Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

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}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Zaathras

Zaathras is warned against edit warring, especially on BLP material and material related to the post-1992 politics of the United States. Additionally, Marjorie Taylor Greene is now subject to the consensus required editing restriction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Zaathras

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Repeated edit-warring in a BLP in violation of WP:EW and WP:ONUS

21:02, 20 April 2023
20:58, 20 April 2023
20:56, 20 April 2023 (yes thats three reverts violating ONUS in a BLP in 6 minutes)
02:41, 15 April 2023

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:37, 11 June 2022 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is super basic, an editor is seeking to enforce their view through edit-warring, repeatedly restoring material that a quick look at the talk page shows there is no consensus for its inclusion. This is discussed at Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Comments_on_Teixeira, where among other issues Zaathras calls another living person a "traitor" (without that person having ever been convicted of treason), shows five editors opposing or being unsure of inclusion, and three editors in favor. Yes, not a vote, but there being no consensus for inclusion means the material stays out. Zaathras apparently feels like ONUS does not apply to him or her, see the edit summary here. The page has since been protected, but this method of edit-warring to enforce a personal position violates the arbitration decision, and given this is also a BLP I feel this should be met with sanctions.

Also note their response to the AE notification here in which they continue with their MO of making personal attacks. nableezy - 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You dont need a 1RR to prohibit edit-warring. Maybe the user would find a personal 0RR a good way of learning how to properly edit in restricted topics without resorting to edit-warring and personal attacks. And that below comment appears to be an admission of disruptive editing, as Users who edit in their preferred version of an article while there is an active, ongoing discussion is exactly what they were doing. nableezy - 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Continuing with the personal attacks here is all sorts of special, and Ill note Zaathras is also aware of the restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 22:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, pretty sure Im the uninvolved editor in question, and also at a loss as to how Zaathras was baited in to edit-warring. But glad there is agreement that they were indeed edit-warring. nableezy - 00:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im sorry what? I saw an editor repeatedly restore edits that they acknowledged had no consensus for. I saw a talk page in which even editors and admins who can quite easily be identified as not being in the pro-MTG contingent saying that this material should not be included. You cant just force in edits you want, you cannot just abuse the first mover advantage the you think you have with the 3RR. Zaathras was edit-warring against WP:ONUS while claiming the opposite of what ONUS requires, that the removal is what needs consensus. If you had editors that actually told their own side when they were editing poorly this topic area wouldnt be half as bad as it is. But you would rather defend your own sides edit-warriors because it is to your advantage to have their reverts in these articles. If you feel like I was edit warring for having made two reverts against one person while citing the policy that supports my reverts (WP:ONUS with a majority of the talk page opposing inclusion, then the user having made 3 reverts in 8 minutes against multiple users with a minority of the talk page backing inclusion while editing against that policy was definitionally edit-warring and should be sanctioned. You cannot simply force your favored versions in to an article. That is WP:DE. nableezy - 03:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black Kite I think Kcmastrpc was reverting too much as well, though they did have both ONUS and a talk page majority on their side here. If this had been on AOC's page and I say Kcmastrpc reverting 4 times to push in material that was objected to by a majority of the talk page I would have reported them instead. But I dispute I was tag-teaming anything. I saw this whole sequence play out, and like in a bunch of other pages saw a contingent of edit-warriors trying to push in to an article material that did not have consensus. That should be dealt with, but sure, Kcmastrpc reverted too much. I dont think I did, but feel free to ban me from AP2 too if youd like. nableezy - 15:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok this is just absurd with Valjean making absolutely bonkers claims that I am not a "mainstream or experienced" editor (when I have >10x the edits of Zaathras) and that I needed to convince a minority that material should not be pushed in against the majority of editors on the talk page. Is anybody questioning why editors like Ianmacm (46k edits), Muboshgu (admin, 104th most active editor all time), Slatersteven (62k edits) all questioned inclusion? But no, I needed to convince editors lol. I knew ARBPIA had issues with factionalism and excusing poor behavior when it is to your advantage, but this is on another level. nableezy - 15:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]; SPECIFICO youre dissembling, but not very well. ONUS is part of V, and on top of that CON is likewise policy, and so is EW. All of those things are violated when an editor repeatedly pushes in material without consensus. And the thing of it is, even editors on your side of the ideological divide (waves hand, and also points to the editors that objected on the talk page) objected. But the ONUS is not a prescriptive policy like V misses where ONUS redirects to. nableezy - 18:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Zaathras

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 Zaathras

The article is not under a 1RR or a "You may not reinstate a reverted edit for 24h" restriction that I saw. Users who edit in their preferred version of an article while there is an active, ongoing discussion about said content is what I consider to be disruptive here. There was not a BLP concern with the content, the discussion revolved around a question of due or undue weight, therefore, IMO, removal in mid-discussion (esp. this user who had no prior involvement in the discussion) was a quite naked act of bad faith. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe BLPRESTORE applies here, as the content is not damaging or damning to the subject if left in the article. I do not wish to get too far into the weeds of discussion on the content itself, but briefly, this is about whether the subject's public tweets in support of an alleged leaker/whistleblower. The subject publicly supports the leaker, so being linked to him in her bio is not a "negative", in the BLP sense. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "personal attack", sorry, but this user has apparently long been allowed to vice support of a terrorist organization on their user page. That the wording is extremely careful and couched is immaterial. We all know what it means. Zaathras (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kcmastrpc

