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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Complaint by account compromised to evade a sanction
[1] Restoration of an extremely contested, recently added content, despite lacking consensus and ongoing discussions. Commented "revert patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors" (all editors involved appear adequately qualified).
[2] Repeated restoration of the same controversial content.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
Complaint by account compromised to evade a sanction
On February, warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area, for using highly inflammatory language ("dumb goyim beware") [3]
Week-long block for personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: [4],
Day-long block for violating the consensus required sanction [5]
Day-long block for personal attacks or harassment [6]
Week-long block for personal attacks or harassment [7]
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Comments by account compromised to evade a sanction
Nishidani and other editors persistently and forcibly and disruptively push a much-disputed definition of "Zionism" as colonization, despite ongoing discussions aimed at consensus. There is significant opposition to the proposed changes (at least 7 editors) evident on both the talk page and through repeated restorations of the last stable version. I read on their talk page [8] that just yesterday another editor asked them to withdraw their uncivil commentary and self-revert but they declined to do so. They declined my request too. [9] Such behavior discourages participation and unfairly dismisses contributors as "unqualified," yet upon checking, each one of them has made substantial contributions over a significant amount of time on Wikipedia. It is concerning that experienced editors, who should set an example for newer ones, appear to not only misunderstand the concept of consensus but also resort to attacking editors attempting to reach consensus and uphold neutrality. From their block log, it appears that Nishidani has received multiple sanctions in the past related to both personal attacks and consensus issues, which are the same issues under consideration currently. Icebear244 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani, let me correct you. You seem to have overlooked @האופה, who also opposed using the term in the discussion, and it appears @Vegan416 did too. My count shows it's nine, which calls for further discussion before any disruptive editing, edit-counting, or uncivil commentary continues. This diff, by the way, is also worth reviewing [10], as attributing views to others appears to be another issue. Icebear244 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk sure. I did some browsing and was surprised to see that we define Zionism, in WP:VOICE, as colonization. I wondered how there could be a consensus for this and checked the edit history. It quickly became clear that there is no real consensus, but rather a forceful imposition of a controversial view by multiple experienced editors, with Nishidani being especially aggressive. Then I noticed that Selfstudier, who has just written to me on my talk page, is no less severe, constantly using intimidation and edit warring to force their views while discussions and even RFCs are ongoing. These editors are acting together and defending each other even in this discussion, which highlights how serious the problem is.
Despite being aware of the potential WP:BOOMERANGs and the risks involved, what I saw was so dire in my opinion that I would not mind receiving sanctions, as long as it finally prompts someone to take action (@ScottishFinnishRadish, even if a topic ban is totally unfair after just one possibly problematic edit and edit summary, as opposed to decades of unsanctioned violations discussed here). Banning me honestly won't solve the problem, since I have made just a few edits in this topic area. In fact, it might make the problem worse by driving neutral people away, who won't report violations now seeing the consequences. I hope the admins here won't turn a blind eye this time. This is the time to act. Icebear244 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
According to the plaintiff, the consensus was formed by the last named 7, while the majority of 12 was against that consensus- This reminds me that while the Mensheviks actually constituted the majority in many debates, the minority called themselves the majority (Bolsheviks) and labelled the real majority a minority (Mensheviks) Nishidani (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Icebear244. No, no mistake. I made my tally of the figures analysing the edit history of the article. User:האופה ( 1,262 edits, registered just after 7 October 2023) made a brief off the top of the head talk page comment. Vegan is the only one identifiable with the position of the 7 who, quite properly, abstained from reverting the passage he contests on the talk page.
The essence of what happened is that 19 editors over a month engaged, mostly, with one revert each (with notable exceptions, Unbandito made several and מתיאל made five. I followed the page but, apart from providing several sources when a cn note was posted, did not intervene. I made one revert whenI reverted O’maximov (1,010 edits in 5 months). Note that he was reverting Zero0000, who is perhaps the most meticulously knowledgeable student of the scholarship on Zionism we have). I'd made my revert, and left it at that.
I would accept that from an administrator (while noting on their page that they had restored the version that had less support), but we peons are not allowed to join one or another side in a dispute, in a blatantly partisan manner, and dictate a ukase, forbidding any challenge under pain of an AE sanction. And in singling out me, you ignored all the evidence that several of those whose reverts you favoured were multiple reverters, not, like myself, engaged until then in a single revert. That was such an outrageous assumption of authority, the use of threat language to support a minority view and make it the default text, that, well, if I see intimidation, I don't buckle. I undid it, particularly because you never made any comment on the talk page in support of the minority but just barged in. Note that in your complaint all of the behavioural defects you cite could be applied equally, at the least, to editors on the side you joined.Nishidani (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apropos Black Kite's comment. I did think of jotting a note to the effect that this is the third of three AE complaints against me since February jist this year. And that in the context of a further two cases involving the incidence on wikipedia of outside interference in the way we edit these articles ((4) 4th (5)5th). But I decided not to make the point BK just made, preferring to drop the temptation, and go to bed and read a novel. It would have sounded like whingeing, a pathetic intimation that I deserve some immunity- No one can expect extraordinary sanctuary here or special rights. Still, I do 'worry', to the degree that I 'worry' about such gossip (I don't), that the 'no-smoke-without-fire' psychological syndrome will kick in against me if this barrage persists. Nishidani (talk) 02:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk. True, if you trawl through the dozens of AE complaints emerging from reactions to my 96,000 edits over 18 years, you will get a score or two of remonstrative cracks expressive of the frustration at finding that the several hundred book and scholarly article sources which it is my main interest in supplying to wikipedia are often reverted or disputed by a handful of editors who prefer talkpage challenges which, in my view do not reflect the ideal I cited in your citation of the Tamzim thread ('the self-conscious, deliberative use of reason as an instrument for the strategic pursuit of truth.'Josiah Ober, The Greeks and the Rational:The Discovery of Practical Reason,University of California Press 2022 ISBN978-0-520-38017-2 p.1.') So yes, I should be perfect, and bear up. And when dragged into extensive threads where complaining editors show little knowledge of the subject (they do not cite any scholarship in rebuffing the data culled from it, but have decided views of what can or cannot be said) I should keep my nose to the happy grindstone and not react. But every now and again, it would be refreshing if these endless plaintiffs' records were examined to see if they add useful scholarly sources regularly or, as it strikes me, spend an inordinate amount of time singularly on talk pages, at ANI/AE or tweaks/reverts of what others add. Nishidani (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Red-tailed hawk. About you proposal, I don't really object, though in the several cultures I have lived my various lives in, I've never been called uncivil. To the contrary (but no one need take my word for that). (The proposal will of course mean that the on average 3 AE complaints per year (it seems) that I have to face will multiply, because every edit I make will henceforth be closely parsed to see if some word, some 'attitude' there can give warrant for an AE report Several times, after an editor has repeated the same argument while sidestepping the evidence of RS provided in a discussion, I write 'yawn'. The superfinessing of AGF will make remarks like that evidence of incivility.) It will change the chronic targeters focus to advantage) Wikipedia is one further culture, and since civility rather than actually contributing serious content, is a preeminent concern, with very particular protocols, it could well be that here the general impression is that I am uncivil, aggressive, bullying. I would just make one point. The accusation you trace back to a diff in the 2009 permaban, was totally unsupported by the diff history cited to that end. In short, Arbcom slipped up, at least on that. And that ruling of incivility has been endlessly touted as proof in the dozens of complaints made against me since. Perhaps since then, things have changed. That is not for me to judge, but for my peers. Regards.Nishidani (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am learning something about myself with every lame insinuation this complaint has raised the opportunity to throw my way. Some of them are taken seriously, several just pass under the radar (JM's grievance, because I, deeply ironical given this complaint about my chronic 'incivility' , failed him for his ignorance of the 'niceties of polite usage').
agitator.'someone who tries to make people take part in protests and political activities, especially ones that cause trouble.' (Cambridge D.)
'One who keeps up a political agitation. After the Bolshevik Revolution freq. applied spec. to Communist agitators.'(O.E.D.1989 vol.1 p.258 col.1)
Look, I know what the verdict will be, without these extra bits of 'evidence' being added about my putative manner of endlessly bullying my way round wikipedia. There's enough there to justify taking the serious measure that has been asked for repeatedly, mostly unsuccessfully, for a dozen years. I'll take no umbrage if one simply closes it thus, because, given the atmosphere and the forseeable sanction, these farces are only going to recur with the same regularity as they have in the past, and one should move on and bury the issue once and for all.Nishidani (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Euryalus. Point taken that 'I know the outcome' might look as though admins are predictable, which they certainly aren't. What is predictable is that for the rest of my wiki life, the pattern of the last decade, of being complained of relentlessly at AE, will, somewhere along the line, reach a tipping point. That is in the nature of things.Nishidani (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dan Murphy. I know my linguistic punctiliousness can be annoying, but though ageing can cause odd bodily charges, I can't see any evidence in the shower that I have undergone a gender change. That is 'burn the witch' should be 'burn the warlock', which, also, because it contains 'war' is more suited to the casus belli here, even if 'war' etymologically in warlock has another root, meaning 'covenant' (covenant-denier':)Nishidani (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ ScottishFinnishRadish. It is contrafactual, the meme that this area is 'toxic' for the reasons you give. Since 7 October large numbers of articles have been created, my impression is that scores and scores of editors new to the IP zone, of all persuasions, have entered to work them, and remain. Not a peep here out of most of them. I myself haven't even troubled to follow a score or so articles in any close detail other than making occasional edits or comments, and I think this is true of most of the veteren editors. The real work on those articles can only be done when, not current newspapers, but secondary scholarly reports come in. One waits for that.
Only a manic hyperactive, 24/7 sleepless POV pusher could chase down and try to 'control' everything. No new editor who (a) argues respecting solid RS, and adds to them (b) works with care to discuss rationally any issue will, as far as I remember, encounter some 'toxic' enmity from a small 'mafia' of the kind insinuated as congenital to the whole 1/P area in the kind of AE complaint we are dealing with here. Nishidani (talk) 19:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ ScottishFinnishRadish. Sorry if I misread you. My reply would exceed the word limit we are bound to respect. It's late here, but I will outline on my page the response that is due, tomorrow, and provide a link, in order to keep matters tidy and succinct here. Nishidani (talk) 23:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that diff I said no such thing. It only shows me arguing that repeating the meme in question (Hamas uses human shields) suggested to me that some ‘experienced editors’ are unfamiliar with core policy’ and the scholarship on that meme's use. My dry summary of the historical overview elicited the response that I ‘clearly sympathize more with Hamas' POV’ and was disruptively ‘personalizing the dispute’, being ‘uncivil’.
