and not, for me, cross the line into a conduct problem. To return to the first comment I made in this thread (below as it so happens), I AGF that a non-native English speaker can imperfectly walk the line of "There are conspiracies about the Israel Lobby in the UK" versus "The idea that there is an Israel Lobby is a conspiracy theory". I would expect, however, O.maximov to be a lot more careful about this distinction going forward. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: My concern with this isn't with the content in sources dug up post-facto: whether or not an alternative description of the Israeli lobby exists in one or more of those sources is, I agree, a content matter outside our jurisdiction. My problem is that O. maximov introduced that framing into the article without any supporting source material, and then when confronted with this, produced a lot of sources that do not support his thesis either. It doesn't matter to me that one or more of the sources partially verify the thesis; the fact remains he claimed a lot of others did, when they did not. If the matter was solely a failure of attribution he should have been able to produce substantive sourcing; instead what he's produced looks very much like a list of sources talking about broader Jewish concern about people in government mentioning anti-semitic conspiracy theories. I am willing to allow that perhaps there wasn't a problem of intent here, but if that's the case then there was a problem of competence. Either way, to me a sanction is indicated. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:21, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure when/if I will have time to look into the merits of the complaint here as it seems like a lot of background reading is required. However, I know enough to say that I find the calls for CU as unconvincing as I do the call for a boomerang on BM. Assume good faith matters just as much, if not more, in contentious topics. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@O.maximov does the Israel Lobby exist? Whether or not it does what would your description of it be? Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish and Barkeep49: It does not look to me as though we are getting more input here, and discussion has died down somewhat. If I am reading correctly, SFR and I are in support of a TBAN (by default, an ARBIPA TBAN); BK49 is hesitant. BK49, if my final argument above does not persuade you, is there a lesser option we can come to agreement on? Or are you opposed to a sanction altogether? I hesitate to impose something on a 2:1 margin. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to assume a touch of good faith that they were making a good faith attempt to summarize some of the conspiracy theory material in the article, so I'm also comfortable with a lesser sanction or just a warning. Most of the diffs I view in the same way I'm discussing down in #האופה. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose? Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh geez, who knows? There's really nothing between warning and topic ban for battleground/sourcing issues, so a severe finger wagging not to do that again and be careful in the future is about all we can do if not topic banning. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be much more amenable to a logged warning if O.maximov is willing to acknowledge that those edits were not compliant with WP:V and WP:NOR. At the moment I'm seeing no acknowledgement that they've done anything wrong. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did rethink things after yours and Levivich's comments, which is why I asked the question above . I find O.maximov's answer good enough, though not excellent, and so I think I'd be opposed to anything harsher than a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of putting this to bed I will support a logged warning, but I will note for the record that without a sharper sanction I believe issues will recur. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@O.maximov I hope you take this warning seriously; it would not take much for me to support a topic ban should you repeat some of the mistakes that led to the filing of this thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3E1I5S8B9RF7

3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs) is warned against violating WP:NOTFORUM in their talk page comments. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:00, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: No blocks or CTLOG entries, some warnings on the UTP

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): Special:Diff/1239002016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

I find 3E1's comment here Levivich's argument is that I need to provide sources that only civilians are victims of genocide; my argument is that sources currently only mention a total death toll of the Israel-Hamas War, but not a death toll of Gaza genocide in itself and xDanielx's comment here Levivich's view is that the casualty figure is properly sourced, but this isn't entirely clear ... the available sources don't explicitly give a casualty figure for Gaza genocide to be very puzzling, considering Talk:Gaza genocide/Archive 4#Death toll, the thread I started, begins with The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide ... and ends with Here are some sources ... followed by quotes from 5 sources that give a death toll of the Gaza genocide itself. They're both raising the same talking point, but the entire purpose of the thread I started is to address that exact point. I don't understand how two editors both missed this? Levivich (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1239171553

Discussion concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

Statement by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by xDanielx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