I was involved in this conflict, I felt the initial two reverts on April 15 were WP:GOODFAITH, at which point I'd backed off to let the conversation develop for roughly 5 days at which point it began to settle down. Before taking any action, I requested input from other editors and TFD suggested we revert unless any other major developments surfaced. In my judgement I felt consensus had not been reached, and while my primary concern was WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, there were aspects I felt were completely WP:UNDUE especially with regards to Liz Chaney's comments. Nevertheless, as other admins have pointed out, WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS apply here since the material in dispute was never stable nor gained consensus through discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO In addition to what some could consider WP:ASPERSIONS being casted in the talk page by the same editor we're discussing here, you've brought up an interesting action completely unrelated to this incident that other editors called out as excessive, all while making a significant and still uncorrected error in your claims that I was an uninvolved editor AND the claim that Zaathras had not been involved in this edit dispute from the very beginning as they were the first individual to undo my initial reversion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black_Kite I'm still a relatively new editor here and by strict reading of WP:3RR I don't feel like I was in the wrong since my two sequential reverts were several days apart, however, if other editors and admins feel I stepped over a line I apologize and regardless I'll be more cognoscente of my actions in the future. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Valjean perhaps you could take a moment to see that I was editing based on the fact that the conversation had reached an inflection point, which hasn't really changed in substance even to this very moment. Based on the consensus on the talk page (or lack thereof), it was clear to me that the content was disputed and should have been removed per WP:ONUS. Perhaps you see things differently, but I'd ask that you take a moment to take a deeper look at the situation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Am I correct that the editor you appear to be referencing as the uninvolved reverter was @Kcmastrpc:? That editor had been edit warring this content before Zaathras' involvement and is currently blocked regarding another FoxNews-adjacent page. I left a note on the article talk page in the hope that editors there will provide some context to these events. Also, I took a look at Zaathras previous CT sanction. He restored valid content that was removed without by @Mr Ernie: who gave no reason and did not engage on talk and Zathraas' edit was not challenged by any other editor. Zaathras' edit there did indeed have consensus. I'm surprised to see that he was sanctioned, but the page was fairly chaotic due to persistent Republican and right wing media coverage of the subject matter. In the current complaint, while Zaathras reacted poorly by taking the bait and edit warring, the behavior is hardly egregious enough for a draconian sanction such as 0RR, or anything more than a week's page block. FWIW, Zaathras is one of the best-informed and generally constructive editors active in the most contentious politics articles, and his contributions are based on mainstream sourcing and policy. The tone of this complaint feels a bit like weaponizing an unfortunate but harmless misstep. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith, I think 0RR/Consensus Required is contradictory. The best page restriction is 24-BRD, which has worked well at many difficult AP pages. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy and SFR, there was already an edit war in progress and I would say Nableezy was part of that. I also did not consider citing WP:ONUS to be particularly mom/apple pie standing up for policy. That's just shorthand for saying they consider the content UNDUE. So this is a garden variety edit war on a page with no explicit restrictions and as MASEM says, it's trout-level stuff. The question of editors picking and choosing from daily news is ubiquitous and lots of time and attention is wasted on it. Just to be clear, I meant to say Zaathras' prior sanction was IMO ill-advised, and subsequent events, with the drive-by reverter failing to give any reason or engage on talk and with Zaarthras' reinsertion going unchallenged ever after, seems to confirm that. I would not hold that up as any indication of depravity or anything else outside of that place and time. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I may not have been clear I meant to indicate that the editor whom I called a drive-by reverter (whom I pinged so they can come to their defense here) gave a vacuous edit summary and did not meaningfully engage on the talk page. And the consensus was indeed demonstrated to be in favor of Zaathras' edit. That the reinstatement after the revert is a sanctionable violation actually points out one of the flaws with the "Consensus Required" as a page restriction. It allowed the unsubstantiated revert to sidetrack numerous other editors into a talk thread, only to endorse Zaathras' action for which he was shackled. That's why @Awilley: devised 24-BRD after a lot of experience with AP enforcement, and I presume why Arbcom codified it as one of the authorized page restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RE: WP:ONUS. Yes, it appears in a policy page, but it is not a prescriptive policy such as V, NPOV etc. ONUS gets cited in content disagreements. It's just a reminder that citing V does not resolve a content dispute. SO: I don't think we should be describing the removal of this MTG-tweeting content as if it were wrapped in the flag and glory of the five pillars. It was just a content dispute and the removal was to launch a garden-variety content disagreement which, per se, is beyond the scope of enforcement judgments. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith and ScottishFinishRadish: I strongly disagree with this proposal. What harm are you preventing with such a draconian sanction on Zaathras?There's plenty of examples elsewhere of various editors earning such sanctions when they push UNDUE negative, contentious, or ill-sourced BLP content. That's not what Zaathras has ever done, to my knowledge. This was a bad situation, no harm done, and a quick AE trigger by the complainant. Moreover, to repeat again (3x total) "Consensus Required" is the least workable, leadt constructive of the permitted page sanctions. The most contentious AP articles have done well for several years now with "24-BRD", a fact that was recognized by Arbcom when they codified it in their long review of the enforcement process. SPECIFICO talk 17:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for your reply, but I asked what harm by Zaathras you expect to prevent. I'm well aware of BLP and the BLP Arbcom decision. The MTG bit is all over the talk page and has been in and out of the article and is published in various sources. This is not a bright line BLP issue. It's a WEIGHT issue. That takes on heightened importance in BLP-related content, but my previous comment stands. I see no pattern or inclination toward policy violations, egregious misconduct, or obstinate disruption from Zaathras, and I've become quite familiar with their work over the recent past as they've become increasingly active. I see no consensus among the Admins here that Zaathras needs a sanction to prevent damage, disruption, or BLP harm. SPECIFICO talk 18:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean

Black Kite is spot on. ~~Nableezy and~~ Kcmastrpc were edit warring against three mainstream and experienced editors. Even worse, Kcmastrpc was exhibiting OWNership behavior when they, after a pause, returned to try to again force their version, even though the article's history showed they were in a minority. ~~Nableezy and~~ Kcmastrpc bear the brunt of the blame and the others were justified in restoring the content. ~~Nableezy and~~ Kcmastrpc should have stuck to discussion and aimed to convince the others on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No worse than trouting for anyone here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My abject apologies to User:Nableezy. I intended to modify my comment, got caught up in an edit conflict, saved it and posted it, and had to immediately run to other responsibilities, forgetting to modify it. Nableezy is obviously an experienced and respected editor. I'll modify my comment now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DFlhb

I disagree with Black Kite that there were "tag teams". Reverting was straightforwardly indicated by our policies as the proper course of action until affirmative consensus is reached. I'm not a household name, so you don't need to take my word for it, take Blueboar's. DFlhb (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras: WP:BLPRESTORE does apply, since its merely cites "good-faith BLP objections", and asking ourselves whether material is "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" is part of BLP. No need for the material to be "negative", which would be far too subjective a criteria. DFlhb (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zaathras