Well, goodness me. ‘the Hamas POV‘ attributed to me did call for the destruction of Israel. So in context my interlocutor was intimating bizarrely that I share the view Israel should be destroyed, an egregious WP:AGF violation. I don't report such trivia, nor do I keep that kind of remark on some silly file detailing injurious, ‘uncivil’ insinuations thrown my way for some future AE retaliation. Nishidani (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ TarnishedPath. Ah, finally the complaint has yielded something useful for wiki, i.e. we need an article on male witchcraft. A half a century ago I collected, for a study of paranoia in history, quite a lot of material, historical and anthropological, on witchcraft persecutions. True, overwhelmingly women were targeted, but around 10% hung or burned or however, were male. Prosecution of males suspected of it was briefly strong in Nordic countries (e.g., Kolgrim and Jón Rögnvaldsson) where a whole nomadic population, the Sami was pursued and a score of wise men executed for it. But at least 6 men were executed on that suspicion in the Salem witch trials (George Burroughs, George Jacobs, Giles Corey, John Proctor, John Willard, Samuel Wardwell). There is a magnificent book on one overlooked aspect of this persecutorial mania complex, Carlo Ginzburg ‘s I benandanti. Ricerche sulla stregoneria e sui culti agrari tra Cinquecento e Seicento, (1972). Note to self: I can’t find my copy, must have lent it to either my niece or the local tailor. I see now we have something on it The Night Battles.Nishidani (talk) 15:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinishRadish. The version we have is the consensus version, since 12 longterm editors agreed on it, as opposed to 7 editors opposing, of whom 3 are now permanently blocked as socks. I.e., 12 vs.4. To revert to some prior version would be to endorse the no-inclusion-so-far result desired by that exiguous minority of editors, and ask us all to re-engage in another humongous discussion.Nishidani (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I call WP:BOOMERANG for this WP:POINTy waste of editorial time over a content dispute where the current consensus is roughly 2:1 against. Editor appeared out of the blue to make This edit with edit summary "The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing." and about which I was moved to comment directly their talk page and was duly ignored. This is an ill motivated request about which it is quite difficult to AGF.Selfstudier (talk) 17:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Not sure if everyone is addressed just to other admins. However, it is true that statements and accusations of one sort or another have been made that appear only indirectly to do with the matter at hand and arguably constitute exactly the type of behavior that the accusers are themselves complaining of. In my view, if one believes that one has a valid case of some sort, then one should actually make that case in some suitable forum and not merely talk about it en passant, merely because the opportunity to do so exists. Selfstudier (talk) 22:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a clear consensus on the talk page for this edit, a talk page the filer is notably absent from. In what world is an editor completely unengaged on the talk page making as their very first edit to an article a revert and claiming that anybody who reverts them is being disruptive? That’s absurd, and if Icebear244 feels that the material should not be in the article they should feel welcome to make that argument on the talk page, not make a revert with an edit summary claiming the power to enforce the removal of what has consensus, a consensus they have not participated in working on or overcoming at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by nableezy (talk • contribs) 17:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment by Thebiguglyalien, this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community, but at a certain point the repeated claims of disruptive editing against others users without evidence constitutes casting aspersions and should be dealt with appropriately. nableezy - 02:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish the aspersions I objected to are Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs. and Topic banning any or all of these disruptive users would improve the ability of other editors to improve articles in this area. This user previously accused me of being deceptive, without the slightest bit of evidence. They have been repeatedly agitating for others to be topic banned based on their incredibly absurd belief that having certain views is disruptive. Yes, repeatedly claiming others are disruptive on the basis of things like how often they vote in RFCs a certain way that they decide is pro-whatever is casting aspersions. nableezy - 12:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you all needed convincing of what is actually happening around here, I would have thought this little episode would have enlightened anybody who was paying attention. It is not the "pro-Palestine and pro-Israel wikiwarriors battlegrounding and POV-pushing". It has never been that, there has never, so far as I have been reading these talkpages (and I started from very early archives), been the "pro-Palestine" and "pro-Israel" editors. There is no such thing as a pro-Palestine group of editors in the way there are editors pushing extreme fringe POVs aligned with one of the parties of this conflict. Red-tailed Hawk brought up Nishidani's past record, and included in that the ban issued in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/West Bank - Judea and Samaria. And Im glad he brought that up, because it turns out to mirror this melodramatic episode at this board here and now. We had then two groups of editors, one pushing for identifiably right-wing Israeli POV language, and another pushing for an internationalist language. The "pro-Palestine" POV was never on the table. We had users arguing to use, in Wikipedia's narrative voice, the chosen language of a fringe sized minority of sources, and no users arguing to use the POV language of the other fringe sized minority of sources. That is nobody argued that Tel Aviv should be introduced as being in "occupied Palestine", whereas Ramallah should be introduced as being in "Judea and Samaria". And what brought it to arbitration? The incessant edit-warring by two socks of an already banned user (NoCal100 and Canadian Monkey being socks of Isarig, now Former user 2). But the ArbCom of the time, like some of the admins below, only saw this as two equivalent "camps" of editors. They did not see one group of editors editing in defense of Wikipedia's policies and ideals, and another attacking them. That is what that was, and that is what this is. It is not, despite the claims of Thebiguglyalien or whoever else, two opposing groups who should just be shut out irrespective of their fidelity to the policies that matter here. And what happened as a result of that case? Most of the editors who were editing in defense of Wikipedia's policies are gone, NoCal100 however never left us. Because the dishonest editors that stoke these edit-wars and bait the honest users in to these enforcement threads that have admins willing to dredge up 10 year old sanctions that were bullshit based on bullshit but somehow add up to a problematic record dont actually lose anything when their latest sock account is blocked. It's the editors who are editing with fidelity to the sources and our policies who are too honest to just run up 500 edits on a new account to start all over again that are actually lost. nableezy - 19:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
re: The Kip's "I sincerely do think mass topic bans would ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content". In my view, this is a faith-based belief rather than an evidence-based belief. I think there is a good chance that it would not ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content, nor do I think there is any basis to believe that it would. The PIA 'landscape' would likely be rapidly recolonized by the wiki-editor equivalent of pioneer species. A critical factor is that Wikipedia's remedies/sanctions etc. are only effective on honest individuals. Individuals who employ deception are not impacted by topic bans, blocks etc. They can regenerate themselves and live many wiki-lives. The history of the article in question, Zionism, is a good example of the important role editor-reincarnation plays in PIA. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, one checkuser block so far. Several of the editors involved in the edit warring at Zionism resemble other editors, for example, ABHammad resembles Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet - sorry ABHammad, it's just what the math suggests. Perhaps many issues could be avoided if participation in edit warring was enough to trigger a checkuser, or checkuser was used much more routinely. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal:, whether saying A resembles B is regarded as an aspersion by anyone (other than the person I said it about) is a question that does not interest me. There is no utility for me in civility concerns, it's just an irrelevant distraction. From my perspective it is an objective statement of fact about the relationship between objects in a metric space. There is no value judgement, and it doesn't necessarily mean that they are the same person. There are at least 3 ways to address these things. ABHammad could make a true statement of fact. A checkuser could simply have a look. An SPI could be filed. A problem, of course, is that 'computer says so' is currently not a valid reason to request a checkuser. Sean.hoyland (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding recolonization of the PIA topic area after a potential Arbcom case clean out, you can ask the question - how long would recolonization take? This 'ARBPIA gaming?' thread at AN provides an answer. With a little bit of preparation, it could take as little as two and half days. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Iskandar323: that a rational and pragmatic response would be to conduct checkusers, especially if an Arbcom case or a separate AE case are options. Including what turns out to be a disposable account in a case presumably wastes everyone's time given that disposable accounts have no standing, and remedies have no impact on them. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been following the ARBPIA topic area from my hospital bed, and in all honesty, I'm surprised by the number of infractions committed by experienced editors. They consistently disregard consensus-building and stubbornly restoring their preferred edits, even while discussions are still ongoing. I also saw this behavior from Nishidani and attempted to persuade him to revert his edit yesterday. Selfstudier, who responded to this complaint, unfortunately exemplifies this issue. I've observed similar actions from them as those of Nishidani. For instance, they've reintroduced disputed content still under discussion [12], [13]. In this case, they and others removed a POV tag while discussion is still ongoing [14]. In this case, they even restored a controversial edit while RFC was ongoing on its inclusion [15]. However, this one surprised me the most: [16]. In this case, you can see how they, along with another editor, bombarded a user's talk page with accusations of 'tag teaming' and oh so many diffs "for whatever whoever wants to use it for", while in fact, all these editors were doing was to restore the last stable version while discussions were ongoing. I also see Selfstudier just spamming every new editor with the strongly worded version of the 'contentious topics' alert. I think this just scares away good editors. In all honesty, there appears to be a pattern of established users employing bullying tactics to stifle the influence of other contributors. Where do we draw the line? 916crdshn (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to see how one editor here, @Levivich, uses this noticeboard to cast aspersions on several editors without providing convincing evidence. After reviewing their editing styles, topics, and activity times, which appear distinct to me, it seems their only commonality is differing views from those of Levivich. Levivich also uses this noticeboard to present fiercely debated topics, such as equating Zionism with colonialism,[1] and references controversial scholars like Ilan Pappe[2][3][4] as if they were mainstream truths. This is particularly concerning given that they recently shared the belief that "We are witnessing the last gasps of Zionism." This seems to align with the situation @The Kip and the @Thebiguglyalien described in their comments. 916crdshn (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC) 916crdshn (talk) 18:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 July, in a discussion about the intent of Zionism:
Has anyone objecting here ever read the founding documents of Zionism? I have the eerie impression this is like discussing the origins of Christianity with people who haven't read the New Testament.
18 June, criticized editors for rejecting a source as unreliable, and then focused on their grammar:
So you've read as far as the title. And 'it's' is not how the possessive 'its' is written. It means 'it is' and as you spell it, it produces an ungrammatical sentence:'it is reliability'.
They also doubled down when an admin told them to knock it off.