XDanielx,

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Buidhe

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

Levivich, so this is the sole diff from after they were given a CTOP alert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have difficulty saying that if this Should every Hamas fighter and militant be included as a victim of genocide? In my opinion, only civilians should be included, meaning a figure of around 16,000 civilians according to Israel[30] or more according to some other sources. is NOTAFORUM, that this The sources used for the death toll in the article aren't all specifically about the Gaza genocide; some are about the war and don't even contain the word "genocide." I think we should base casualty counts on sources that are about the Gaza genocide specifically. Or in other words: in the WP:RSes that say it's a genocide, what do they say is the death toll of the genocide? is not. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, I would say that your position is obviously the correct one (how about we look at RS and see what they say?) but their edits are still reasonably about improvement of the article. They could have been better spoken, but "We're including every death in a war, I think we should only include non-combatant deaths" isn't out of the norm for talk page discussions and it points out the very reasonable issue that RS don't support what was in the article at the time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same question from me: is there evidence of CTOP awareness earlier? The single edit SFR notes is a bit of a NOTFORUM violation, but not at a level where I would consider any action for it alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with a logged warning. 3E1I5S8B9RF7, if you have concerns about the text, please raise them without any number of straw men and rhetorical questions. This cannot reasonably be construed as an attempt to improve the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Please keep your comments to your own section.) A logged warning for violating WP:NOTFORUM, and for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given Levivich's comment I would be in favor of a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KlayCax

KlayCax (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic-banned from post-1992 United States politics, broadly construed. KlayCax is also warned that their conduct in the area of infoboxes has fallen short of community expectations. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning KlayCax

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Prcc27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CTOP

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on July 27th, 2022 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits pushing for third-party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing ([31][32]). They’ve continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved [33][34]. The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the consensus for state infoboxes. We shouldn’t have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there’s no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response @KlayCax: This isn’t an RfC (you claimed it was). We came up with a consensus for state infoboxes at the main article’s talk page: 5%+ polling average and ballot access. Cornell West has never had a polling average of 5%+ in Michigan. The main issue regarding you adding West to the infobox is you added someone that isn’t even on the ballot in Michigan and is polling poorly. This has nothing to do with polling consistency; West has consistently polled below 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @KlayCax: Wrong again. Your May 13th edit was made after this RfC was closed on May 12th. Nevertheless, it was clear even before that RfC that consensus was against inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @Red-tailed hawk: I believe David O. Johnson was the user that was initially planning on reporting KlayCax. But since that user appears to be busy, I offered to take over and make the report in their place. (Please see: [35][36]). Prcc27 (talk) 03:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Comment: Regarding sanctions, I think KlayCax should either be topic banned, or given KlayCax’s disruptive actions are not isolated to only one topic, a ban that is more broad may be in order. Prcc27 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Note to admins (@ScottishFinnishRadish: @Red-tailed hawk:): I just wanted to let you both know that I added yet another diff of @KlayCax:’s disruptive behavior pushing third party candidates into the infoboxes. A few minutes ago, KlayCax added RFKJR. to the Texas infobox, even though RFKJR. has not appeared in any Harris v. Trump v. Kennedy state polls. Clearly Kennedy fails the polling criterion per consensus. KlayCax is still ignoring WP:CAREFUL, even after I already explained to them that WP:BOLD has limits. Prcc27 (talk) 10:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @Super Goku V: The context of my statement was to use the same criteria: polling and ballot access. Nationwide polling for the national infobox; statewide polling for state infoboxes. Never said qualifying for national infobox = qualifying for every single state infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 11:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @KlayCax: Why would we use polls that have the wrong Democratic nominee, especially when we know RFKJR does worse in polls with the correct nominee..? You may not have broken policy (this time) per se, but it is best to err on the side of caution on articles with discretionary sanctions. And I’m disappointed you decided to ignore my advice. Prcc27 (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]; Response @XavierGreen: Before a few days ago, it was quite clear RFKJR failed the RfC criteria. Kennedy possibly now meeting the criteria is irrelevant to KlayCax’s past disruptions. Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

Discussion concerning KlayCax

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

Statement by KlayCax

Response to Prcc27's initial AE:

To summarize:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response to Prcc27's reply:

The RFC was this.