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

Just noting that I protected the page before seeing this report in an attempt to stop the issuing edit war, which was related to BLP issues. Any uninvolved administrator can undo that protection (and return the indefinite semi-protection) if they see it is no longer necessary. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm already here, I will add that I agree with an article restriction, with "consensus required" being my top choice. I'm undecided on any sanctions of Zaathras. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I'm unsure about how to deal with Zaathras, in that whether a logged warning would be sufficient or if they should be tbanned, I don't see the issue with Nableezy's reverts here. I protected the page because I saw several users edit warring over this issue, so pblocking wouldn't be ideal. No one has raised other issues related to Nableezy's edits in the area here, but Zaathras has a background of not respecting our consensus building guidelines, as pointed out by The Wordsmith. I personally don't think a 0RR restriction is useful, and would support either a logged warning or a topic ban from the intersection of BLPs and AP2 topic areas. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notating here that Zaathras has already received a two-week AP2 page ban from Hunter Biden laptop controversy [1] for reverting to restore BLP material that was under discussion (the article was under a "consensus required" page restriction), and I cautioned him about similar behavior violating WP:BLPRESTORE at Talk:Libs of TikTok#BLPN discussion, though it was unofficial and not a logged warning. There seems to be a pattern of this sort of behavior. Some kind of sanction seems to be warranted; 0RR is probably the least severe one that would resolve the issue unless somebody provides evidence of more widespread problems than just reverting content under discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SPECIFICO: To clarify, I meant either 0RR or consensus required, not both. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concerns about due weight are most definitely legitimate BLP issues, and the PAGs dealing with restoration of BLP content certainly apply. Considering they've been sanctioned in the past, 0RR is the least I would support. I think a topic ban on BLP content involving American politics wouldn't be amiss. I'm also less than impressed with the personal attack in response to the notification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that when someone uninvolved shows up and reverts in support of PAGs, you should make sure you're on solid footing, rather than continuing to edit war. Uninvolved input and opinions are always welcome, which is why we have the feedback request service, RFCs, and noticeboards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, I'm referring to nableezy, who was uninvolved in the article, as noted by Zaathras here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, Arbcom has held that Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons (the "BLP policy") is a fundamental policy requiring, among other things, that all biographical articles must be kept free of unsourced negative or controversial content, unsupported rumors and gossip, defamatory material, undue weight given to minor incidents or to matters irrelevant to the subject's notability, and unwarranted violations of personal privacy.^{source, emphasis mine} The RFC at Libs of TikTok found there was consensus against including a critic label, essentially on due weight concerns, they reverted to keep in despite good-faith BLP concerns. At MTG we have edit warring to restore content that other editors have a good-faith objection to in part because of due weight concerns, as well as referring to a BLP as a traitor on the talk page.

BLP applies everywhere on-wiki, and concerns about undue weight are legitimate BLP concerns. Above, in this section, they say There was not a BLP concern with the content, the discussion revolved around a question of due or undue weight. That makes it clear that they do not understand or respect the BLP policy and how it applies to content, WP:ONUS, and why edit warring to include material in a BLP that has been objected to is inappropriate. A topic ban from the area where this has been a problem is a reasonable solution.

Arbcom also recognized the consensus required restriction when they codified it in their long review of the enforcement process. You'll find it listed directly before the enforced BRD restriction. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of Zaathras' earlier sanction which SPECIFICO brought up, it is a clear violation. An edit was challenged by revision, with an edit summary here, and discussed on the talk page here. By the time Zaathras reverted the edit, multiple other editors had disagreed with the edit. To claim there was consensus for the content when the revert was made is plainly false. This actually demonstrates one of the issues, a willingness to revert to their favored version rather than waiting for discussion to reach consensus. In the case they were sanctioned for they never even took part in the talk page discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Zaathras should clearly know better to not edit war on contentious topics and that ONUS applies. However, I would also add that I think Greene's article presents a clear example of the epidemic of poor editing around contentious topics in general, trying to include every negative mark that a person or other entity gets from RSes but not looking to write the big picture per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM - not just involving Zaathras but editors on that given talk page discussion. This idea to rush to include every minor kerfuffle that happens in the news - no matter how well sourced - doesn't fit with our encyclopedic purpose. However, that point is hard to take any action on any editor here, just that we really really need to look at this better to try to reduce disruption around contentious topics in today's political climate. I feel a trout is appropriate here, but it should be clear that Greene's page should be considered under 1RR or even 0RR. --Masem (t) 00:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think that looking at the earlier sanction and warning The Wordsmith linked to above brings this above trout-tier. This a continuation of the same behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Zaathras' benefit here, the Greene page does lack any revert restriction, only that it could be placed under one, where the Hunter Biden laptop story, as noted at the diff above, had such a restriction in place. I still think an editor as experienced as Zaathras would know not to pass that, but, you know, benefit of the doubt here that they saw no outright editing restriction and thus reverted multiple times. I don't think this instance is a blockable/bannable offensive but I can see something lighter and more effective than a trout too if we do apply the "should know better" concept. Masem (t) 00:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is definitely a wider issue around that article. Regarding the article not having a revert restriction, Zaathras is seasoned enough to know that three reverts in under 10 minutes is probably going to be considered edit warring even without a CTOP restriction on it. I could get behind adding a 0RR/Consensus Required restriction on the article in addition to a sanction on Zaathras. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support some action on the article as well. I prefer consensus required over 0rr or 1rr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am unconvinced that Zaathras is the only problem here, looking at the sequence of reverts. You effectively have two tags teams, one inserting the material six times (Soibangla x 1, Aquillion x 1, Zaathras x 4) versus one removing it six times (Nableezy x 2, Kcmastrpc x 4). I'd suggest that more than one editor needs to be looked at here. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like we've essentially stalled here, but there appears to be consensus that some sort of sanction is needed for Zaathras and that something is also needed for that article. Anybody opposed to a topic ban for Zaathras from material about living persons within the AP2 area, and "consensus required" for that page? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. Also a reminder or warning to KCmastrpc not to edit war may address Black Kite's concerns. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer a logged warning for Zaathras, but otherwise agree with the MTG page restriction of "consensus required". Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 19:18, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously an edit war to add material that does not have consensus despite an active discussion. The attitude that both sides were edit warring is unreasonable because there should be no hint that people can edit-war material into an article and wait for the opposition to prove it has to be removed. Without positive agreement concerning new text, after two attempts, Zaathras should have waited or started an RfC. If others want it, I would not object to a consensus-required restriction for MTG but this incident is evidence only that Zaathras should be blocked the next time such enthusiastic fait-accompli editing is used. To close this report, I would support a logged warning against Zaathras as suggested above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like consensus here is for a logged warning against Zaathras and consensus required at MTG. I'll close it and log everything when I have the time, but anyone else who has the time should feel free to do so, as I'm quite busy and this has hung around long enough. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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: Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban in Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly construed

Topic ban from editing in the ARBPIA area, broadly construed, imposed on 29 January 2022, and which Tban was subsequent to a failed appeal in November 2019 (see here), imposed by User:Ymblanter, and which original ban was related to disruptive editing by me (as seen here), imposed by User:Euryalus. It is to be noted that an appeal was submitted in September of 2022 to rescind my current Topic ban (as shown here}, but that it too was declined.