21 May Wrote a long comment, starting with The editing of this zealous article is too incompetent to be reliable, to which the primary author's response concluded with As for the rest of your argument here I'll reply at length tomorrow. Nishidani's reply was:
Don't worry about replying at length, because I already find the article itself, which will prove briefer than the threads, unreadable. I had to force myself to read it once, and noting the constant misuse of sources. I haven't the time to waste on it.
1 May, in response to an editor questioning the use of Counterpunch:
That lazy approach means editors do not need to read carefully and evaluate the quality of any piece: all they need do is look at the publisher, note wiki editors have suggested caution, and jump at that pretext to hold anything at all from such sources to hostage.
"Here's eight specific diffs with commentary stretching all the way back to November I just, you know, causally glanced at in the hour and a half since this filing was posted" is ridiculous.
It is ridiculous. It shouldn’t be this easy to find examples of them attacking editors rather than focusing on content, and the fact it is suggests there is a real issue here. BilledMammal (talk) 01:20, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland: If you have reason to believe ABHammad is Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet, I suggest you file a SPI. Merely saying they resemble that user is an WP:ASPERSION.
(I haven't interacted much with ABHammad, and I don't know who Dajudem/Tundrabuggy/Stellarkid/Snakeswithfeet is, so I can't comment on how likely that is to be true). BilledMammal (talk) 05:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite, I very much agree that more progressive discipline is needed in this topic area. Your proposal for Nishidani regarding civility seems a very good solution and similar restrictions instead of outright topic bans should become common practice.
I would also propose that similar restrictions be considered for some of the editors who participated in this content dispute / edit war, but regarding other policies, like edit warring or original research rather than civility. Too often a small number of editors are able to thwart consensus simply by insisting on their position, even though their stance be contrary to RS and based only on their own personal opinions or on their own independent analysis. The focus needs to be on reliable sources and those who ignore RS or insist on prioritizing their own analysis need to be reigned in. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought the "probation" idea may not be a good one, but more warnings and progressive discipline would very likely be an improvement to the managing of this topic area. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although my name was dragged into this discussion here, I wish to stress that I don't want to have any part in this fight and I oppose this Arbitration Request against Nishidani, at least as it concerns my own encounters with Nishidani. I can deal with Nishidani on my own, both on the content level and the personal level, and I don't need external protection. Of course, I cannot speak for others on this regard. I also oppose Nishidani's opinion on the contested term in its current place, but the way to win this debate is to write a strong policy-based argument based on many reliable sources. Which is what I am doing now, and will be ready next week. Vegan416 (talk) 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The complaining cohort is wrong on the underlying content, and wrong on whose behavior is a problem here. This Icebear account has under 2,000 edits to Wikipedia, fewer than 80 since 2020, one edit ever to the Zionism article (the edit today), and zero to that article's talk page. Thanks to today's flurry of activity, over 13% of Icebear's activity since 2020 has been trying to supervote an ahistorical "consensus" into the Zionism article and/or getting Nishidani banned. This bit of chutzpah (Icebear's edit summary) salivating over the arb enforcement wars to come, should guarantee blowback on that account: "The next to restore this disputed version, against consensus and every possible wiki policy, will be reported for edit warring and disruptive editing." Must have just stumbled across all this. Oh, the BilledMammal account is here. How surprising.Dan Murphy (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait! What?! Nishidani once described someone gloating on a talk page about their success at getting an opponent blocked by arbs as "soporific" (I know, I should have placed a trigger warning) and another time described people who have clearly either not read or pretended to not read any primary, secondary, or tertiary sources on early Zionism as "people who have not read much about Zionism?!" I withdraw my support. Per Raddishfinis: Burn him! Burn the witch necromancer! Dan Murphy (talk) 03:01, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the Icebear account has been indefinitely blocked by a checkuser. The account's email and talk were also disabled. Shocked, shocked!Dan Murphy (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why this hasn't been closed is beyond me. But the 916crd account (speaking of "aspersion") was created in 2021, spent about 2 years completely dedicated to the city of Corona, CA, left, and then returned this June entirely devoted to talk page and notice board complaints about editors on Israel/Palestine articles (18 out 20 edits; one edit to previously uncreated userpage, one revert at the Golan Heights article.) The only 2 talk page comments the account made prior to its hiatus provide an interesting contrast. [19]Dan Murphy (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The now blocked Nocal sock Kentuckyrain, which shares the same style and views of the now blocked sock Icebear who opened this complaint AND the same style and views as the now blocked sock 916crd (which backed up Icebear and Kentuckyrain), was HIGHLY active and abusive on the Zionism talk page in destabilizing the article and exhausting the patience of the actual people of good will. Same shit, different decade. And y'all still reward it.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Iskander - Two of them, particularly the one that started out looking like a paid editor for small businesses, reek to the heavens.Dan Murphy (talk) 14:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The content restored by Nishidani was the latest version in an ongoing content dispute over the inclusion of a mention of colonization/colonialism in the article lead. A mention of colonialism is broadly supported by the relevant scholarship, as a number of editors have demonstrated in the relevant talk page discussions.
To broadly summarize the dispute, a slight majority of editors support the inclusion of a mention of colonialism in the lead while a minority oppose any mention of it. In my reading of the edit history of the dispute, the editors in favor of an inclusion of colonialism have advanced several versions of the proposed content, compromising when their edits were reverted and supporting their edits on the talk page, while editors opposed to the new changes have reverted all attempts to add language and sourcing which mentions colonialism, with little support for these actions on the talk page.
This dispute began when Iskandar's edit was reverted on 6 June. As the dispute continued, several revised additions were also reverted. Editors opposed to the inclusion of a mention of colonialism have made their ownchanges to the lead, so the claim that one "side" is adding disputed material and the other is not doesn't stand up to scrutiny. When the most recent version of the proposed changes was reverted, Nishidani addedseveral high quality sources. Those edits were reverted regardless of the substantive changes in sourcing, and Icebear issued a blanket threat to report anyone who restored the contested content. At the time of Nishidani's edit, I was working on this compromise, but I was edit conflicted and decided to return to the article later. If I had finished my edit more quickly, it seems that I would have been dragged in front of this noticeboard even though my edit is substantially different since, according to Icebear's edit summary, anyone restoring the disputed version would be reported. The simple truth of this content dispute is that a number of editors, who are in the minority, are being very inflexible about any mention of colonialism in the lead despite strong support in the literature and among editors for these changes. In my opinion the lead is improving, however chaotically and contentiously. There's no need for administrative involvement here. Nishidani has been recognized many times over the years for their work defending scholarship and scholarly sources on Wikipedia. They are doing more of that good work on the Zionism page.
One more thing I wanted to point out, @Red-tailed hawk, I know you were looking for an answer from @Nishidani but I read the phrase "barely qualified IP editors" as pertaining to the editors' qualifications within the Israel-Palestine topic, not IP as in an IP address/unregistered editor. That makes more sense in context, as the editors involved are clearly not and couldn't be IP editors of the latter type. Unbandito (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most suspect lead ups to an AE filing I've ever seen. And BilledMammal's "Here's eight specific diffs with commentary stretching all the way back to November I just, you know, causally glanced at in the hour and a half since this filing was posted" is ridiculous. How many times can one editor be warned about weaponizing AE against their opponents before someone actually recognizes the pattern? This is becoming farcical. Parabolist (talk) 23:17, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Icebear bravely posting that they'll happily take a ban as long as an admin gives the same one to the more senior and established editor is practically giving the game away. Come on. Parabolist (talk) 06:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani is a long-time agitator in this area, where their enforcement of a pro-Palestine point of view through battleground behavior and hostility outweighs any improvement to the encyclopedia.
Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs.
As 916crdshn indicated, many experienced users are problems in this topic area. I would gladly see more of them reported and sanctioned here, and I'd do it myself if AE wasn't so toothless against users with large-edit-count-privilege.
Black Kite you're not the only person who feels that way. The rest of us are really getting fed up with the disruption it causes sitewide. The root of the problem is when administrators reviewing these issues end up playing dumb and pretending this disruption doesn't exist, resulting in no action against the most entrenched battleground users.
Topic banning any or all of these disruptive users would improve the ability of other editors to improve articles in this area. I will endorse any such action and support any admin involved in carrying it out. The worst thing we can do right now is nothing.
To the administrators, I ask two questions that I'd like to have answered as part of the decision here. First, what are the red lines? If it's disruption, we're well past that. If it's the community getting sick of it, we're well past that. I don't know what further lines can be crossed. Second, how often is a fear of blowback from a banned user and their wikifriends a factor in these decisions? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ScottishFinnishRadish Checking past AE posts for battleground-style alignments is actually something that crossed my mind for that sort of evidence. I did something similar for an arb motion and the results were unsurprising for the few editors who happened to participate in the majority of those specific discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just jumping in here to effectively second everything TBUA said above. The AE filer themselves is suspect in their editing, and there’s a good argument for a BOOMERANG punishment here; that said, that doesn’t absolve Nishidani of valid incivility complaints and other issues regarding ARBPIA that’ve gone on for years. Sanctions for both would be ideal.
This whole case and its votes are, in my opinion, emblematic of the shortcomings of the ARBPIA area and its editors, who consistently defend/attack others at this board and other places on Wikipedia almost solely based on ideological alignment. I sincerely do think mass topic bans would ultimately result in improvement to ARBPIA content; this attitude towards experienced editors of “well, they contribute a lot despite their [ WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct/POV-pushing/weaponizing of AE/etc] can’t be the long-term solution.
@Sean.hoyland re the "pioneer species" comment - a valid point, yes, but in my opinion it can't possibly be worse that the toxic, POV-ridden, edit-warred, propaganda-filled environment that currently exists.
The active participation of editors without a specific POV to push, that're more interested in creating a comprehensive/nuanced encyclopedia, has become active discouraged by the area becoming overrun by battleground conduct perpetuated by more than a few of the editors in this AE report, backing both sides of the conflict. Speaking from personal experience, outside occasional dabbling at WP:RSN or here, I effectively quit editing the area upon seeing that my opinions would be disregarded if I didn't fully align with either the pro-Israel or pro-Palestine blocs of editors. TheKip(contribs)15:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:מתיאל was a disclosed paid editing account in 2021 123; the disclosure was removed from their userpage in April 2024. They made about 50 (non-deleted) edits between Sep 2021 and Mar 2024 (xtools). Top edited pages for User:ABHammad[20] and User:O.maximov[21], aside from Israel/Palestine, are articles about businesses. User:Galamore: Jan 2024 UPE ANI (blocked, unblocked); May AE "Galamore cautioned against continuing long term edit wars, especially when those edit wars have been the target of sockpuppetry and off-wiki canvassing."; May ANI for gaming 500.