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

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

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

Response to third Prcc27:

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

Response to Muboshgu:

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

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

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

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

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

Response to SashiRolls:

Edits in question.

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

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

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

Sourcing in question.

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

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

Final concluding notes:

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

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

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

Final concluding notes: Part II

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Qutlook

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by David A

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

Statement by Left guide

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

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

Statement by Muboshgu

KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including JD Vance, edit warring over some obscure political views. See Talk:JD Vance#Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead? for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of vandalism when a user removed information that should have been removed, and "apparent accident deletion/vandalism from WP: SPA. (?)". They also tried to add to Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation.[38][39] See Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris from the lead for more of that discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are the editor who was editing against the consensus of that RfC.[40] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GreatCaesarsGhost

~~I agree with David A that KlayCax is mostly harmless but deserves some sanction~~. My concern is they are not adhering to WP:RECKLESS. KlayCax is being too bold in making major edits that they know will be subject to revert or controversy. As I noted here[41] they will sometimes act against established consensus due to evolving events that they deem have negated that consensus (when most others disagree). I do wish that they would acknowledge and reflect that criticism of their edits is coming from many editors. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Super Goku V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by SashiRolls

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by XavierGreen

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

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

Statement by Dan Murphy

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

Statement by Scorpions1325

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

Result concerning KlayCax

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

Please keep the word limits in mind and only comment in your own sections. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:51, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not terribly impressed with the response to frequent warnings and blocks for edit warring being badgering and bludgeoning. This seems to be their general behavior whenever there is disagreement rather than isolated to one article or topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No other admins have any input? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two things:
1. @Prcc27: Can you explain why this was filed one week after the most recent edit that you've placed in the diff list?
2. @KlayCax: If you would like an extension, please request one at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. But otherwise, please condense down the comment a bit.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm very concerned that the WP:IDHT attitude seems to have carried over from previous cases where sanctions were levied. I feel an AP2 TBAN is needed, and - given that they seem to be raising issues of candidates in infoboxes that nobody else cares about on other pages as well - possibly an infobox TBAN as well, but at the moment I'm not able to find evidence that they are aware of the infobox DS/CT regime. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:22, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an infobox notice, so AP2 topic ban and a logged warning on infobox editing? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleg Yunakov

Request concerning Oleg Yunakov

Discussion concerning Oleg Yunakov

Statement by Oleg Yunakov

Statement by BilledMammal

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Oleg Yunakov

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Emdosis

Statement by Emdosis

Statement by Emdosis2

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Emdosis

Statement by BilledMammal

Statement by Selfstudier

Statement by Zero0000

Result of the appeal by Emdosis

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astropulse

Statement by Astropulse

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AstroPulse

Statement by The Kip

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Astropulse

Bajaria

Request concerning Bajaria

Discussion concerning Bajaria

Statement by Bajaria

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Bajaria

O.maximov

Request concerning O.maximov

Discussion concerning O.maximov

Statement by O.maximov

Statement by Nableezy

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Statement by ABHammad

Statement by FortunateSons

Statement by fiveby

Statement by xDanielx

Result concerning O.maximov

3E1I5S8B9RF7

Request concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Discussion concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Statement by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

Statement by Selfstudier

Statement by xDanielx

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Statement by BilledMammal

Statement by Buidhe

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

KlayCax

Request concerning KlayCax

Discussion concerning KlayCax

Statement by KlayCax

Statement by Qutlook

Statement by David A

Statement by Left guide

Statement by Muboshgu

Statement by GreatCaesarsGhost

Statement by Super Goku V

Statement by SashiRolls

Statement by XavierGreen

Statement by Dan Murphy

Statement by Scorpions1325

Result concerning KlayCax

Statement by Emdosis²