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Davidbena

I am asking that my Topic ban be lifted, since I am fully aware now (finally) where I had infringed upon my own Topic ban (here), where it was stated explicitly that I was prohibited from making “any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page,” but that I had wrongly taken the initiative (careless of me) to create a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” following the Outline of Munich format, and which new page clearly discussed post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics. There is no excuse for this flagrant abuse of my limited topic ban, although I was permitted under the same ruling to “upload or add historical photos or multimedia of or about pre-1948 Levantine subjects,” as well as to contribute “verifiable and reliably sourced information regarding Levantine archaeological research,” in addition to “make edits relating to geographical features of the Levant.” This generous leniency and freedom given to me by my peers rendered my judgment obscured, and I had forgotten the most important proscription, namely, not to engage in edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed. I can now say honestly that the community was right to censure me for this flagrant violation, after giving me so much freedom. I will not be upset if the community should turn-down my current request to appeal the topic ban. I feel ashamed that I had not noticed my own error, before it came to this. With that said, for the record, I personally bear no grievance toward any man, and I fully understand the need to reach a consensus with my fellow editors, especially when dealing with contentious topics such as this. As a religious Jew, I have since come to learn something that will, hopefully, guide my attitude here on out in the future, and that is this: for Jews and Arabs, the country remains eternally under special sanctity, and both peoples have historical connections to the land. This calls for extra sensitivities when editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

My fervent hope and desire is to add important historical data to articles in the ARBPIA area, and to bring some of these articles up to "Good Article" status.Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beyond My Ken: Can I kindly request you to explain to me what you mean by saying there is a lack of understanding as to "why they were Topic banned"? Do you mean by this my very earliest Topic ban when I contended with my fellow co-editors? Or do you mean the current infraction, where I overstepped my bounds by writing an article entitled "Outline of Jerusalem," and where I clearly violated my limited Topic ban and have since expressed remorse for doing so? If you mean my earliest Topic ban, I can expand on that as well. I cannot deny that the freedoms given me to edit in the ARBPIA area gave me a sense of confidence that I could edit without infringing my Topic ban, but, which, as I know now, was grossly mistaken. Secondly, how can an editor like myself show "evidence of a change in attitude or behavior"? Have I continued to show unstaid and skittish behavior? Please explain. I know deep down within myself that if I am ever given the opportunity to edit again in the ARBPIA area, I will be doubly cautious before making any edit. All that I'm asking to do is to occasionally add historical data to articles in the ARBPIA area, and to work together with my fellow co-editors to improve these articles. If given a chance, I'll accept that responsibility and will work to that end. If not given the opportunity, the work will fall on others to do, and I accept that too. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Actually, before I started the article Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine I consulted an administrator for his advice (see here) who told me that I could make the article, without infringing my Topic ban. When it came to the RFC, the person making the RFC said explicitly that she thought that it does not fall under the ARBPIA category. This explains why I interjected there, only later to rescind my comment.Davidbena (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cullen328: Will you be my mentor? If you agree, before I post anything to a Wikipedia article in the ARBPIA area, or else broadly construed with the Arab-Israeli conflict, with your permission, I'll first post the edit to your Talk-Page for your approval or disapproval.Davidbena (talk) 03:41, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nfitz: I read your statement, and you stand to be corrected. I NEVER once in my life said that Palestine doesn't exist as a country. You have misunderstood my words in the defense of myself when I was reprimanded for creating the article "Outline of Jerusalem," and where I stated there that, because of my limited Topic ban, I thought that by avoiding the word "Palestine" in that article, I could escape condemnation, and no one would accuse me of engaging in a "geopolitical" and "contentious" issue when it came specifically to that city of Jerusalem, given my limited Topic ban. In fact, in many of my other articles on Wikipedia (prior to the enactment of my Topic ban), I frequently interchange between the words Israel and Palestine.Davidbena (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Huldra: I often interchange between the two. As you know, I work with Palestinian Arabs, as many as sixteen, at my work place. I call them "Palestinians" because that is how they would identify themselves in this country. By the way, nearly all come from the West Bank, and two women from Hebron itself. Only one comes from Galilee. I call them "Arabs" simply for its common English usage, and because that is how they also identify themselves.Davidbena (talk) 03:19, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Zero0000: I would indeed agree to that, say, before posting any comment to the ARBPIA area, I would ask the prior approval of my mentor.Davidbena (talk) 03:22, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To Serephimblade: As I wrote to Zero0000, I would fully and whole-heartedly agree to work with a mentor, meaning to say, before I endeavor to post anything to a Wikipedia article in the ARBPIA area, I will first seek the prior approval of my mentor. Nothing is better than receiving good advice.Davidbena (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Zero0000: Would you please agree to be my mentor? I will write the suggested edit in the ARBPIA area on my sandbox, and then link your name to the page for comment (either approval or disapproval)? Is that alright with you? If you can agree to this, I will gladly abide by the rule, until you or others feel that I am capable of editing in the ARBPIA area without obtaining the prior consent of my mentor.Davidbena (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: Since my request that Zero0000 become a mentor to me has gone unanswered, and no one else has stepped-up to accept the task of mentorship for me (having also appealed to User:Nishidani), can I ask you to be my mentor for at least one year in the ARBPIA area? As I wrote to Huldra on my Talk-Page, I have no objection that you be my mentor for at least a year. I am eternally grateful for your kindness towards me. And while we might occasionally disagree on certain political issues, I, personally, do not have any wish nor intentions to aggravate tensions in the Arab-Israeli conflict. My only interest at present is historical data. Any suggested edits in the ARBPIA area will be posted by me to my sandbox and your name tagged for either approval or disapproval.Davidbena (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For Your Information: See this here. I am posting this for the community's information, as it pertains to future edits while I am under my mentorship.Davidbena (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the Administrators: There seems to be some confusion as to what will be the extent of my freedom in editing in the ARBPIA area, once this Topic ban is lifted and I am put under the mentorship of our fellow co-editor Nableezy. Does lifting my Topic ban mean that, under my period of mentorship, I will be reinstated to my "limited Topic ban" where I could only make edits related to the history of Israel (such as when these edits are not related to the modern conflict)? Or does lifting my Topic ban mean that I will be free to edit in the ARBPIA area, including such topics as relate to the modern conflict, on condition that I receive the prior approval of my mentor? Please clarify.Davidbena (talk) 23:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

With Davidbena, I think the problems we have seen have generally been an issue of negligence rather than malice. That's not to excuse them—editors subject to restrictions are still responsible for heeding them, and liable for the consequences if they do not. Part of that is either to stay well clear of any area which even might be interpreted as subject to it, or at the very least to ask for clarification and advice before doing anything that might be near the line. That said, if someone experienced were willing to act as an advisor/mentor for Davidbena during a gradual return to some of the area, and Davidbena were willing to accept such guidance, I could see that as a potentially workable solution and would not object to that. I do think that just wholesale removing this restriction (especially with the community restrictions still in place) is not something likely to end well for anyone involved; it certainly has not worked out well in the past. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:18, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarity's sake, I would not object to the proposed resolution with Nableezy helping out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