Seems pretty obvious to me that somebody bought/rented/expanded a UPEfarm and is using it to push far-right-Israeli propaganda, and I think deliberately provoke uncivil responses from the regular editors of the topic area is part of the strategy. Not a new trick. Colleagues: try not to take the bait, and I'll do the same. Admins: please clear this new farm from the topic area, thank you. If nobody wants to volunteer to do it -- I don't blame them -- let's ask the WMF to spend some money investigating and cleaning up this most-recent infiltration. Levivich (talk) 05:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Man, I don't get it. How are some of us more concerned about someone saying "patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors" than they are concerned about patent abuse by barely qualified IP editors? I've been through this before with people rewriting history to say Kurds don't exist or that the Holocaust was about killing Poles not Jews. Just the other day, here on this page, we talked about someone claiming the Duchy of St Sava does not exist, and right here, right now, in this thread, there are diffs of a group of new accounts trying to rewrite history to say that Zionism was not colonialism because Palestinians were not really from Palestine, and the mainstream historians who say otherwise are "fringe". Doesn't everyone care about that? I'm here because I want people to have accurate information when they Google stuff. Isn't everyone else here for the same reason? So what do you need? More diffs? Is it that the diffs are unclear somehow? Do you need it formatted with a different template, on a different page? What is it, what will it take, to make all admins actually care about people trying to rewrite history on Wikipedia, more than they care about people getting upset about people rewriting history on Wikipedia? If you must, go through the diffs of incivility one by one, then you'll realize they're not actually uncivil, and then please can we focus on the actual problem here, which is patent abuse by a bunch of new, barely-qualified accounts in the IP area. Thank you have a nice day. Levivich (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We now have a 6th revert in the "recent example" string above, from Oleg Yunakov, along with saying at the talk page that the "colonization" is a "statements that are only mentioned by select scientists" and "opinion of colonization is clearly a minority" (plus the mandatory ad hominem swipe). That is flat misrepresentation of the sources, and Oleg knows this because he participated in the discussion about it, where he brought one source--which, IIRC, is the one and only WP:RS that disputes "colonization" among over a dozen that were examined in that discussion. The current ongoing edit war by this group of editors isn't the first edit war about "colonization" on the Zionism article, we had one a month ago (1, 2, 3, 4). So we have the edit war, we have the talk page discussion where we bring over a dozen sources and examine them, and still they just go back to edit warring, bringing in new accounts, and still, people claim against all evidence that a mainstream view is a minority view.
I did my part. I researched, I engaged in constructive talk page discussion, I posted over a dozen sources, I read the sources other people posted--and a number of other editors did the same. Can admins now do their part, please: TBAN the people who are misrepresenting sources by claiming that "Zionism was colonization" is not a mainstream view, who only brought one source (or zero sources, or didn't even participate in the talk page discussion at all, as is the case for some of these editors), and who continue to edit war. We don't really need to prove a UPEfarm for this, just TBAN them for the diffs I'm posting on this page. I think AE is the right place for this. Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind doing a separate filing if it's going to get looked at (and I won't be boomeranged for forum shopping, or some such). Any feedback on what that filing should focus on or how it should be framed (or should there be multiple filings, one for each editor?), would be welcome. Levivich (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Oleg and I looked at some sources just now at Talk:Zionism#Round 3 and I think we've come to some understanding about what is the mainstream v. significant minority viewpoint on this issue. Levivich (talk) 18:49, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a new day and we have more edit warring about Zionism and colonialism (today, at settler colonialism): 1, 2, 3. Nobody's edited that talk page since June 17. This is like every day in this topic area right now: it's a full-court press to make sure Wikipedia doesn't say Zionism is any kind of colonialism. Levivich (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Sure, Iohann just asked me about the same on my talk page. I'm still a little unclear about what exactly we're raising for review (edit warring? pov pushing? bludgeoning? some combination? something else?) and exactly who to list as parties. Should the filing be workshopped? Levivich (talk) 18:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was tagged here by Levivich (I couldn't really understand his message, a concentration of accusations and confusion between users). Some time ago, I was asked not to participate in edit wars, and since then, I have been trying to edit relatively neutral topics. Levivich's accusation is out of place. Shabbat shalom and have a great weekend!Galamore (talk) 06:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This report is entirely about an editor trying to win an edit war by means of noticeboard report. An editor whose total contribution is one massive revert and not a single talk page comment. It should be dismissed out of hand. Zerotalk15:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To editor ScottishFinnishRadish: I am alarmed by your proposal that Nishidani is a net negative. In my 22 years of editing in the I/P area, it has been a rare event to encounter someone whose scholarship and ability to cut through to the heart of an issue stands out so strongly. He would be a good candidate for the most valuable I/P editor at the moment. To be sure, Nishidani doesn't have much patience with editors who arrive full of opinions and empty of facts, and there are times I wish he would state the obvious less bluntly. But reports like this are not really about Nishidani's behavior; they are an opportunistic response to being unable to match Nishidani in his depth of knowledge and command of the best sources. Nobody would bother otherwise. Zerotalk09:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of what BilledMammal said, from the sole interaction with Nishidani that I can recall, this was my experience. This was in January. After I commented on another user's talk page, Nishidani appeared and removed my comment, saying You had your say. Go away[22]. I believed it was a violation of talk page guidelines, so I took it to Nishidani's talk page, resulting these instances:
I see you are very young, so perhaps you are not quite familiar with good manners and accused me of speaking to the watchlist [23].
Edit summary: Please desist from the soporific cant on this page[25]
Feel free to read through my own comments there. This is, as far as I can recall, my first and only interaction with said editor. If this is their conduct with others as well, then... not a positive editing environment.
I agree with TBUA that specific users always showing up to defend each other, in a way very closely correlating with whether or not they agree on one specific issue, should be a cause for concern. I left the topic area completely, and mostly retired from editing entirely, over what I've seen in the I-P space. JM (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I think this case should be closed with no action. Not because I necessarily think Nishidani is a paragon of civility, but because I think if you're going to impose a restriction you should wait until the direct report actually has any merit at all. Otherwise you're incentivizing people to report opposing editors until action is taken against them. Loki (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that whatever happens to OP should impact what happens to the person OP has reported. If an issue exists, it exists regardless of whether another user wants to expose themselves to the toxic environment that occurs from reporting that issue. While I make no comment on the issues raised about the person who posted this thread, I second the concerns OP and others have had about the reported user's repeated incivility in the topic area. It is a perfectly reasonable outcome that both the reported user and the one doing the reporting get sanctioned. But it is not appropriate to absolve the reported user of sanctions for their inappropriate behavior just because the OP also has not behaved appropriately. That is completely against the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG, which is to clarify that the OP will also be examined - not "in lieu" of the person they report, but in addition to. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To add, I have observed this sort of behavior in Nishidani and other editors in this topic area. I think it is patently absurd that Nishidani or anyone be allowed to hide behind "the person making the filing is worse than me" and/or "but I'm right and speak the truth" to avoid sanctions, and it disturbs me that even some administrators are engaging/agreeing with the idea that the incivility, bludgeoning, and other behaviors Nishidani is so well known for (even by those supporting them) should be ignored because of the filer/their contributions. That is the attitude that makes new people not want to engage in a topic area - seeing people being disruptive avoid sanctions simply because they are prolific contributors. I would love to provide my opinions/evaluation of concerns in I/P, but the mere fact that even though I've been relatively inactive for over a year I recognize Nishidani as a net negative to discussions in this area has led me to not even try touching it. I'll note also their comments at WP:RSN § A step back to look at the metacontext of this complaint - where Nishidani, rather than continuing the completely valid discussion of a source they agree with's reliability, they opened a subsection which cast aspersions on the OP of that thread, and other editors, under the guise of "metacontext". None of that was useful to the discussion, yet it went unpunished because their contributions are otherwise appreciated? They then had the gall to call me the one disrupting the discussion, because I called out how their section did not add anything to the discussion about the reliability of the source. And they then basically threatened me by saying Try to exercise some discursive restraint, so that the already unmanageable mega-threads don't develop into unreadable subthreads - which is even more rich coming from them who opened a new subthread that added zero actual "meat" to the discussion. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:44, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: That Nishidani's: "hostility outweighs any improvement to the encyclopedia", is a palpably subjective assertion, regardless of the rest of the statement. I imagine if one reviewed the evidence however, in terms of page creations and content and sources additions to articles, the community would conclude otherwise. Iskandar323 (talk) 06:25, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of weird activity right now. It could be accounts being handed over, or it could just be sleeper accounts being booted up. I rather suspect the latter: if you're a clever, long-term sock, it's not hard to leave a trail of account profiles behind you over the years. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A very rational response to this thread, and the blocking as socks of two of the editors involved in the original edit-warring, as well as another account that weighed in here, would be to conduct a check-user on the other low-count accounts. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know that I should not just say "per"... but I'm tired. I'm tired physically but much more I'm tired of these attacks on Nishidani. User:Zero0000 is absolutely right when he wrote that "In my 22 years of editing in the I/P area, it has been a rare event to encounter someone whose scholarship and ability to cut through to the heart of an issue stands out so strongly. He would be a good candidate for the most valuable I/P editor at the moment. To be sure, Nishidani doesn't have much patience with editors who arrive full of opinions and empty of facts, and there are times I wish he would state the obvious less bluntly. But reports like this are not really about Nishidani's behavior; they are an opportunistic response to being unable to match Nishidani in his depth of knowledge and command of the best sources." Nishidani is probably the most erudite editor I have ever come across here (there may be better ones, I just haven't met them). As Zero said, this should be dismissed out of hand.I also agree with User:Dan Murphy, both his first post and the tounge in cheek next one. And with User:Iskandar323. The filer should be sanctioned but as they don't edit in this topic a TB would be pointless. I also can't help wondering if someone contacted them, this all seems so odd. Doug Wellertalk13:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an absurd report, filed because the defendant made two edits to restore to the consensus wording and one of them contained some minor incivility which was not directed at any particular editor. This smacks heavily of opportunistically trying to take out an ideological opponent. Frankly I'd expect more than a topic ban for the filler. What's to stop them engaging in this sort of behaviour in other CTOP areas in the future? I would hope for sanctions that ensure that can't happen. TarnishedPathtalk02:16, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sean.hoyland, I am Jack's complete lack of surprise that yet another editor involved in the content dispute, who seeks to remove colonialism from the article, has turned out to be a sock. TarnishedPathtalk09:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I'm just some random newish account, and my one extended interaction with Nishidani was at Racial conceptions of Jewish identity in Zionism last year ([26], for example). Based on that, I have no doubt of his erudition, but I was also painfully aware of his, well, snottiness towards anyone with whom he disagrees. Whether that's a matter for AE is above my pay grade. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With respect to sanction history, filer seems to have a few holes. I will note that the block from 2009 brought up by filer was not actually a week long due to ensuing community discussion after it was issued. There are also additional sanctions given to respondent at AE that filer did not include:
2019, indefinitely banned from creating or making comments in AE reports related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, except if they are the editor against whom enforcement is requested, per AE. Sanctioning admin notes that this was for the user misusing Wikipedia as a battleground and casting aspersions on others in the thread.
