Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions
KhndzorUtogh (talk | contribs) |
Undid revision 1197985870 by CollationoftheWilling (talk) rvt WP:ECR violation |
||
Line 370: | Line 370: | ||
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. --> |
<!-- When closing this request (once there is a consensus) use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}} if at AE, or an archive/discussion box template if on AN, inform the user on their talk page and note it in the contentious topics log below where their sanctions is logged. --> |
||
* Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constantly_deleted_content_without_discussion|the ANI thread]] to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1196779108 You are clearly anti-Israel]). [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
* Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/[[Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Constantly_deleted_content_without_discussion|the ANI thread]] to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greater_Palestine&diff=prev&oldid=1196779108 You are clearly anti-Israel]). [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC) |
||
==ScottishFinnishRadish== |
|||
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small> |
|||
===Request concerning ScottishFinnishRadish=== |
|||
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|CollationoftheWilling}} 17:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
|||
; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|ScottishFinnishRadish}}<p>{{ds/log|ScottishFinnishRadish}}</p> |
|||
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#SECTION]] |
|||
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---> |
|||
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics/Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_conflict |
|||
; [[WP:DIFF|Diffs]] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it : |
|||
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as [[WP:NPA|personal attacks]], or groundless or [[vexatious]] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.--> |
|||
#[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Red_Sea_crisis&diff=prev&oldid=1197983540 today] Removed large amount of text from the comments section through revert, then reverted back once by me, and then reverted a second time by him. |
|||
; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any : |
|||
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.--> |
|||
#[http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation |
|||
#[http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation |
|||
;If [[Wikipedia:Contentious topics|contentious topics restrictions]] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see [[WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics]]): |
|||
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. --> |
|||
*Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. |
|||
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. |
|||
*Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on [http://Difflink1 Date] by {{admin|Username}}. |
|||
*Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [http://Difflink1 Date] (see the system log linked to above). |
|||
*Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on [http://Difflink1 Date] |
|||
*Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
*Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on [http://Difflink1 Date]. |
|||
*Placed a {{t|Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page. |
|||
*Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic. |
|||
; Additional comments by editor filing complaint : |
|||
<!-- Add any further comment here --> |
|||
This person removed an edit request and numerous comments by me on a Talk Page by revert. I reverted it saying there was no reason or justification provided, and he reverted a second time. An intermediate editor did not care about my text on the TalkPage. |
|||
; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : |
|||
<!-- Please notify the user against whom you request enforcement of the request (you may use {{subst:AE-notice|thread name}}), and then replace this comment with a diff of the notification. The request will normally not be processed otherwise. --> |
|||
<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. ---> |
|||
===Discussion concerning ScottishFinnishRadish=== |
|||
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small> |
|||
====Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish==== |
|||
====Statement by (username)==== |
|||
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. --> |
|||
===Result concerning ScottishFinnishRadish=== |
|||
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.'' |
|||
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. --> |
|||
* |
Revision as of 18:02, 22 January 2024
Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
CanterburyUK
CanterburyUK has been indefinitely blocked by Tamzin, so nothing really left to do here. If CanterburyUK wishes to appeal, they may do so via the normal process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning CanterburyUK
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons
This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media. The information they are including is excessively long, poorly sourced, heavily reliant on opinion pieces and direct quotations (many of which are not cited). There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV. Given the editor is blocked from Jordan Peterson, they appear to have prior issues editing BLP issues. They were also recently warned by an editor about edit warring at Konstantin Kisin. The editor appears to struggle with placing and using citations and identifying appropriate sources for BLP articles. I'm not advocating for any specific remedy, but I do not want to catch a block for reverting or similar in the A-I conflict area so I would appreciate an admin's eyes on it. For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning CanterburyUKStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by CanterburyUKApologies that I am late commenting here. Taking item (5) first: the Brendan_O'Neill_(columnist) pageUser:Vladimir.copic reverted without using the Talk page - his revert comment was: "I do not see a DUE case for this". This was not helpful - because a superficial read of the paragraph directly above the one reverted: is equally open to that criticism; yet was left intact by them. I have today now asked on the Talk page, for explanation. In the 4 days since they reverted, I have not reverted back. (Off topic: I would prefer it if User:Vladimir.copic would use the page Talk when he reverts me in several pages. It encourages dialogue rather than what is currently feeling combative.) (B) Items 1-4: the Owen Jones pageOff-Topic: Vladimir.copic' has not added any words to the page since at least 2018. Neither has Aquillion (unless my search was mistaken) In December in Talk I initiated a section about lack of new content. I notice on Jan 12th that another editor raised the same issue to my December one, they wrote: "the page lacks content. I notice when edits are made to add content they are reverted, the article has stagnated...Subjects he is active on.. added by various users, result in reverts here" I have replied there - at length and invite this Arbitration process to read that. Noteworthy is that 4 editors including me wanted to keep the Hamas section (they made small edits to it) versus only 2 against (Aquillion and @Vladimir.copic). I request the Arbitration process to notice that I have not pursued long edit wars: I have let those two users revert my content after an initial day or two push-and-shove. Re (1),2,3 User:Vladimir.copic writes: > This editor seems intent on adding information about a Youtube video concerning the current war in Gaza by journalist Owen Jones and the reaction to it in media. Not just me - 3 other editors were happy for that content to be there - they all made small edits to that text. > .. many of which are not cited Not true - checking now, only 1 was not sourced. The Editor could have reverted just that one - instead of all. > There is also the inclusion of information unrelated to the video which appears to try to push a certain POV. I myself deleted that section within 24 hours of the editor flagging it up. Regards the WP:DAILYEXPRESS mention - the article I quoted was by a notable person Andrew Neill not an unknown or gossip or etc journalist. - so it seemed OK to over-ride the blanket ban on that newspaper. Re (4) This claim is misleading regards date - I posted on Talk BEFORE I posted any new content, back in December, not January: Has nothing of note happened to Jones the last few years? Yet User:Vladimir.copic did not enter the Talk page when he first reverted. It was me that took the initiative to encourage the dialogue. I ask the process to assume good faith. I leave pages better than they were before (eg
PS and off-topic:- 'Vladimir.copic' has said in this page 'For full disclosure, I will note that this issue came to my attention through Owen Jones posting about this on his X account.' Which was correct re Etiqutte (Recognize your own biases and keep them in check.) Given that they follow Jones, yet they have not found anything in recent years of following Jones that is worth adding to the wiki page -given how sparse it's content is? I don't follow Jones, and yet I have done more to add helpful content to the page. PPS: and off-topic: Wikipedia:Etiquette - Un-expert editors like myself would find it more welcoming here if the 2 editors above applied this: simple things like : in the case when reverting a block of 5 or 6 sources that clearly took the editor time to source - maybe (a) to revert with positive words first 'thanks for taking the effort to find these sources..' and (b) immediately start a section on Talk about the subject. Quoting from the guidance: "Give praise when it's due. Everybody likes to feel appreciated, especially in an environment that often requires compromise. Drop a friendly note on users' talk pages". I have not had friendly notes from them. And: "Avoid reverts whenever possible" Yet reverts seems to be the main activity of the editors on this page: PPPS - Off-topic: other posts by Vladimir.copic, may fail the UNDUE test he applies to the Jones page more strictly: he created a whole heading here for just one issue: Moved from above section What date was his Tweet? what did he say? CanterburyUK (talk) 13:17, 14 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning CanterburyUK
|
Mkstokes
Mkstokes is indefinitely topic banned from making edits related to Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff, broadly construed. TarnishedPath is warned to remain civil and to refrain from future edit warring. Both the topic ban and the warning will be logged as Arbitration Enforcement sanctions under WP:NEWBLPBAN. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:51, 22 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Mkstokes
Firstly, I need to apologise. I could have saved much disruption if I had warned this editor of CTOP earlier and also if I had brought their disruption here earlier when it became apparent that they had no intention of listening to any guidance when informed about WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL. By not taking the correct action fast enough I have been part of the problem. A review of Mkstokes contribution history indicates that between 28 Dec 2006 and 27 Sep 2014 they only edited on 13 occasions. The overwhelming majority of their edits since 21 December 2023 (after a long break in editing) have involved either Nick McKenzie or Peter Schiff and have been aimed at inserting Nick McKenzie's part into a lawsuit that Schiff ultimately won regardless of whether secondary sources mention McKenzie at all or just in passing. They have alternatively argued between attempting to use court transcripts and unreliable sources regardless of WP:BLP, WP:BLPSOURCES, WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:RSP and using reliable secondary sources which only mention McKenzie in passing, and do not mention that he defamed Schiff regardless of WP:OR. When I've removed material per WP:BLP/WP:BLPUNDEL and advised Mkstokes of this they have sought to sidestep the onus on them to obtain consensus prior to re-inserting the material by assuming bad faith at my end. Mkstokes is clearly a WP:SPA, their behaviour highlights WP:TENDENTIOUS at best and a desire to WP:RGW. TarnishedPathtalk 14:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning MkstokesStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MkstokesA review of my contribution history is not dispositive and can easily be explained by the fact that not a single one of my previous edits was disputed. Thus this is my first experience in dealing with contentious topics. So I'm not even sure why this needs to be a case. As to my aim to insert data related to Nick McKenzie, deciding that a news source mentions the subject's name "in passing" is an editorial opinion, not a fact. The fact is that I've noted at least 2 secondary sources that mention his name while not determining whether if it's in passing or not because it is not my place to make that determination. One source says "...compiled by journalists Nick McKenzie, Charlotte Grieve and Joel Tozer..." and the other source says "Schiff's lawsuit, which was filed against Nine, The Age Company and McKenzie and other reporters including Charlotte Grieve, claimed the October 2020 broadcast, titled 'Operation Atlantis’ defamed him by implying that he "facilitated the theft of millions of dollars from the Australian people” by assisting customers to commit offshore tax fraud." The RfC associated with the Nick McKenzie article poses the following question: "Should this material be removed such that the established consensus becomes that this subject matter is not covered in any way in this article moving forward until such time that alternative consensus is established?" Then, without obtaining consensus for this question, the person creating the RfC removed or updated the article. I've only just learned now that the user shouldn't have asked to obtain consensus for removal, but given the context of the RfC it is clear that I was trying to stop an editor from going forward with unsupported edit. The other editor has seemingly created their own restrictions on reliable secondary sources. These are as follows:
I was not notified that the video source was unreliable. Rather, the other editor said YouTube videos MUST come from "a verified account of an official news organization." The WP:RSPYT policy actually says "Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization..." Such as means "for example," not what the other editor suggests. UPDATE: I will accept any ban that you decide to place upon my account. I honestly don't care anymore. Do as you wish. Mkstokes (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username)Result concerning Mkstokes
|
KhndzorUtogh
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Request concerning KhndzorUtogh
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Parishan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
- Sanction or remedy to be enforced
- Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 1 January 2024 The sentence "Azerbaijan regains control of all of Nagorno-Karabakh" added by a third-party user;
- 3 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh changes "regains" to "takes" and leaves a note on the talkpage;
- 5 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh's edit reverted, with a discussion ensuing on the talkpage;
- 18 January 2024 KhndzorUtogh reverts back while the discussion is in progress and nowhere near reaching consensus.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 28 December 2023 KhndzorUtogh is currently subject to an indefinite arbitration enforcement sanction requiring them to obtain consensus before readding any reverted content in AA3 articles. They have also been warned not to engage in battleground editing.
- 9 January 2024 The sanction conditions were clarified to them (on their own request) just a few days ago.
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
KhndzorUtogh narrowly escaped an indefinite topic ban following the most recent AE request addressing their battleground behaviour, but unfortunately continues to display the same editing pattern that earned them the one-revert sanction they have just violated.
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
- [2]
Discussion concerning KhndzorUtogh
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by KhndzorUtogh
3 January 2024 is not a revert, it is a general copyediting diff, all of the changes of which I explained on the talkpage for Ken Aeron, the user that edited 1 January 2024. Ken never replied, instead Parishan later did. The 5 January 2024 edit by Parishan (who is the un-named editor) was only a partial revert; I didn't receive a notification that I was reverted and hadn't realized that I had been. I also wasn't notified Parishan had replied to me four days later on 9 January because I didn't get an alert. By the time I noticed it on 18 January, I didn't remember a one-word change out of a much larger copyediting edit I made for a different user. Since I wasn't notified of Parishan's revert, it appeared that the word was never changed. The 18 January 2024 edit came after I posted several sources for it on the talk page, so it had seemed like a single bold edit I had made, in line with WP:BRD.
And it seems like incredibly bad faith and WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality for Parishan to link a discussion I had with Callanec showing several examples of me being careful to adhere to the rules, and then somehow conclude "continues to display the same editing pattern". For example, I followed the advice given here to the letter on the Blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh article. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk: This article had a massive amount of activity within the first few days of January (42 revisions by 13 users). I was reviewing every change and copyediting where needed, and unfortunately amid all the other changes, I forgot that I had already changed this one word. The confusion also came from interacting with two different users. After I copy edited several changes made by Ken Aeron, that user never disputed anything in my edit, so I must've made a mental note this issue was resolved. Then Parishan made a manual change; not a revert, so I never got the "Your edit on X was reverted" notification. When I changed the word on 18 January, I thought I was changing it for the first time as WP:BRD allows. I wouldn't have changed the word otherwise, I'm being very careful not to get into an edit war. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning KhndzorUtogh
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- I'm looking at the talk page of 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh as it was at the time that you made this edit. I'm plainly not seeing consensus in the relevant discussion (i.e. the NPOV issues section of the talk). The guidance given by Callanecc on your talk page, particularly
An editor adds something to an article. You revert/change what they added. An editor reverts you. You can't revert their edit without a consensus
, makes the restriction quite clear.@KhndzorUtogh: In light of the above, would you be willing to explain why you made the edit to re-insert your preferred language oftakes
even though it had been reverted toregains
by another editor prior to your doing so? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:57, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Eastern but not so Middle
Indefinitely blocked by ScottishFinnishRadish. Galobtter (talk) 01:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC) |
---|
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. Request concerning Eastern but not so Middle
Notified by me of the sanctions in this topic area on at 07:53, 29 December 2023
This user has been attempting to game ECP by making hundreds of dummy edits (see their userpage history [3], where they have made over 100 trivial edits) in an attempt to inflate their edit count. Their edits regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict have been combative e.g. [4] (made before contentious topics notification) [5] (made after being notified of the contentious topics). I really think that they lack a suitable temprament for this topic area, and I would rather this problem be nipped in the bud before they make enough dummy edits to pass the ECP barrier. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Eastern but not so MiddleStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Eastern but not so MiddleStatement by (username)Result concerning Eastern but not so Middle
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sakiv
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.
To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).
- Appealing user
- Sakiv (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Sakiv (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- Sanction being appealed
- Sixth-month topic ban
- Administrator imposing the sanction
- ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Notification of that administrator
- diff
Statement by Sakiv
There was a discussion about the Greater Palestine article that began on January 6, when I brought up the topic of moving the article that began in August. Onceinawhile promptly replied in a non-objective manner and began to personalize the discussion, always referring to me with the word “you.” The same editor had agreed to a rename to PLO and Jordan. Notice that in the history of the article, there is an IP address that suddenly entered the discussion and described me as not being there to build an encyclopedia unlike Onceinawhile. Days passed and the discussion died down for a week, specifically on January 12, when the aforementioned editor nominated the article for deletion. At the same time, as a right to save any article that one of the editors deems worthy of survival, I have attempted to develop it in good faith and constructively. After several hours, editor Zero000 comes and removes content that they find problematic without discussion. I admit that my role was not completely good, but what happened was an accumulation that the other party also contributed to. This reply was very unnecessary and is this a response that helps make the encyclopedia a place for cooperation?. On the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, I acknowledge that I was supposed to notify the two editors involved, but there was a discussion that was ongoing and it was not clear what was the appropriate place - dispute resolution or a third opinion. My goal was an administrative measure not to delete texts from an article until the picture became clear. I didn't get any warnings about complaints due to my "battleground edditing". Most of my edits revolve around football and season statistics. My edits bear witness that I stay away from sharp and uncontrolled debate and adhere to neutrality.Sakiv (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
- I received one message on my discussion page and after that I did not say anything about the topic. I am committed to the decision and the topic revolves around that article alone. There are no complaints about my contributions to other articles. I acknowledge that what I did in the Administrators' noticeboard was not what was expected, but that was the basis for the emotions that followed the heated discussion of the article and the discussion of deletion. Sakiv (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish
Statement by Zero0000
I won't repeat everything I wrote at ANI, except to note that here again Sakiv demonstrates a serious OWN problem with that article (Greater Palestine, now merged). Every disagreement with his/her changes is taken personally no matter how much they are explained.
Also, I have never deleted anything from that article without explanation so that charge is false. On the other hand, with only the pseudo-explanation "restore valuable information", this edit of Sakiv undid 10 months worth of edits. Zerotalk 03:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)
Statement by (involved editor Star Mississippi)
- While I supported the topic ban in the referenced discussion, I also think their conduct post TB shows that Sakiv got off too lightly. Continuing to re-litigate the old fights is not conducive to collaborative editing and would support a broader block. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC) NB: not a frequent AE editor, please re-format me if needed. Star Mississippi 20:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sakiv
Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.
Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)
Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)
Result of the appeal by Sakiv
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- Spending your appeal attacking other editors is not going to get you anywhere. I think it would have been helpful if ScottishFinnishRadish had linked to a few diffs/the ANI thread to explain the topic ban, but the ANI definitely provides enough examples of poor conduct to justify a TBAN (e.g. You are clearly anti-Israel). Galobtter (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)