I have made no secret of my fondness for David, and have tried to ward him off from shooting himself in the foot in the past, and thats despite having been asked to be banned by David in the past, in fact two of his more ardent fans are the only ones he's ever asked to have banned I think. But he is without doubt one of the most sincere people on Wikipedia, and I have never doubted David's honesty or good faith. His zeal was the only real problem. But I absolutely believe that he thought he wasnt doing anything that violated his topic ban previously, and even though it was obvious to me, and to everybody commenting at AE at the time, I remain of the view that good faith mistakes should be forgiven, and honestly think you all should have just gone with escalating blocks up to one month for those good faith topic ban violations. Yes, it was a topic ban violation. But who cares really, it had zero impact on anything, and anybody could have removed it and he would have left it alone if told to due to his ban. I cant honestly say I have any real confidence that he wont make another good faith error in abiding by the AN imposed ban in the future, but I just dont see how this is beneficial to any of the parties here, David or Wikipedia. So my view, unchanged over years and years, is David can be an asset to articles that need knowledgeable editors who research thoroughly and have access to some of the world's best resources for the Jewish history in Palestine/Israel, and we are just depriving ourselves of that asset for technical violations of a ban that has barely any real benefit to Wikipedia to begin with. And it be better if we didnt do that. nableezy - 04:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Or building off Zero's proposal, here, hows this as a proposal, have David commit to following some editor from the opposing side's advice on if an edit or comment is a violation of the AN topic ban. Ill do it, and if any editor raises an issue with an edit David makes and I tell him its a violation he commits to removing it no questions asked and disengaging from the topic. nableezy - 20:55, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Davidbena: Id be happy to if thats acceptable to the admins below. And while I definitely am not a model editor, I can certainly promise the advice I give David will be better than the internal monologue I follow. nableezy - 02:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just so Im clear, we're just talking about the AE imposed ARBPIA wide topic ban, the AN ban would still need to be appealed some time in the future, and the mentorship here consists of David agreeing to follow my advice on if a proposed or made edit is a violation of that AN ban and committing to self-reverting and disengaging for any topics that I say are violations. Right? nableezy - 21:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Like Nableezy, I'm one of those who generally sit on the opposite side of the fence to David on ARPBIA issues. And yet, like Nableezy, I see David as an asset to the project. To start with, David's knowledge of Jewish matters is spectacular. Second, David is good faith personified. The times when David violated the rules were more to do with his confusion about them than with an intention to be disruptive. And, yes, he does fail to understand the rules quite often, but I know from long conversation that he is genuine about it. This leads me to a proposal: give David a trial period with a mentor. During this trial period, David would be required to follow the mentor's advice, which would be mostly about policy and wikicraft rather than content. Zero^talk 20:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: Indeed, both David and the mentor would have to voluntarily agree to it. Zero^talk 21:17, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

I'm in two minds about this. On one hand; I like Davidbena; as far as I can judge: he is an honest editor, always polite, and better: he actually read stuff (like books!), he isn't one who just googles up some trash. (Incidentally: Nableezy, Zero0000 and myself were named the 3 top anti-Israeli editors on wikipedia, according to a now defunct off-wiki harassment site; that we all like Davidbena says something about his qualities.)
Sigh; on the other hand Davidbena, eh, tends to "loose his cool" when it comes to the IP subjects. In the 23 February, 2019 -appeal, both Nableezy and I voted for lifting his topic-ban ("with some trepidation"); less than two months later he says that we have "shown animosity towards me since day one" and reports us to AN (which spectacularly backfired, and got him topic-banned, again.)
I support the suggestion of a mentor, if Nableezy or Zero0000 is willing to do it, and I support a lifting of the broader topic-ban.
One question to Davidbena: Do you call Palestinian for "Palestinian", or do you call them "Arabs"? Huldra (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Davidbena

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 Beyond My Ken (Davidbena)

The appeal does not indicate any real understanding of why they were TB'd, nor does it provide any evidence of a change in attitude or behavior since their last appeal was turned down 6 months ago. I would urge the admins here to turn down this appeal as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Because I don't believe this page is clerked, I have moved Davidbena's responses from other editors' sections into their own section. If that was a faux pas, I apologize. Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Recently, at Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine editor breached the tban and comments made in an RFC were eventually removed after an administrator explained the obvious.

Editor has a history of pushing boundaries and always seems to reach a point of not being able to edit neutrally in this topic area.Selfstudier (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nfitz

In his response to Selfstudier above, Davidbena notes that he was told that creating the article Wild edible plants of Israel and Palestine wasn't a violation. But what he is being criticized for by User:Selfstudier isn't anything to do with that page. It's the words of his talk page edit that are the issue, where he said that "the addition of "and" makes it appear as though we're talking about two separate countries, when, in fact, we're talking about a synonym for the same country". With your topic ban you can't opine (anywhere in Wikipedia) of your opinion about whether the area in question is one country, two countries, three countries, or 50 countries! That even today you don't see that, is very concerning.

In your title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1151399666 ANI request yesterday (which was closed and moved here) you said that you "simply mentioned while editing that page the name of the current government over Jerusalem". Reading the earlier ANI discussion, it notes that your neutral article "Outline of Jerusalem" (that I have not and cannot see) never mentioned Palestine, even though it governs a large potion of the city. Even in your ANI appeal you imply that Israel governs the entire city. In my mind this suggests there remains a lack of understanding or sensitivity regarding the situation. And in particular there seems to be a lack of understanding that even mentioning who you think governs all of Jerusalem (a highly controversial topic) violates your TBAN.

With this lack of understanding of what the Topic Ban restricts, as recently as yesterday, I think the topic ban should continue, as making such a bold and controversial comments on Jerusalem, and the ~~assertation~~ insinuation that Palestine doesn't exist as a country, is only going to end up going badly.

On a personal note, I applaud the community for trying to work with the editor, rather than simply penalize the editor; it's not something that the community is very good at. Nfitz (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone clarify - I thought people weren't allowed to edit in another person's section (sorry, I don't appear here very often).