2017, 1-month TBAN from Arab-Israeli conflict after banning admin observed that the user personalize[s] disputes rather than focusing on the content.
2012, 1-month long TBAN the Israel-Palestine area after violating 1RR.
Problems with your civility have date back to 2009, when the ArbCom found that you had engaged in incivility, personal attacks, and assumptions of bad faith. I don't think it appropriate to refer to other editors as barely qualified IP editors when they are not IP editors. At a baseline, it is not civil, and it comes off as a personal attack. You were already warned against using against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic areaearlier this year, and this sort of thing is another example of that.
After thinking a bit more on this, I think something outside of the standard set is required. With respect to respondent’s long-term civility issues, reasonable measures that are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project require something more narrowly crafted than a topic-wide TBAN, but something that is more substantial and concrete than yet another warning.
The solution I am propopsing, and would request other admins here consider, is something like that which the community endorsed for BrownHairedGirl, a prolific and productive longtime editor who had exhibited chronic civility problems over many years. At a 2021 ANI thread, the community placed BHG under a form of civility probation. This allowed BHG to continue to make productive edits, while also enforcing a tight leash on civility issues. An analogous proposal that would apply in this case is as follows:
If, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, Nishidani violates WP:CIVIL within the WP:PIA topic area, Nishidani may be subject to escalating blocks, beginning with a 12-hour block. These blocks will be arbitration enforcement actions—they may not be lifted without a successful appeal at the administrator’s noticeboard, at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, or to the arbitration committee. The restriction is indefinite, and may be appealed at WP:AN, WP:AE, or WP:ARCA in six months.
I believe that this balances the ability of respondent to contribute positively to this topic area (something a topic ban would prohibit), while also providing for clear consequences should civility issues continue. — Red-tailed sock(Red-tailed hawk's nest)18:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask this question only on behalf of myself and without having talked to or consulted anyone else. A consensus of admins at AE can impose whatever restrictions they want. But Nishidani (and every other AWARE editor editing within PIA) can already have blocks that function as arbitration enforcement actions with-in the topic area of PIA and those blocks can be for anything that not follow project expectations, including anything which violates WP:CIVIL. With BHG there clearly was a change - civility blocks went from easier to overturn to harder to overturn, but I don't understand what is "new" with this restriction? Barkeep49 (talk) 19:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the “new” part is that it provides clear expectations for future behavior and for how admins will deal with it. Unilateral AE actions are already available, but a set framework to deal with this user’s incivility in particular would serve to dissuade future incivility in a way that the general existence of the CTOP for the Arab-Israeli conflict has not. — Red-tailed sock(Red-tailed hawk's nest)20:04, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CTOP notice provides clear expectations of behavior. It's not as if there is some new information in policies that everyone here isn't aware of. The framework already exists with AE/CTOP. All this does is restate the rules that we're here to enforce, only with arbitrary block time limits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks RTH (or RTS) for idea, and not opposed to the concept. However one concern: agree with Barkeep49 that this is already within the scope of AE enforcement, and I wouldn't want to create an informal expectation that escalating blocks weren't an option for CTOP-warned editors unless there was a subsequent AE decision to formalise a regime for them. I know that's not strictly what is proposed but we risk creating expectations of it if we start imposing this formalisation for anyone repeatedly brought to AE. Mildly, we also risk rewarding efforts to weaponise this noticeboard via repeated specious filings. Be good to have further discussion on how these issues might be addressed. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nishidani: Not sure I agree that an outcome is determined wrt the original complaint. The only outcome with consensus at this point is a topic ban for the filer. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've come around to the view that these kind of paroles are not very effective. At this point I think we need to decide if the behavior was incivil, and if so do we think a warning will be effective at preventing this in the future? As far as weaponization goes, yeah this circumstance isn't great, but the editor qualifies for editing ARBPIA. Do we risk adding another tier of ARBPIA editing where you can only make an AE report after reaching some arbitrary threshold? Do we want to tell editors new to the topic area that they can't report behavior by editors with a sufficient amount of edits? We should be promoting new editors (although not this one) in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thebiguglyalien: With respect to... Most of the users responding here frequently show up to defend their pro-Palestine wikifriends or attack their pro-Palestine enemies whenever they see the chance, and vise versa. I'd like if this would be considered evidence of disruptive battleground behavior. If it is, I'll start collecting diffs, if people are attempting to abuse the AE system in order to unjustifiably purge people along ideological lines, I think that would be something worth considering. But that sort of material would be so complex that an Arbitration case might be the better venue. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't be the only person that is getting bored with these semi-regular editors queueing up to report Nishidani (to be honest, I'm getting really bored with a significant number of editors that are trying to weaponise AE, RSN and other venues). If I was assuming bad faith I'd think there's almost off-wiki co-ordination going on. So just to be clear, the filer made this edit note the edit summary, which was their first edit for three weeks, and then came here to complain about it? Sorry, no. Nableezy's comment is relevant. Black Kite (talk)22:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also like to know how Icebear244 became involved here. I have gone through their contributions, and I found that had never edited the Zionism article until they made this edit, which more or less kicked off this thread. I also don't see all that much prior editing of related topics; I could only find a sole edit to a related talk page (though I could be wrong, since that's a bit harder to catch by scanning through contribs). (Upon further review, there are edits to Antisemitism and higher education in the United States which might be somewhat related that I had missed on my initial go-through) — Red-tailed hawk(nest)03:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien, it's not fear, it's the enormous opportunity cost. There are several actions I would take if I had the dozens of hours necessary to implement and defend them. Are we okay with battleground editing making the topic area toxic and making it less likely that anyone without a strongly held POV will want to get involved leading to an even more entrenched battleground? I say (only partially in jest that we look at the last dozen or two ARBPIA AE reports and start looking at who shows up more often than not to rep their colors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Icebear244 should be topic banned. Clear POV pushing, added a section called Islamist Terrorism citing a source that did not say Islamist or terrorism, but did say a group they'd never heard of said, In a statement, the group described Mr Kipper as an Israeli agent and said his killing was in retaliation for what it called massacres in Gaza and Israel's seizure of the Palestinian side of the Rafah border crossing with Egypt, which also happened on Tuesday. Add that to the change of the prose about the humanitarian toll and it's pretty clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with indefinite topic ban for Icebear244. The storyline of their progress from uninvolved editor to vehement AE filer is doubtful at best. And to paraphrase, the approach of "sure, sanction me but take down my enemy too" is battleground at its finest. They're not the only editor in this thread who needs a break from this topic but at this point they're the most obvious. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I even wonder if an account that goes from pretty much exclusively editing cartoon articles for years, straight to various hot-button topics such as AP and Russian/Chinese disinformation, might not be compromised (or has been handed over to someone else)? Black Kite (talk)08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, is everyone cool with this? Regarding the comment by Thebiguglyalien, this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community, but at a certain point the repeated claims of disruptive editing against others users without evidence constitutes casting aspersions and should be dealt with appropriately. Makes a claim of disruptive editing about another editor, says that such claims should be dealt with? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I must be missing some context - isn't this simply an allusion to the practice of weaponising dispute resolution? If so, it doesn't seem a particularly controversial thing to say. Euryalus (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thebiguglyalien's comment starts with "Nishidani is a long-time agitator in this area, where their enforcement of a pro-Palestine point of view through battleground behavior and hostility outweighs any improvement to the encyclopedia" (diff of comment). Nableezy is saying that that comment is an aspersion because TBUA makes the statement as their opinion, presumably believing it to be a view of the community and therefore not requiring evidence. Johnuniq (talk) 02:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I read it, and that would make this isn’t the first time an editor has mistaken their own views for those of the community an unsupported aspersion as they're calling for action because of the repetition of casting aspersions. That Nish is a net negative is subjective, but the long history of sanctions and warnings presented with the report is evidence of someone being a long-term agitator. Agree with the conclusion or not, it's not an unsupported statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't edit, or oft administer, in the IP area and from that perspective/ignorance what I see in this AE report is a fairly inactive editor making a drive-by edit with a provocative edit-summary to a highly contentious article and, on being reverted, immediately rushing to this board. By their own admission, Icebear244 doesn't care about Boomerang sanctions or topic-bans from an area that they don't normally edit in any case, as long as it sparks action against the editors who are actually active (editing and discussing) in this topic area. Hard to imagine a more explicit example of WP:GAMING and WP:BATTLEGROUND.
Participation from "non-regulars" in a topic-area is (potentially) very valuable if either their knowledge of the subject allows more sources and perspectives to be considered or their distance from the subject allows them to moderate existing debates. Getting more "outside" editors to participate in tag-teamed edit-wars or to set up a pawn-for-piece exchange at AE is worse than useless and should be actively discouraged.
I don't know if action is warranted against Nishidani or other editors who are active at Zionism etc but by indulging this complaint we would be setting up some perverse incentives that will be exploited in this and other CTOP areas. Abecedare (talk) 15:03, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also commenting as someone who's only ever been involved on the fringes of the IP area, so take it with a grain of salt, but I'm pretty surprised to see anyone taking this report taken seriously. I'm also surprised to see Red-tailed hawk suggesting with a straight face that Nishidani has "long-term civility issues" based on diffs no more recent than 2019 and as old as 2009, with years between each of them. If I'd been editing in an area as controversial as this for 15 years, I'd be content with a block log ten times longer. @Red-tailed hawk: Concerns were raised (by myself and others) about an overly punitive and unempathetic approach to dispute resolution at your RfA just a little over six months ago, and you're really here at AE now, proposing sanctions on an experienced editor working in our most difficult topic area, because they called a nonspecific group of editors "barely qualified"? Did you reflect on that feedback at all? – Joe (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully, I have considered that feedback, Joe. I would ask you to simply read the full thread; I am sad to see that you seem to have missed the warning from earlier this year when arguing that my analysis was merely based on diffs no more recent than 2019. (The warning was included by filer, which is why it was not included in a list of additional sanctions given to respondent at AE that filer did not include that I provided above). I believe that my approach is preventative, not punitive.
I do, however, hesitate to do anything more than what has been done here in light of the conclusive block of filer by an Arb for being compromised. If there is the sort of manipulation that requires CU tools to address or Arb tools to address, then I do feel like the CU corps or the ArbCom would be the appropriate venue to handle them since the regular admin corps may be missing relevant evidence. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)21:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we have:
Civility concerns
Battleground concerns
Off-wiki coordination/UPE concerns
Concerns about accounts possibly having been handed off for use in this topic
Concerns about toxicity keeping uninvolved editors from engaging in the topic
Concerns about weaponizing processes
A mixture of these come up in almost every report here with mostly the same editors involved and AE simply isn't equipped to handle it. We should just refer it up to Arbcom, where there is a structure for many editors providing evidence and building complex cases. Piecemeal solutions are fine for the obvious bad actors and the simple cases but they don't work for entrenched long-term editors. And we should topic ban Icebear because that's what AE actually handles well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nishidani, I just provided a summary of what comes up in many of these AE reports. Looking at this report as an example, we have accusations unrelated to the report going in all directions. We're at the point where dealing with a report against an established editor, like yourself, has to take into account a laundry list of other considerations. We can take each incident in isolation or we can use the process that exists to address if there are paid editors intentionally baiting you, if there is a toxic environment, if there is an entrenched battleground mentality, to what extent are processes being weaponized. All of that has to be looked at together and AE isn't the place for it. If you look at my first response here, that's what it was about, doing something about the battleground that makes itself evident at almost every AE. Not topic banning you, only the person who made the report. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (again) the Icebear244 topic ban. They don't really edit in this area other than this sudden battleground-like rush to AE so I doubt they'll care. But warranted nonetheless. There's also merit in a more detailed investigation of the offwiki coordination/handed off accounts issue, for which there's a reasonable starting point of evidence. AE is not the ideal place but where is? Not sure the rest needs anything further at this point. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need do anything beyond TBANning the filer, and for the avoidance of doubt I don't think we need refer this to ARBCOM. I don't see an intractable problem here; I see an editor who, unable to get their way via good-faith discussion, is attempting to use AE to clear the decks of their opposition. A boomerang TBAN is the appropriate response. Given that this thread has spiraled I don't think it is the right place to evaluate anyone else's behavior either, but I find Levivich's diffs more concerning than anything posted by the OP, and would suggest a separate filing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting (as someone else did above) that the TBAN has also fallen by the wayside as Ice-bear has been blocked as a sock. Potential remaining issues include UPE/handed-off accounts, weaponisation of this noticeboard, and what further might be done to reduce the battleground approach of all "sides." However these are wider issues than Icebear's views on Nishidani, and it seems odd to piggyback their resolution on this specific complaint. Perhaps we can close this as no action without prejudice to pursuing those other issues elsewhere. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have collapsed the comments by the checkuser-confirmed accounts, which also includes the filer of the complaint. Per WP:PROJSOCK, editors are not permitted to use undisclosed alternate accounts to edit project space, and the special sanctions were implemented at least in part to stop exactly this sort of brigading behaviour, so these comments are invalid and should not be considered further. Some other editors have provided their own evidence regarding Nishidani's behaviour, though. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As with most everything in this area, this invariably becomes a mess. To the primary complaint: Can Nishidani be a little crabby? I think we all know the answer to that. Can he go overboard with that sometimes? Well, I've sanctioned him a couple of times myself. Is "a little crabby" the worst we have to contend with in the ARBPIA area? If that day ever came, it would be cause for celebration. Would the ARBPIA area be better off without Nishidani's participation? I'm not convinced of that at all. I am certainly not inclined to in any way reward people who compromise accounts and (presumably) use said compromised accounts to evade blocks or sanctions their other accounts are under, and to try and get other people sanctioned. So, I think close this without action, and then if an editor who is actually in good standing is willing to put their name on a complaint of this type, we'll evaluate that at that time. I would caution said editor that your own hands better be really clean indeed. SeraphimbladeTalk to me21:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, but I have no plans to weigh in substantively as I trust the great group of admin who are handling this. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the last stable version and implement consensus required. If we're trying to do an omnibus report, that's what Arbcom is for. I don't foresee any sanctions based on a single revert, and any examination will require looking at the behavior of named editors (or parties) in the topic area. Sounds like Arbcom. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've fully protected the article in the current version to allow for discussion. I've done it indefinitely so that the article doesn't auto unprotect itself but was intending it to last around a week so that editors can discuss in the various threads on the talk page. It's a normal admin action so anyone should feel free to modify it to something else (eg SFR's restore and consensus req) but I feel like we're at a point where some admin action is necessary. If edit warring continues after the protection is changed back to ECP (around a week) we can look at individual sanctions for those continuing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callanecc (talk • contribs)
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.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on July 3 2024 by IOHANNVSVERVS
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user has been reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding potential EC gaming here, July 7 2024. There has not been much response to that and since the reported user has been and continues to make so many changes and is currently engaged in so many talk page discussions, I am reporting it here in hopes of more swift action being taken. I commented at that thread about my concerns, being: "Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well." It seems quite clear this is an experienced user who has engaged in EC gaming and is therefore most likely a sock account that is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to push a point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, I made this report at AE so that an actual decision would be made, as the AN thread I predicted was likey to not go anywhere. If this report is closed and the AN thread fades out as it appears it has/will, then is there nothing further to be done? This is an issue that should be taken more seriously. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
If the complaint is about me being a sock account, then that is false. I could reveal and confirm my true identity if deemed necessary.
My account was first created when a university practical asked me to create a web page about a chemical compound in 2016. A couple weeks ago, I started to be interested in Wikipedia editing, and have edited over 150 pages, creating a few of them practically from scratch.
I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start.
I did not push an agenda but instead engaged in respectful and good-faith discussion on Talk pages. In a few cases, I conceded a point. The only complaint I got is that I use Benny Morris as my reference historian of choice. Whenever possible, I try to corroborate his claims using work by other scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amayorov (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I don't see a reason why we need to have a separate AE discussion from the AN discussion since it is the same primary complaint. Having the discussion in two places at once seems suboptimal from a coherence standpoint at best, and asking the other parent at worst. I recommend closing this with no action, and allowing the AN discussion to continue. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS: You have provided no diffs here to support your accusation of POV pushing aside from a live link to the AN discussion, and I just don't find the behavioral evidence of socking that you have presented in this thread to be anywhere near sufficient to warrant a sanction. If you have additional information, you can provide it at the AN thread (or, if related to socking, at WP:SPI). Closing with no action. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:41, 12 July 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.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on July 3 2024 by IOHANNVSVERVS
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
This user has been reported at the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding potential EC gaming here, July 7 2024. There has not been much response to that and since the reported user has been and continues to make so many changes and is currently engaged in so many talk page discussions, I am reporting it here in hopes of more swift action being taken. I commented at that thread about my concerns, being: "Account created in 2016 but first edit made a few days ago and quickly put in 500 edits, immediately jumps into Israeli-Palestinian conflict topic area, seemingly POV-pushing. Seems to be an experienced user as well." It seems quite clear this is an experienced user who has engaged in EC gaming and is therefore most likely a sock account that is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia but to push a point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IOHANNVSVERVS (talk • contribs) 20:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Red-tailed hawk, I made this report at AE so that an actual decision would be made, as the AN thread I predicted was likey to not go anywhere. If this report is closed and the AN thread fades out as it appears it has/will, then is there nothing further to be done? This is an issue that should be taken more seriously. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
If the complaint is about me being a sock account, then that is false. I could reveal and confirm my true identity if deemed necessary.
My account was first created when a university practical asked me to create a web page about a chemical compound in 2016. A couple weeks ago, I started to be interested in Wikipedia editing, and have edited over 150 pages, creating a few of them practically from scratch.
I’m interested in the IP history, about which I’ve read a lot. Since gaining extended privileges, I’ve made improvements to those articles. Those edits have arguably been better-sources than any of my other work, due to my having more knowledge to my having more knowledge on the topic. I do not deny that I wanted to contribute to these topics from the start.
I did not push an agenda but instead engaged in respectful and good-faith discussion on Talk pages. In a few cases, I conceded a point. The only complaint I got is that I use Benny Morris as my reference historian of choice. Whenever possible, I try to corroborate his claims using work by other scholars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amayorov (talk • contribs) 20:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
I don't see a reason why we need to have a separate AE discussion from the AN discussion since it is the same primary complaint. Having the discussion in two places at once seems suboptimal from a coherence standpoint at best, and asking the other parent at worst. I recommend closing this with no action, and allowing the AN discussion to continue. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@IOHANNVSVERVS: You have provided no diffs here to support your accusation of POV pushing aside from a live link to the AN discussion, and I just don't find the behavioral evidence of socking that you have presented in this thread to be anywhere near sufficient to warrant a sanction. If you have additional information, you can provide it at the AN thread (or, if related to socking, at WP:SPI). Closing with no action. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:41, 12 July 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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
17:35, July 4, 2024 First revert to restore unsourced and factually incorrect version of the article, claiming "Reverting to stable version until consensus can be reached". No policy based objection has been made, and it is diffuclt to imagine how any could be made to retain an innaccurate and unsourced version
19:52, July 4, 2024 Second revert several hours after the first, removing even more properly sourced details and corrections, including the correct date of death per both book sources they removed
19:34, December 30, 2023 Adds biased unsourced commentary of "refusing to accept the moral responsibility for the consequences of its actions and refusing to admit its warning was inadequate", amongst other disruptive changes
06:17, December 31, 2023 "A certain politically motivated sector of the userbase seem intent on attempting to abuse concepts...Politically motivated negationism intended to minimize the responsibility of a group for its own behaviour is not acceptable in an encyclopaedia"
16:25, December 31, 2023 "Your interest seems to be in whitewashing and not in documenting fact...Judging by your edits you are an Irish republican, and thus consider this to be an ideological struggle to whitewash groups you like...You do not care about the subject except as a vehicle for propaganda"
18:32, December 31, 2023 "I thought that would bait you. It appears you are confirming your biases, which are that you advocate for a violent non-state actor which claims to be a government; a claim nobody but their already convinced supporters believe. I can see it is of no utility arguing with you because you are already of a certain mindset, one that is unfalsifiable and automatically rejects any argument against it"
Editor is a barrier to article improvement, reverting basic factual corrections demanding supposed consensus be obtained to replace inaccurate unsourced material with accurate sourced material. Given their comment of ""Your interest seems to be in whitewashing and not in documenting fact" on December 31, 2023, it is impossible to understand their repeated deletion of properly sourced content without adequate explanation.
Important to note the RFC the IP started on the talk page is solely related to the lead of the article, and their reversal of straightforward factual, properly sourced corrections to unsourced material are a clear attempt to influence the result of the RFC, since the corrections to the main body/infobox will directly influence the wording of the lead. Kathleen's bike (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
False statements such as "claims about coincidental suffocation or heart failure as the primary cause of death and not the assault are purely conjecture and are not based the forensic evidence", when the post-mortem specifically gave three possible causes of death, skull fracture caused by being pistol-whipped, asphyxiation or heart attack.
Dismissal of reliable source claiming "This indicates the author of the article may not have been in command of the full details of the case" when saying natural causes (presumably the heart attack option suggested by post-mortem") as a possible cause of death
Reverting most of these changes with a misleading edit summary (note the RFC isn't concluded, and only covers the lead anyway)
As you know with 100% certainty (since you quoted the book in your post) Lost Lives says "Post-mortem reports showed he had two skull fractures, one of which could have caused death. Examination revealed it could have been caused by a blow from a Browning automatic pistol. The post-mortem suggested he could also have died from asphyxiation or a heart attack". It does not say the heart attack was caused by the assault. Kathleen's bike (talk) 22:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I have attempted to engage in constructive discussion but the above user has thus far been displaying very frustrating biases and expressing strange, bordering nonsensical, positions. I have sought to seek consensus for changes. 20:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)78.147.140.112 (talk)
Additional: I am the IP in question; my IP address changes whenever my (somewhat unreliable) router resets, as such I could not remain on a single IP constantly. BRMSF (talk) 22:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You yourself are contradicting the sources you provided; for example attempting to assert heart failure rather than physical assault; when the source you were relying on stated that these were possible alternative causes of death after mentioning the blunt force trauma injuries. I am not at all convinced you are acting in good faith. BRMSF (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are laser-focused on the possibility which makes the IRA look the least guilty, rather than acknowledging the other potential causes. One of the accused plead guilty to manslaughter, meaning that one of the perpetrators admitted responsibility in a court of law. Remember when you said a person does not get to "relitigate a criminal trial based on your own opinion of the events"? BRMSF (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have backed up everything I have said with sources, you just so happen to disagree with the sources, including the ones you offered. BRMSF (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC) Statements moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. SeraphimbladeTalk to me22:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural comment: An ANI discussion on this topic was opened be the accused party, regarding the filer at wp:ani#User:Kathleen's Bike. Also, I requested the page protection level suggested below.
I protected the page subsequent to the ANI report but before seeing this because they were both edit warring. If any admin thinks it's resolved, feel free to unprotect. StarMississippi00:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
This IP's first edit was to WP:ANI, which leads me to believe that this is logged out socking. ANI is project space, and logged out or alternate account participation there is not permitted. I'm rather inclined to block them given that. If the IP editor wants some other result, you will need to log in to your actual account. SeraphimbladeTalk to me14:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's at least Likely that all three of the IPs (including the two below) are the same user. Dynamic IPs are not inherently forbidden, but it meets the definitions of WP:PROJSOCK and WP:LOUTSOCK to take advantage of changing IP addresses to give the appearance of being multiple editors, and I think PROJSOCK compels an editor who edits from dynamic IPs to make an effort to disclose the connection. This user has not, and appears to have claimed the opposite on at least one occasion (see point 3 in the complaint). I'll leave it to the other reviewers here to determine if that merits a sanction. I saw no indication that they are also participating with an account. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that lying about not having previously made an edit is worthy of something. But if a stern warning to not WP:LOUTSOCK going forward is all that is needed to prevent that sort of disruption in the future, then that is all the something that we should pursue. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Seraphimblade. The IP editor can either use their regular account, or create one in the unlikely scenario that they are genuinely a new user. It is hard to AGF given their apparent attempt to deceive (see the sequence: [27], [28], [29]) when editing from other IPs including:
Now that the IP has created an account and the issue is being discussed on the article talkpage, I believe that this AE report can be closed for now with just a reminder/warning. I would advice both User:BRMSF and User:Kathleen's bike to tone down the rhetoric and be mindful not to bludgeon the RFC; best to state your respective case once (with sources) and then let others weigh in. Abecedare (talk) 16:30, 9 July 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.
22 June 2024 During an AFD likely to be redirected (which happened two days later), Aredoros87 heavily expands the article and says they will add the content elsewhere if the article is redirected
24 June 2024 Moves the AFD article content to this article, with a number of WP:NPOV violations, such as using the word "occupation" for a town (Shushi/Shusha) that wasn't part of the occupied regions
30 June 2024 Further POV pushing use of "occupation" for Shushi, with partisan low-quality sources
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
29 December 2023 Arbitration enforcement sanctions, including temporary AA ban and an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has reverted in any article related to Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed.
Despite still having an indefinite restriction requiring to obtain consensus to readd any content that has been reverted in AA or related conflict articles, Aredoros87 has violated it. In addition, they've been POV pushing and removing sourced content. Vanezi (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That cannot be "false" when there was never any consensus to include the contentious content. If Aredoros had discussed the sources on the talk page, instead of reverting in violation of their sanction and adding “3 new sources”, I would've pointed out that 2 of those sources are both by Fahrettin Kırzıoğlu who "probably never before has a single person in Turkey falsified history so massively".
Err, no, we don't have to. Citations in the lead are usually redundant because it's a summary of information in the body. Aredoros just removed cited information they didn't like. And it wasn’t added by a "random non-EC" user [31].
Aredoros clearly didn't just add sources, they added POV pushing.
Ditto, POV pushing with obviously partisan sources.
Again, if Aredoros adds the Shushi "occupation" POV pushing to the article after it already has a strong consensus to redirect, then copies that to another article after, then it's not just moving content. Vanezi (talk) 08:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
False. When the content was removed by Vanezi, I started a discussion on talk page.[33] He said "more sources would be needed"[34]. And I added 3 new sources for that specific content under the edit summary "added Kökçe version with extra sources per discussion".[35]
I removed an unsourced claim. Even if there is information in the body of the article, we still need to have references for the statements in the intro. This could have been restored with a proper reference. Deleting unsourced claims is not a violation. That particular page is being edited by a number of random non-EC, newly registered users. Even I had to request for protection[36]. This edit was also done by a person that I reported here[37]. Just one day after it's being closed, Vanezi made this report.
Not correct. The page was proposed to be deleted or redirected just because it was unsourced and duplicate as mentioned by the nominator.[38]. I added sources and left a comment saying: "I added sources and pics to all items in the list...Technically speaking, I would support redirecting,..If the consensus will be "Redirect", I will move the content as well. Otherwise, I will extend the article."[39]. In the end article was redirected, and I moved the content there.[40]
The result of the AFD was to redirect. That doesn't mean the sourced content cannot be reused in the redirected article.
I simply moved content from the deleted article, without checking the wording. If there's problem with the wording, Talk Page is the place Vanezi should discuss first. -- Aredoros | 17:53, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
1. Vanezi never challenged reliability of the sources. As you can see from the talk page[41], he complained about WP:WEIGHT, and asked for more sources, and I added. Please pay attention that, in this report, initially, Vanezi claimed that I re-added a content without a discussion, now he/she is challenging sources.
2. From MOS:LEADCITE: Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none.
3. From WP:DISCUSSAFD: If you wish for an article to be kept, you can directly improve the article to address the reasons for deletion given in the nomination which is what I did. If there's a problem with the sources Vanezi could start a discussion first.
4. On talk page, arguments should be presented first to challenge the sources.
5. As I mentioned in this edit summary (copy from the revision)[42] I just moved content from this revision[43] which was redirected without any discussion. Also, stating that Shusha was occupied is not POV pushing. Some international organizations, such as PACE, considered Nagorno-Karabakh an occupied territory. From PACE report: "Nagorno-Karabakh and the other occupied territories of Azerbaijan".[44]. We could have a discussion to decide whether to use "occupied" or "controlled", but Vanezi never started a discussion. Aredoros87 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. On 10/05, I started a discussion. On 17/05 Vanezi replied me saying more sources are needed. On 16/06 I found new ones and added. Why Vanezi didn't challenge the reliability of the sources for 18 days? What was he waiting for? Isn't it weird?
The user also ignored talk pages on other articles as well. Please see the conversation there. Vanezi just ignored section #3.
2. But there's no ref tag next to it. MOS:LEADCITE says controversial subjects may require many citations
3. All you mentioned in green text already exists in article. I just added missing part. And I want to note, the article was heavily edited by user who declared it's connection to the subject[45]. Originally this article had almost no critical information about Vardanyan, despite critical reports in major Western media. Aredoros87 (talk) 09:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
This seems to have gotten somewhat missed; ARBPIA threads like the one below have a bit of a habit of sucking all the air out of the room. I'll try to read through this when I can, but just commenting here to keep the bots at bay. SeraphimbladeTalk to me04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the diffs above before I saw SFR's post I came to the same conclusion that #1 is a violation of the restriction and that the editing to the Ruben Vardanyan article is problematic. It also worth noting that in the original thread which lead the sanction Aredoros87's editing of the Ruben Vardanyan article was a large part of the problem. I agree that a TBAN from AA-related topics is an appropriate way forward especially when considered in the context of WP:ARBAA3#Administrators encouraged. I'd also suggest noting that if a future appeal of that TBAN is successful it should come with a TBAN from Ruben Vardanyan. Given it was my original sanction I'm willing to do the TBAN but I'll wait a couple days for others to weigh in. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:58, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After reading your response I have decided to issue a topic ban from AA2. Whether you can excuse it or not this is a clear break of the consensus required restriction which requires you to seek consensus for challenged edits not to make them and hope for consensus. Regarding the other two, your reason does not justify the actions you took or are not relevant to the problem behind your editing.
This is a clear violation of their sanction to not re-add reverted content without consensus. This removal was clearly sourced in a section, and this fails NPOV as cherry picking and is a overly-close paraphrase from the source, which says (machine translated) "Why Ruben Vardanyan Can See the Future" was the title of an article published in GQ magazine in 2017. In it, Vardanyan is portrayed as a philanthropist and visionary, which is what he tried to portray himself as in the 2010s, after he made his fortune in the 1990s. During those years, he launched charity projects, invested in the Skolkovo business school, where, according to his idea, personnel for Russian business should be forged, and built a school in Dilijan, Armenia, with a unique educational methodology that should “unite people, nations and cultures in the name of peace and a sustainable future.” The source runs nearly 5000 words. I see a topic ban as a reasonable response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:15, 11 July 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.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
12 June 2024 Adds in WP:WIKIVOICE that the perpetrators of a missile strike on civilians were the Armed Forces of Ukraine, complete violation of WP:DUE.
27 June 2024 Uses Twitter/X and other non WP:RS to claim the deaths of volunteers in Ukrainian military unit.
18 June 2024 Uses Facebook to reference another death on the same article as above
13 June 2024 Uses butchered Facebook reference to name commander of Ukrainian military unit.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
21 February Blocked by El C for persistent addition of unsourced content.
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 April 2023
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Salfanto appears to have chronic issues with the WP:VERIFY, WP:DUE and WP:SYNTH policies. Aside from the above cited diffs, their edits on Human wave attack where they persistently inserted content about Ukraine using human wave attacks using Russian state media sources and synthesis of other references (such as in this diff) showcase their disregard to policy in favour to I suppose WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS about them percieving that content about Russia is not ″neutral″.
The eagerness to continue using poor sources like social media to claim the deaths of individuals even after receiving a block is not only disturbing but to me indicates that this editor should not be editing in this topic, if at all about living people in general.
In response to JDiala: After editing for over two years and recieving countless notices about these policies, I don't think the ″new editor″ excuse flies anymore. We're all new at some point, but you're still expected to start following guidelines when they have been pointed out to you. Not even a block got the point across in this case, so either there is an inability or unwillingess to edit in line with policy. Your second point seems like a bit of a tangent, we're here to discuss the editor being reported, not about project-wide issues, both inexperienced and experienced editors can face consequences when engaging in POV pushing, which I would think you would know given that you have a topic ban. --TylerBurden (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Salfanto You have been continuing to use Twitter/X as a source for adding content claiming deaths of WP:BLP, and that is well after you have been both informed about and blocked for referencing policies. TylerBurden (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support an indef block as discussed below, since they are continuing to make the same kind of edits even while this report is up, seen for example here. The source makes no mention of desertion (abandonment of military duty without permission) yet Salfanto adds their own WP:SYNTH about it. They either do not care or do not understand referencing policies. TylerBurden (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
I've already been told about the Facebook sourcing and have since stopped using Facebook as a source. It would help if Wikipedia puts them on the depreciated sources list. Salfanto (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Comment moved to own section. Please comment only in this section. SeraphimbladeTalk to me23:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indisputable that Salfanto's sourcing does not meet our standards. It should be noted however that Salfanto is a rather new editor, with the overwhelming majority of his edits having taken place in the last eight months. Salfanto's conduct strikes me as trout-worthy and a learning experience for him, and a glance at his edit history indicates that notwithstanding some mistakes he is here to build an encyclopedia.
The topic area suffers from more serious issues like persistent low-level POV pushing. I think there's a structural problem in that low-level POV pushing by established editors is far harder to identify and prosecute than comparatively minor mistakes by inexperienced editors like ocassional 1RR or RS violations. The former is ultimately more pernicious to the project. JDiala (talk) 11:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The user has continued to make misleading and dubiously-sourced edits within the topic area in just the past few hours, asserting here that several foreign fighters killed in action were the commanders of units supposedly called the "1st Rifle Platoon", "2nd Rifle Platoon", and "3rd Recon Platoon", despite no such term existing in the cited articles. I can only conclude that these alleged military unit names are either completely fabricated by Salfanto or perhaps drawn from some "phantom" source the user for whatever reason chose not to reference; the association of the deceased individuals with the alleged military units remains unexplained in either scenario. In the same edit the user asserts that Ukraine's 22nd Brigade was a "belligerent" in the 2023 counteroffensive citing an article that claimed the brigade was, at the time of publication, either training in the relative safety of northern or western Ukraine, or lingering in some staging area behind the main line of contact, waiting for the Ukrainian general staff to decide when and where to deploy them and had yet to participate in any sort of hostilities. As a frequent contributor to the topic area, based on my observations of this user's editing patterns, edits like these are the rule and not the exception. SaintPaulOfTarsus (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Salfanto, I'd be interested to hear from you here. I see you were blocked on 15 May for consistently using poor sources or not citing any at all. Here, we have the first edit citing no sources (and which seems to contradict what the article said at the time), and three more edits citing Facebook or Twitter. If the block didn't get the point across, I'm not sure what else to do here, but I think it's pretty clear we need to do something. I certainly don't think this editor needs to continue editing in the ARBEE area, but I'm not convinced a topic ban there will do anything more than move the problem elsewhere. SeraphimbladeTalk to me18:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think indef for sourcing issues as a normal admin action, until they can make a convincing unblock request that addresses the sourcing issues and demonstrates they understand WP:RS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JDiala: WP:CTBE is unfortunately ambiguous as to whether it applies to all bans (including topic bans) or merely site bans; however the main point of that section of policy is that it seeks to avoid a "Gravedancing" scenario in which an editor can mock, belittle, or otherwise uncivilly engage in taunting a banned user *who is unable to respond or seek redress.* Pointing out the existence of a prior topic ban as evidence of a user having had opportunity for understanding that editors can face consequences when engaging in POV pushing, doesn't strike me as the kind of conduct WP:CTBE was intended to regulate. ⇒SWATJesterShoot Blues, Tell VileRat!02:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem is consistently poor sourcing across their contributions, only some of which happen to be in WP:ARBEE, then I think we have a broader problem than can be addressed by this remedy. And even recent creations (like this one on an event in Germany) have used deprecated and other unreliable sources in inappropriate ways. The user either needs to be given a final warning and explanation on reliable sourcing, or they need some sort of block until they acknowledge and can demonstrate that they understand the policy. I lean towards the former. If a block is performed, U don't think this should be an AE action, since it's based on the user's broader behavior and limiting appeals here seems to be counter to our aim of getting the user to understand sourcing better. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)04:06, 12 July 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.
Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 July 2024
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
I gave the CT awareness alert after noticing a problematic history of edits in the topic area, including Special:Diff/1234357835. Today's edit to Destiny (streamer) linked above left me speechless, though. Dadude sandstorm is incapable of contributing productively to this topic area and possibly beyond. DanCherek (talk) 02:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
My sincere apologies for this lapse in discipline. I got annoyed seeing the dismissive comment, which when added to the fact that the comment was from an IP user, incensed me. I offer to redact that comment/edit it to be more conducive to maintaining a good atmosphere on wikipedia.
On the other hand, I strongly feel those changes to the Destiny article + the edit summary are nothing better than what such a subject deserves. Having openly outed himself as a quasi-fascist by supporting political assassinations and murder within a day, the article needs to be more strongly worded. while i do admit the (objective correct but inappropriate) mention of 'cuck' was the wrong thing to do, the rest of the changes were but simply stating his actions from the last 24 hours.
I'm assuming it was the rather unseemly (although might i remind you, factually correct) mention of 'cuck' which left you speechless. I apologize as it was done in a moment of haste and anger after going through the subject's tweets. The aforementioned 'problematic edit' however, was not malicious, but simply a statement of fact as at that moment, the 'staged' tweet was circling around democrat circles, while the 'inside job'/other conspiracy theories by Republicans/right-wingers had been mentioned in the article, from what I can remember.
This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Blocked indef as a normal admin action for BLP vios and NPA. No issue with an AP2 TBAN too if other admins think that might be useful to have if there's an unblock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is fairly boneheaded and aggressive to add "left-wing extremist" with no citation to the list of descriptions in the article of a streamer, but I guess it is something that could conceivably be done in good faith by somebody totally unfamiliar with our policies. I feel like following it up with "cuck" is not, and this is far from the only obviously deliberate act of trolling. Like, what is this? What is this? You cannot just accuse people of grotesquely heinous crimes and then have the reference be a shrug. I think people really need to understand that when they have a Wikipedia account they really are editing the article, in real time, for the whole world -- it's not like it is some kind of joke site and then we have a separate part that's the real Wikipedia. This is the only one. If someone cannot be trusted not to write insanely libelous stuff about people into their own encyclopedia articles because you feel like it, it is crucial that we do not have them around with access to the edit button. I am opposed to this guy being unblocked. jp×g🗯️12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that adding "cuck" to the first line indicates a deliberate act of trolling, as does this edit.With respect to this edit: before Rosenbaum was killed by Rittenhouse, he wasconvicted on multiple counts of sexual contact with a minor (according to Snopes, the minors were boys between ages 9 and 11) and was found guilty on disciplinary charges of asssault and arson while behind bars. And while the edit appears to not be libelous, per se, I think that the relevant principle that we cannot just accuse people of grotesquely heinous crimes and then have the reference be a shrug is something the user should have been familiar with 300ish edits in and after havingreceived multiple warnings to this effect. If the user is to be unblocked, I would want them to explain in very clear terms what their understanding of our minimum referencing standards are, as well as an explanation as to their state of mind during the edits that have been brought up here. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)14:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I mean is that regardless of whether it's true it needs a source, it can't just be "trust me bro". jp×g🗯️06:36, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