But to respond to the statement, I had meant to write "insinuate" rather than "assert". I'm not sure how else to interpret ".. makes it appear as though we're talking about two separate countries, when, in fact, we're talking about a synonym for the same country. Though that's secondary to the current request to lift the topic ban. That you ever mentioned the number of countries in your comment is a topic-ban violation, as far as I understand it. Nfitz (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Folly Mox

I'm moved to comment here by the beauty of – for lack of a better term – ideological opponents submitting statements in favour of lifting sanctions. This freak confluence of human compassion and commitment to encyclopaedic neutrality makes me want to see this appeal succeed. (For the record, my position on the ARBPIA topic area is wilful ignorance.) To that end, I have a few possibly bad ideas.

I see people talking about gradual reentry, without much commitment to taking responsibility for Davidbena's mentorship. What about a time trial where Davidbena would commit to a consensus-required voluntary page restriction on any article where his edits are challenged? Or a weakly rate-limited time trial such that he could make around k edits to the topic area per day, for some positive integer k? ([W]eakly and around so he doesn't get sanctioned for miscounting or forgetfulness.) Or 0rr? These sound pretty difficult to enforce, but Davidbena seems very open to the idea of feedback and education, and no one here seems to doubt his good faith, so I'm hopeful that enforcement won't be an issue. Folly Mox (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Onceinawhile

I am in support of David returning to this topic area. We disagree on many (most?) fundamental areas of the topic, but the disagreement is usually constructive, open-minded and honest. And source-based. None of us are perfect, but we need more editors on either “side” of this topic area who can talk to and work with each other. Good luck David. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Davidbena

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

@Zero0000: We can't force someone to mentor another user, we would need a volunteer. I'm still reading the previous discussions, but if we had someone willing to mentor Davidbena, I could see myself giving them some rope. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:58, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not willing to commit to a formal mentorship, but I do want to say that Davidbena is always welcome on my talk page and I also encourage him to visit the Teahouse or the Help desk when in doubt about any edit. I am impressed with the endorsement of the editor's knowledge and good faith by editor's POV opponents. That is a credit both to David and to the other editors who have made those comments This topic area is inherently very difficult and we need good faith, well informed editors contributing. Accordingly, in the spirit of Wikipedia:One last chance, I support lifting the topic ban. Cullen328 (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena, I have visited Israel twice and Egypt once, and own a number of books on the conflict. But I am far from an expert and do not feel comfortable getting deeply involved in this topic area. I lack the academic training and the motivation to do so. I am a generalist editor, not a specialist. I am happy to discuss Wikipedia editing at any time, but not to sit in judgment of all your Israel/Palestine edits. Cullen328 (talk) 05:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support lifting the topic ban on the basis of the one-year mentorship proposal from Nableezy, accepted by Davidbena above. @Isabelle Belato and Cullen328: (or anyone else) any further views? -- Euryalus (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine by me. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still somewhat concerned that he will violate the community topic ban if this ban is lifted. His community restriction is quite complicated and easy to violate if he continues to edit in the topic area. But since we have Nableezy willing to mentor for a year and make sure he doesn't violate the topic ban, I support lifting the topic ban. I'm also heartened to see such good faith from editors of opposing viewpoints in such a contentious area. Galobtter (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy to see this happen with Nableezy as a mentor. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Emilimo

Emilimo is topic banned from pseudoscience. Galobtter (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Emilimo

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS

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

[2] 29 April 2023 — violation of WP:PSCI.
[3] 29 April 2023 — violation of WP:PSCI.
Seems a WP:SPA, see Special:Contributions/Emilimo (at least since 11 April 2023).

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [4] 12 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@KoA: I meant they look like a WP:SPA since 11 April. They had some edits in other articles, but that was earlier. tgeorgescu (talk) 13:29, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[5] 29 April 2023

Discussion concerning Emilimo

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 Emilimo

Statement by KoA

Tgeorgescu, it took me a second to catch what was exactly being reported without much background provided (and I'm a regular watcher at WP:FTN), but I'm guessing this report is because Emilimo has a history of trying to remove pseudoscience as a descriptor from articles, which violates WP:PSCI policy? Just making sure it's clear for admins that may not be as familiar with PSCI subjects here.

From what I can see at Stephen C. Meyer, David Berlinski, and Michael Behe with the edit warring going on, it does appear Emilimo is WP:NOTHERE in terms of pseudoscience subjects and some sort of preventative action would be needed so the community doesn't have to deal with it there. They're technically not a WP:SPA as Tgeorgescu mentions in the evidence, but definitely WP:ADVOCACY issues in the last month that likely warrants a topic ban from intelligent design subjects. That could be expanded if they cause issues in other pseudoscience/fringe topics. KoA (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Emilimo

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

A topic ban from at least Intelligent design is obviously warranted. Galobtter (talk) 05:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’d make it all of pseudoscience at a minimum. And I’m wondering if the editor is fundamentally compatible with WP. Courcelles (talk) 16:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, a ban from the whole topic is warranted too. They have a lot of edits from before made to a wide variety of topics e.g. chemistry and programming, which look fine to me so I don't think we're at WP:NOTHERE. Galobtter (talk) 20:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
TB from all of pseudoscience. I agree with Galobtter, it looks as though they can edit ok in other areas. Doug Weller talk 20:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rayner111

Partial blocks from his biography at J. E. R. Staddon and Charles Murray - ordinary Admin actions, not AE — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs) 09:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Rayner111

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Generalrelative (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rayner111 (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/Race and intelligence

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

19:23, 4 May 2023 Inappropriate use of WP:PROFRINGE / WP:EXTERNAL link. This user is well aware that this is disruptive and WP:POINTy behavior given prior history discussed below. The link is to a piece by J. Philippe Rushton, one of the most notorious promoters of race and intelligence pseudoscience, whose views have been overwhelmingly determined to be WP:FRINGE, e.g. here.
19:45, 4 May 2023 Ditto.
20:20, 4 May 2023 Edit warring to re-add the same PROFRINGE / EXTERNAL content.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 15 April 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user came to my attention after making PROFRINGE edits to Charles Murray (political scientist): [6], [7].

A glance at this user's talk page revealed that he has identified himself as the psychologist J. E. R. Staddon, and has been warned about COI. Despite this, even after the warning, it seems nearly all of his edits have been self-promotional (not just to his BLP; he's also gotten up to a lot of ref-spamming, e.g. here, here, here, and here).

The only exception to this COI editing appears to be recent edit warring against the consensus on race and intelligence. I attempted to engage with Rayner111 / Professor Staddon on his talk page (where, after an initial warning for vandalism, I realized that this was an elderly professor and attempted to explain the existing consensus). I also invited him to engage on the article talk page, which he ignored.

Instead, I was informed yesterday that he'd published an op-ed on the conservative website Minding the Campus, titled "WikiBias: How Wikipedia erases “fringe theories” and enforces conformity". In it, he misrepresents events to make it seem as though his edits were more reasonable, and appears to dismiss me by noting that my user page states that I use they/them pronouns. I was prepared to let that go, since R&I is a topic area full of trolls to whom I prefer to WP:DENY recognition. But seeing as this user has now come back on-Wiki to make the three highly inappropriate and pointy edits linked above, I see no other option but to seek sanctions.

For context on the IP editor's comment below, please note that they are just now coming off a 30-day block for disruptive editing in the R&I topic area (see this for context). They are now cheering Rayner111 on at his talk page, implying that those of us who enforce the R&I consensus are acting in bad faith. I would suggest that this IP could use a longer vacation if they are going to jump right back into the same behavior that got them blocked last time. Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Beyond My Ken but it's okay, I expected R&I opponents to come out of the woodwork when I filed here. I know that my own conduct is liable to be evaluated as well. My answer to the second IP is the same as my comment on Rayner111's talk page: Of course, the way we phrase the sentence is subject to debate, but not the overall thrust of the message. Murray's views on race and intelligence are indeed discredited, and we are required by the WP:FRINGE guideline to say so whenever we present them in article space. In this case, we are dealing with a centralized consensus (here). And at least four others besides me have reverted to restore the language in question: Skllagyook [8], Discospinster [9], Dr.Pinsky [10], and Tpdwkouaa [11]. Generalrelative (talk) 15:04, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[12]

Discussion concerning Rayner111

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 Rayner111

Statement by IP editor

Just so I am clear, it appears Rayner111 included a link to Science Direct, which to the best of my knowledge is a reliable source and not subject to any kind of sanction. If I am wrong, forgive me, but I don't see what is disruptive about this edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1250:6d80:65a9:d528:c5d2:6e14 (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say, that I am disappointed in the above post. user:Generalrelative has the heart of a lion. They are someone I considered to be a formidable ideological opponent, if not a friend. We've had colorful discussions in the past, and I've never known them to stoop to casting aspersions. However, their summary of my post on Rayner111's page is exactly wrong. I stated that "intelligent editors are aware as to what is happening". I include user:Generalrelative in this group of "intelligent editors". As I explained on their talk page, although we may be political opponents, that does not mean we cannot be civil with one another. I certainly hope I am not wrong. 2600:1700:1250:6D80:9C24:DCBC:8EE4:8A20 (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this IP address was blocked for "Disruptive editing: Immediate return to prior editing pattern upon unblock". Doug Weller talk 15:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken (Rayner111)

Since Rayner111 self-identifies as J. E. R. Staddon, they should, at the very least, be partially blocked (as an ordinary admin action) from editing the article about himself. He's made 45 edits to the article, 24.4% of the edits to the article, [13] contributing 8.4% of the article's content.[14] Because of his obvious COI, he should be limited to suggesting changes on the article talk page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning this report, I would suggest a topic ban from R&I. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the second IPs comment below, the facts as presented appear to be incomplete and inaccurate. They fail to mention that there is a consensus on the article talk page, and I do not see the "8 people" claimed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The IP is counting edits from over 2 years ago, which I suggest is rather WP:BATTLEGROUNDy. It appears to me that both of the IPs here are long-term warriors concerning this subject, something which cannot be verified because they are IPs. Their comments are also completely focused on Generalrelative, and not on the subject of this report, Rayner111 - this is not AN/I. I suggest that their comments should be ignored by admins when considering whatever actions might be taken here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:17, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the IP editor below (24.246.138.48) had made only the three edits to this report and has no history of editing to improve the encyclopedia. [15] The IP appears to be static, so it is unlikely that they made edits under a different IP number. I would say that it's likely that the IP is here due to canvassing outside Wikipedia specifically to argue in order to avoid a sanction to Rayner111. Their comments should be weighed with this in mind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IP editor

The background to this report is important. The disputed wording in the Charles Murray (political scientist) article was added by Generalrelative [16] without (initially) any discussion on the talk page. Rayner111 tried to modify Generalrelative's wording several times, and Generalrelative undid those attempts before making this report. Generalrelative also undid attempts by six other users to modify his wording: by user:Bartinny, [17] user:TankRe, [18] user:Oveclocked66, [19] user:Nrunje, [20] and two IP users. [21] [22] A third IP user challenged Generalrelative's change on the talk page, and his response to that IP user was dismissive. [23]

When one is restoring one's change that's been opposed by eight people in total, and there has never been a consensus for the change on the article talk page, it's disingenuous to claim, as Generalrelative claims above, that one's opponent is "edit warring against the consensus". Repeatedly restoring one's contentious change as others challenge it is also the opposite of how WP:BRD is supposed to work, especially in an article about a living person. — 24.246.138.48 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 09:07, May 5, 2023‎ (UTC).

Replying to above: the eight people are Rayner111, Bartinny, TankRe, Oveclocked66, Nrunje, the two IP editors who tried to modify Generalrelative's wording, and the third IP editor who objected to it on the talk page. That's eight total. Where is his change supported by "a consensus on the article talk page"? The only section there that reached a consensus is the one about whether to call him a white nationalist. [24] 24.246.138.48 (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please notice that while this report is open, Generalrelative has made this edit, [25] replacing the text "studies intelligence and believes in sexual and racial differences in intelligence" with "has also advocated fringe positions regarding sexual differences in intelligence" in another article about a living person. There has never been a consensus to use the term "fringe" with respect to Sex differences in intelligence. The source for calling it that is the Southern Poverty Law Center, whose views cannot be stated as fact according to WP:SPLC: "The organization's views, especially when labeling hate groups, should be attributed per WP:RSOPINION."

He also recently re-added text calling Murray a white nationalist, [26] again citing the SPLC, with an edit summary that distorts the result of the RFC about this label. Aside from keeping it out of the lead, the RFC result also states, [27] "On grounds of BLP concerns, the proposed text shall be kept out of the article for time-being unless a new consensus to the contrary over-rides this RFC."

Mind you, that's only what he's done in the past week. Over the past three years, he has made probably over a hundred edits like those, and several dozen editors argued against or tried to undo them. Rayner111 is only the most recent. 24.246.138.48 (talk) 20:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Rayner111

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

I've partially blocked him from his biography, leaving the talk page open for him to make suggestions. Still thinking about a TB. Doug Weller talk 16:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Looking into this a bit more, I'm not inclined to topic ban, but I am going to partially block from the article on Charles Murray. I'm doing this because Rayner111's doctoral supervisor, according to his article, was a co-author with Charles Murray on The Bell Curve. I know this might be controversial and I am not asking for any Admin who wants to undo this to consult me, but it does leave Rayner111 free to use the talk page and not topic banned. Note that this is not intended to be an AE action. Doug Weller talk 09:29, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Topic ban (Dev0745)

Malformed request. But I'm pretty sure that editing a conspiracy theory article to claim it isn't a conspiracy theory and is an actual thing, using tabloid sources, isn't an optimal way of editing. Topic ban seems reasonable. Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, recently I got topic banned from editing India, Pakistan and Afghanistan related articles by Tamzin after editing article Love jihad conspiracy theory. She topic banned me by citing reason of verifiability and synthesis. But I am not convinced by her argument as I think I have cited reliable sources and not done any Synth. The sentence added by me were clearly mention in the articles. My edit link is here [28]. Can any uninvovled Admin review the TBAN decision. Thanks Dev0745 (talk) 09:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Iskandar323

Malformed request + content dispute. In my individual admin capacity, advised Salandarianflag to tone it down and to stop bludgeoning the related discussions. Abecedare (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

We had a conversation about the name of Caesarea and Iskandar323 dismissed my academic sources which reject the notion of a source provided by another academic Masalha, I provided why I was removing the source from the Caesarea page as there was sufficient back up to remove the source provided by Masalha as the book is subject to controversy and cannot be given as a fair source. As such I removed it until a compromise can be reached and not because I removed it based on my own personal opinions. I was then in away blackmailed to reverse it by Iskandar323 despite given the explanation I had listed for its withdrawal and if I did not back into his wishes, he would report me. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Further he also outright dismissed my sources I had in a conversation with him claiming that they were not credible without peroxiding a reason why. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As such I am writing this report because I believe I am being harassed for providing a source which is contrary to Iskandar323’s opinion. Salandarianflag (talk) 13:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salandarianflag

For WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:CIR issues, Salandarianflag is indefinitely topic banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Galobtter (talk) 00:13, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Salandarianflag

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles (discretionary sanctions / 1RR)

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

1. 10:46, 11 May 2023 Removal of Nur Masalha source and related material about the use of the name "Caesarea Palestina" from the lede of Caesarea_Maritima

2. 13:09, 11 May 2023 Repetition of the above

13:20, 11 May 2023 notification by Iskandar323 of 1RR violation, and request to self-revert

3. 00:31, 8 May 2023 Removal of Nur Masalha source and related material about the use of the name "Caesarea Palestina" from the lede of Caesarea_Maritima

4. 09:28, 8 May 2023 and 09:31, 8 May 2023 (combined series of edits) Repetition of the above

09:47, 8 May 2023 notification by Onceinawhile of 1RR violation, and request to self-revert

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): 14:25, 2 January 2023 Notification by DougWeller

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I and another editor have given this newish editor two separate chances to self-remedy 1RR violations, but the editor has ignored these opportunities. Note two other related discussions: (1) the AE filed by Salandarianflag against Iskandar323 immediately above, and (2) a discussion at WP:RSN.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Salandarianflag

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 Salandarianflag

I am not going like this like a lamb to the slaughter and I will defend my judgements as such I the response I shall make, firstly I believe that the context in which the source was in was highly biased in that it basically said that Jews took over a Palestinian City, which is not true as we know that Jewish settlement was one of the first settlements in Caesarea, when I removed the context, I stated why because to say as such that Jews took over a Palestinian City is just historically wrong, when archeological evidence points to plenty of Jewish history in Caesarea, note the Roman Theatre which contains the name of the Jewish Governor at the time of Caesarea. As such to say that Jews took away a city which had been historically Palestinian is just wrong and as such I provided context as to why a removed a portion of the section and made modifications to it, it isn’t like I just wiped it out without exposing why either, which is why I feel that this report is just a personal nab, since these views don’t seem to align with others.

This isn’t as clear cut as you think it is because in most of these situations people removed context without providing an explanation but I provided an explanation and a source as to why I was removing it, further it wasn’t done with malice or ill wishes and I believe that the whole report should just be annulled as I had no ill meaning and provided a source which is this: https://www.britannica.com/place/Caesarea which clearly gives a source of defined Jewish settlement and that Caesarea was rebuilt by King Herod who was Jewish, so to say as such that Jews took over a Palestinian City is ludicrous.

Salandarianflag (talk) 00:09 12 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by a topic ban? Salandarianflag (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn’t violate it since I provided context. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn’t online then, so I didn’t see. 81.103.179.43 (talk) 23:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But it’s not in violation of 1RR as I provided context and a source. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe my edits were in good faith but if you suggest I topic ban then fine I don’t mind but I did provide a source from encyclopaedia Britannica. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How long are topic bans? Salandarianflag (talk) 23:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish:, as this is my first run in with 1RR and I don’t know about too much so I’ll will go over it, I did try to my make edits in good faith, I believe that a topic ban or block is too much, I’ll take a warning and I’ll try next time if I have any disputes to start a compromise discussion if I feel context is off in a certain area. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will comment in my section but I want to say that my edits were made in good faith because I felt I had sufficient reason from my sources. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can honestly tell you that I didn’t see them then regarding those notifications as I was offline, as this is my first run in I am asking for a bit of clemency. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Salandarianflag

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

Looks pretty like some pretty cut and dry 1rr violations. I think a week-long page block and a warning is in order. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:36, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salandarianflag, you were made aware of contentious topics and offered chances to self-revert. None of what you said is an excuse to ignore 1RR, and reads as if you don't believe those rules should apply to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that there may be a bit of a WP:CIR issue as well, which is another argument to keep them out of a contentious area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Salandarianflag, editing in good faith or providing a source does not provide an exception to WP:1RR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:46, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:1RR was linked multiple times on your talk page when asking you to self-revert, which you still have not done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had offered Salandarianflag some gently worded warning/advise a few hours back in response to the AE complaint they had filed. Their response to this AE report indicates that none of that was taken aboard. In light of the persistent WP:BATTLEGROUND, WP:IDHT, assumption of bad faith, and arguably WP:CIR, issues I would support an indef topic-ban from the PIA area in place of (or, in addition to) blocking for the 1RR violation. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This. The battleground attitude displayed here is too much to be met without a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At first I was thinking a short page block and a warning to not repeat the behavior, but the responses definitely push me towards a topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Abecedare, a topic ban is warranted for these violations and the other poor conduct, and if not at least a 1 week block and a final warning. @Salandarianflag: see WP:TBAN. Galobtter (talk) 23:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Salandarianflag: please only comment in your own section above. Galobtter (talk) 23:29, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Salandarianflag "I can honestly tell you that I didn’t see them then regarding those notifications as I was offline" is so obviously false, not only did you respond at User talk:Salandarianflag#WP:1RR but you found your way to WP:AE too. Galobtter (talk) 00:11, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards