Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#AmirSurfLera 3

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Tamzin}} 01:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|DaltonCastle}}

{{ds/log|DaltonCastle}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality

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

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaltonCastle&diff=prev&oldid=1282038652 23 March] (not GENSEX but presented as background): Removed an R&I CTOP alert from Generalrelative as {{tqq|drivel from a partisan editor}}
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:B%C3%A6ddel_and_b%C3%A6dling&diff=prev&oldid=1286127092 17 April] (pre–CTOP awareness): {{tqq|But hey, people have their biases and agendas. Will be interesting to see what happens when all the USAID funding finally stops.}} — Implying that a GENSEX FA is a covert government operation.
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaltonCastle&diff=prev&oldid=1287240897 24 April]: Removed my GENSEX alert as {{tqq|rubbish from a partisan editor}}
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaltonCastle&diff=prev&oldid=1287243388 24 April]: Removed my request to explain or retract the accusations against me and Generalrelative, again as {{tqq|rubbish}}

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=78606973 AMPOL AE block] in 2016, appeal declined

;If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaltonCastle&diff=prev&oldid=1286299755]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :Obviously editors can remove CTOP alerts, but they are not exempt from WP:NPA in doing so. I am not aware of anything I've done that would reasonably give DaltonCastle the impression that I am a partisan in this topic area: I did not participate in the discussion that spurred the alert; I have never been accused of partisan bias in the GENSEX articles I've written; I have tended to be a moderate in GENSEX content disputes; and, not that it should matter, I have middle-of-the-road opinions on most trans issues. The only thing I can think of that would give DaltonCastle the impression that I am partisan is that I am nonbinary, which is a rather unfortunate stereotyping that assumes I'm too self-centered to base my worldview around anything other than my gender. I note that Generalrelative indicates they/them pronouns and "dubious and undisclosed gender" on their userpage, while Generalissima, the apparent target of the USAID-funding accusation, lists she/it pronouns, giving the impression of a gender-based pattern in who Dalton personally attacks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::@Just10A: I didn't say I'm a political moderate. (I have somewhat esoteric political views that don't map neatly onto any camp.) I said I hold moderate views on most trans issues, because I do; and that there is no reasonable basis to assume that I don't, because there isn't. Someone inferring such a bias based merely on my opposition to Donald Trump (currently the position of a majority of Americans, including plenty of transphobes) would be betraying a battleground mentality even deeper than one that leads to inference based on identity. I get that some people on this site sometimes pull the "Well you can't prove I have XYZ bias" schtick, and it's obnoxious when they do, but I'm not saying "You can't prove it"; I'm saying it's not true. My actual POV on trans issues is not a secret [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Girth_Summit/Archive_20#Stray_thought,_re_AN/I] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive370#c-Tamzin-20250410155200-Simonm223-20250410152100] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography/2023_archive#c-Tamzin-20230626182900-Sideswipe9th-20230626180300] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:James_Barry_(surgeon)/Archive_2#On_the_identities_of_the_long-dead] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Isla_Bryson_case#c-Tamzin-20230711080500-Survey]. I think going any further into that would be off-topic for this 'board, but feel free to inquire on my talkpage. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Voorts: Just to note, in removing the notification for this AE thread, DaltonCastle has added a hidden comment reading {{tqq|unwarranted harassment for a personal vendetta will be reported}}. As with the accusations of partisanship, they have not presented any evidence that anyone is harassing them, for personal vendettas or otherwise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaltonCastle&oldid=1287243388&diff=next]

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.

Alright, fair enough. Perhaps I have been too emotional. I will take a break and be more civil. DaltonCastle (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I only recall one brief series of interactions with DaltonCastle, where they sought to remove language on race being a social construct from a section of Intelligence quotient. See Talk:Intelligence quotient#Race, where I invited them to engage. Could be they looked at my user page and saw my pronouns, but perhaps more likely they just assumed I'm "a partisan editor" because I disagreed with them about race. Generalrelative (talk) 02:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm traditionally a very big fan of the community pushing WP:CIVILITY (I don't think we do it enough), but I think this is jumping to conclusions. This shouldn't be much more than a trout for being rude.

Also, the statement {{tq| "The only thing I can think of that would give DaltonCastle the impression that I am partisan is that I am nonbinary"}} is a little presumptive. Tamzin, you are aware that [https://slate.com/technology/2022/06/wikipedia-administrator-election-tamzin.html there is legitimately outside reliable source coverage of your politcal views], correct? We don't need to hold a referendum on those views. Wikipedia editors are allowed to hold almost any views they wish, but those views are not particularly moderate. There are plenty of ways DaltonCastle could have come to that conclusion beyond identity politics. Your views are public knowledge, and he could have come to that conclusion through the media coverage or even just by interacting with you on this site. However, we can't just say: "He said I was partisan, and I'm trans, so therefore he must harbor some sort of deepseated anti-LGBT agenda and deserves a GENSEX sanction." That's a huge leap in logic. Also note that he's been similarly rude (which, again, I do not endorse) to editors with no such gender statements on their page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DaltonCastle&diff=prev&oldid=1278537166]. This isn't a GENSEX issue, he's just being a jerk and needs to be more civil.

DaltonCastle, I encourage you to act with a little more restraint and maybe not be so preemptively dismissive. This should serve as a stern warning, and maybe a trout. Just10A (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:@Tamzin I agree. Like I said, we don't need to hold a referendum on the actual views. Wikipedia editors can mostly have whatever views they want. However, I don't think the position of: "The only possible way this person could think I'm partisan is because I'm trans" is accurate given the data. Again, your views are public information. Or even better, as pointed out by @Generalrelative he also could've formed such an opinion from just interacting with your work on the site like any other normal editor. It's still uncivil, I'm just pointing that there doesn't seem to be any GENSEX relation here. He's just being indiscriminately moody. That's worthy of reprimand, but not GENSEX sanctions. Just10A (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

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

• :I am inclined to take no action given that Dalton has promised to take a break and remain civil going forward. I would add, @DaltonCastle, that you should focus on edits, not editors. Do not accuse other editors of being "partisan" (I agree with Just10A that this isn't related to gender) or make snarky political comments (e.g., your USAID quip) about them on talk pages. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

  • I'm leaning more towards a warning, at least as long as the hidden comment is still there, as it's not a leap to think this is meant as an attack towards certain editors. On the one hand, we've got a promise from Dalton to take a break and be more kind. On the other hand, we've got an editor who's been here long enough to know better. Happy to close with no action once DaltonCastle has acted on their words. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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 : {{userlinks|Fyukfy5}} – 331dot (talk) 10:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : 3 month block for my edit request about Israel's identity on Israel's talk page. (I don't know how to link to specific past requests but the sanction can be found on my talk page and the edit history on Israel's talk page).

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|331dot}}

; Notification of that administrator : User pinged me and I moved the request here. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The reason given for my block is that "Israel's identity is an integral part of the conflict" and therefore I cannot make edit requests about Israel's identity.

I find this to be a troubling view because every detail pertaining to Israel is part of its identity and would not be allowed to be discussed about by non EC users. Everything from Israeli street names, to Israeli weather, to Israeli sports teams and Israeli inventions are part of its identity and if it's true that Israel's identity is integral to the conflict, all articles that have to do with those topics and so many more should be EC blocked and so should their talk pages.

My edit specifically was about adding Israel's identity as a Jewish state to the lede of the Israel article and didn't mention Israel's neighbors, Palestinians, war, or any other mention of the conflict. I hope we could all agree that the sole statement "Israel is a Jewish state" is not one which discusses conflict just as the statement "Bread is comprised of carbohydrates and wheat protein" is not one discussing Celiac's disease.

As a bit of an Orwellian fear, if this sanction stands then the same reasoning could be used by sanctioning users against any user they dislike or disagree with that has ever made an edit regarding anything in Israel or Palestine. Both these places are so much more than the conflict between them and they shouldn't be reduced or minimized to it.

All that being said I hold no ill will towards the sanctioning user. I dont know them but I have no reason to dislike them and I believe they were just trying to do what is best for this platform. Fyukfy5 (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello all, I'd like to clarify a few things in response to what I've read on my case:

1. If it is the consensus opinion on wikipedia that stating Israel's Jewish Identity is controversial/part of the conflict I'd like to apologize. While I evidently disagree I still respect the consensus opinion and truly didn't mean to make that claim as part of a controversial request.

2. The one point I'd like to rebut is @Rosguill's of my edit requests being narrowly focused on the conflict. Of the few topics I'm interested in editing and taking part in on wikipedia like American sports, medicine/biology, and this conflict, the latter is the only one that is broadly EC protected. Therefore, of course my requests are almost entirely on the topic of this conflict because it's the only one where I have to make requests and can't edit the page myslef. With that, as @Chess stated, I have been trying to make my requests more on the topic of semantics and such and not adding/retracting information because I know that that is more controversial. If semantics is also deemed a controversial edit request I need some more guidance on what is and isn't allowed. Fyukfy5 (talk) 13:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

• I blocked due to having two prior AE blocks(see their user talk), and the topic seems connected to the CTOP area to me. I'm happy to remove the block myself if it's felt it's not sufficiently connected. 331dot (talk) 10:26, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{u|Chess}} After their second AE block they were advised to stay away from the topic area. They didn't. 331dot (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• {{u|SilverLocust}} After two prior AE blocks I woukd expect someone in their position to tread very carefully in the topic area, and maybe ask if something is a violation first. It's well pointed out that these topic areas are interpreted broadly. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

I find this explanation extremely unconvincing. The core identity of Israel as a Jewish state is undeniably one of the fundamental issues central to the Israel-Palestine conflict, yet the editor outright states that one could say the same about Israeli weather or Israeli sports or about the carbohydrates in bread vis-à-vis celiac disease. I daresay that the violence in the region is not connected to the Köppen climate classification for Israel nor is there sectarian violence over the nutrional content of bread, with this possible exception.

If this argument is made in good faith, it represents someone should not be editing in this sensitive area at all at this time, even to make an edit request. If this argument is made in bad faith, it's a specious one that seeks to decontextualize the whole conflict, with the same ultimate conclusion. Given that this is not the first offense, and at no time has Fyukfy5 displayed a good understanding of what WP:ECR entail, I would ask ArbCom to topic ban Fyukfy5 from the area, broadly construed, with an appeal after six months and 500 good-faith edits. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 14:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

The three month block here is probably too harsh. The basis of the sanction is a link that was made by the blocking administrator and not by the user themselves. As a general rule, we're more lenient on editors that unknowingly violate restrictions or are attempting to conform their behaviour to those restrictions. {{u|Rosguill}} points out that {{tq|Prior edit requests were all narrowly focused on the Gaza war, the label of "genocide", and tactics used by Hamas}}. This indicates that this user is moving away from what is clearly within the conflict, which indicates that they are listening to admins on what the definition of the topic area is.

There's no disruptiveness beyond the WP:ECR violations. The purpose of ECR isn't to prevent new editors from editing, it's to make it harder for sockmasters to influence Wikipedia. If Fyukfy5 wasn't constantly getting blocked they could just make 258 edits and there wouldn't actually be an issue for Arbitration Enforcement to deal with.

A narrowly tailored restriction would be to t-ban {{u|Fyukfy5}} from making edit requests until they get the extended confirmed right. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 21:14, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|331dot}} The issue is Fyukfy5 not understanding or claiming not to understand the boundaries of the topic area. It might be necessary to be more specific than just siteblocks or Israel-Palestine t-bans, e.g. A ban on edit requests as a whole.

:It's also unclear what Fyukfy5 has to do to successfully appeal the indefinite t-ban being proposed here, because it will literally be impossible for them to violate WP:ECR once they hit 500/30. At that point, the ban can't prevent disruption even if Fyukfy5 has zero understanding of WP:ECR. That's why I proposed the edit request t-ban until 500/30, since it takes away the one loophole that non-WP:500/30 editors have to interact with WP:PIA as Fyukfy5 isn't able to understand when to make edit requests. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 20:38, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• The failure of this appeal to recognize that this is their third PIA-related block in less than six months seems like a nonstarter. While I can sympathize that it can be frustrating that sectarian conflicts permeate the cultural production of the groups involved, that is the fact of it (and is true of pretty much every sectarian conflict, with similar provisions for those designated as contentious topics like Armenia-Azerbaijan). Further, it's not like the proposed edits were about say, Israeli musicians with minimal involvement in the conflict: their most recent edit request was specifically about the character of Israel as a Jewish state and homeland, which is very much the center of the territorial dispute (regardless of one's opinion on the underlying history and moral questions of the conflict). Prior edit requests were all narrowly focused on the Gaza war, the label of "genocide", and tactics used by Hamas. I'm inclined to agree that an indefinite topic ban is needed given the degree of the disconnect between Fyukfy5's comments here and the reality of their past activity. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• There's nothing I can say here that {{u|CoffeeCrumbs}} hasn't already said. -- asilvering (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)
• The block was for making an edit request (this one) "requiring discussion". Had Fyukfy5 previously been told that the edit request exception to WP:ARBECR only extends to non-controversial changes (which isn't explicitly stated there)? If not, I don't really think a 3 month block was "reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption" (WP:CTOPAPPEALS). – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 06:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
• :The text at WP:EDITXY that explains how to make an edit request, linked to by ARBECR, specifies that edit requests must be uncontroversial, and explains what that means in terms of consensus process and discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:11, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::It does, though even assuming one has read it, it would be quite easy to think that requirement is specifically about fully protected edit requests (given that the entire paragraph is about fully protected edit requests). JensonSL (SilverLocust) 03:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• 3 months feels incredibly generous after the prior blocks. I would decline this appeal --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 06:46, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Mooted by ANI Valereee (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Vanezi Astghik}} 20:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Etcnoel1}}

{{ds/log|Etcnoel1}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan

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

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hamidian_massacres&diff=1276042130&oldid=1275815440 16 February 2025] Edits an article that non-extended confirmed users are not allowed to edit, which I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Etcnoel1&diff=prev&oldid=1276527009 cautioned about]
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Sardarabad&diff=prev&oldid=1284713276 9 April 2025] Another GS/AA violation
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enver_Pasha&diff=prev&oldid=1286637617 21 April 2025] Another GS/AA violation
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abdul_Hamid_II&diff=prev&oldid=1286737018 21 April 2025] Another GS/AA violation
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction&diff=1286804141&oldid=1286699850 22 April 2025] In addition to being another GS/AA violation, Etcnoel1 is citing Justin McCarthy (American historian) as a source
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Andranik&diff=1286954115&oldid=1286747176 23 April 2025] Another GS/AA violation
7. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Battle_of_Holy_Apostles_Monastery&diff=prev&oldid=1287034772 23 April 2025] Another GS/AA violation
8. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leo_V_the_Armenian&diff=1287212666&oldid=1283156126 18:57, 24 April 2025] Another GS/AA violation, in addition to evidence of sock puppetry, which I will explain in addition comments

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Etcnoel1&diff=prev&oldid=1276583887 19 February 2025] Blocked for sockpuppeting

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

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Etcnoel1&diff=prev&oldid=1276527009 19 February 2025]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I noticed on the Leo V the Armenian edits violating GS/AA that Etcnoel1 is using the Swedish version of Google Books. I suspect this user is sockpuppeting with IP [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/2a02:aa1:1000::/37 2A02:AA1:1000:0:0:0:0:0/37] which also uses Swedish Google Books.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agha_Petros&diff=1279737671&oldid=1277404803] And this isn't just a case of editing while logged out, because Etcnoel1 was banned from 19 February to 7 April, during which time the IP was editing the same articles Etcnoel1 edits, such as Agha Petros and Battle of Aqra Dagh (1920).

I understand the sockpuppeting evidence alone would belong on SPI. Given the various issues, I wanted to include everything in one post to avoid possible forum shopping. I can open a separate SPI if requested to, though personally I think this is a WP:DUCK. Vanezi (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Etcnoel1&diff=prev&oldid=1288155785]

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.

RE Vanezi: The sockpuppet issue regarding me was already addressed on my talk page, I believe everything here has formally been addressed and resolved. Etcnoel1 (talk) 00:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

RE Rosguill: I’m confused, what in those pages did I do in order for me to basically break the rules? I’m fully aware of my past notice. Etcnoel1 (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Okay thank you for telling me this, I wasn’t aware of this, my apologies. Etcnoel1 (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• While a few of the cited diffs could be considered unrelated, such as the edits to the Enver Pasha image or the Sayfo details, the edits at Battle of Sardarabad and Andranik are clearly within scope, and Etcnoel1 had received a prior notice. {{u|Etcnoel1}}, can you please address why you made these edits despite having received prior notice? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:56, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

  :{{u|Vanezi Astghik}}, my understanding is that the editing while logged out was identified and addressed during their unblock request at User talk:Etcnoel1#Block for ‘‘sockpuppet’’. Overall, I find the quality of Etcnoel1's edits thus far to be low and consistent with ethnically-motivated POV-pushing. However, given that they are focused on inserting mentions of Assyrian identity, rather than directly relating to Armenia/Azerbaijan dispute, I don't think it would be appropriate to issue a harsh sanction at this time. I find the explanation of ignorance plausible, while noting that it's not entirely exculpatory given that editors engaging in WP:CTOP editing are expected to be fully mindful of best practices and relevant policies and guidelines. I'm thus finding myself gravitating towards a logged warning against Etcnoel1 for ethnic POV-pushing in the lead and infobox of articles, but would appreciate input from other admins. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  ::Listen, I’m not trying to be biased—I do my best to stay neutral on Wikipedia. I’m not here to push Assyrian identity over anything else. If some of my edits came off as low quality, I’m sorry—that wasn’t my intention and I promise you that. Etcnoel1 (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  • {{u|Etcnoel1}}: Please keep comments in your section, including responses to others. I've moved your responses there. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:44, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :{{u|Etcnoel1}}, the general understanding of WP:GS/AA is that, as it is "broadly construed", any edits relating to Armenian history and claims to land are out of bounds. Edits to articles specifically about Armenian-Ottoman military conflict during WWI (Battle of Sardarabad) and one of the leaders of the Ottoman-era Armenian national liberation movement (Andranik) are definitely covered. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:59, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I think we have to go with a logged warning at least, but given that they're presently blocked for personal attacks and Assyrian identity itself might be about to end up under community sanctions, I'm thinking it might be better to go for a topic ban. Two main reasons: one, I'm skeptical that a warning will have any more effect than it did at ANI; two, they're a new editor who has jumped into CTOPs, and it's my belief generally that anyone who jumps straight into CTOPs and gets into trouble ought to be shivvied out of the topic area as soon as possible to give them a chance to develop as an editor. I'd really prefer to see new editors learn the ways of Wikipedia somewhere "safe", rather than end up sadly defining the terms of their eventual community ban. -- asilvering (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :I think there’s a jurisdiction issue, as Assyrian topics, which is clearly the crux of the disruption, are not subject to any CTOP yet. I don’t think banning them from AA, meanwhile, would accomplish much. I suppose we could refer this to ANI (although that is perhaps redundant with the extant ANI thread relating to Etcnoel1 over there) _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::My thinking is that it would at least get them out of the Armenian stuff, which this board does have jurisdiction over. -- asilvering (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::I guess that's reasonable, although it would probably also be worthwhile for you to hop over and weigh in on the ANI thread too. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::Hm, thought I had, though perhaps I just got distracted by the sockpuppet thing. I'll take another look. Regarding the tban, I think we're both at an "eh, I guess", on either sides of the decision, which imo works out to a "no consensus for tban". -- asilvering (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :::::Sorry, I'd forgotten that you'd already commented there, that's what I get for responding to admin business on my phone. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 04:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::::::I think we can close this report, as I am recommending a community tban from Assyrian topics at ANI, which makes the more marginal sanctions we were considering here moot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 05:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

  {{hab}}

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Petextrodon}} 00:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Merline303}}

{{ds/log|Merline303}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SL

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

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1283370614&oldid=1283362724 1 April 2025] Adds misleading statement about International Court of Justice from a poor primary source (see additional comments for more details)
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1286183809&oldid=1286110288 18 April 2025] Re-adds the same statement without engaging other editors who removed it
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_104%2C_Tamil_Genocide_Education_Week_Act&diff=1287284558&oldid=1286820818 25 April 2025] Re-adds the same disputed content to a related article after being removed

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

1. [http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation
2. [http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation

;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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMerline303&diff=1286186118&oldid=1280794942 18 April 2025] (see the system log linked to above).

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

Merline303 has been engaging in a tendentious editing to push a POV in Tamil genocide and related articles. Tamil genocide has attracted several bad-faith SPAs and I suspect this recently created account is another one. His [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Merline303&target=Merline303&dir=prev earliest edits] were about public figures and NGOs who recognize Tamil genocide and are mentioned in the Tamil genocide article. His edit history in some of these articles is tendentious as he gave prominence to minor events in such a way to discredit these figures. In Vijay Thanigasalam (which is also his top edited page), a Canadian MPP who introduced the Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, he framed the MPP's entry into politics negatively by highlighting a tabloid-generated controversy in excess words. Another editor further expanded the controversy. When I condensed the paragraph to comply with WP:BLP guidelines, Merline303 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Thanigasalam&diff=1285841801&oldid=1283975352 reverted] my edit saying it was RS. When I restored the content with [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Thanigasalam&diff=1285988142&oldid=1285841851 explanation] specifying the issue was not about RS but BLP, specifically NPOV, as his edits were giving undue weight to a controversy, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVijay_Thanigasalam&diff=1286183122&oldid=1272902708 replied] in the Talk page making it a RS issue once again. When I once again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVijay_Thanigasalam&diff=1286184758&oldid=1286183122 made it clear] the issue was with undue weight, he once again [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVijay_Thanigasalam&diff=1286501539&oldid=1286184758 made it a RS issue] and asked me for re-explanation. I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AVijay_Thanigasalam&diff=1286817592&oldid=1286501539 explained] to him that this was a "sealioning" behavior for which editors get sanctioned.

In Tamil genocide article itself, he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1283370614&oldid=1283362724 added content] from a primary source court document of the Ontario Court of Appeal to both the lede and a section. It stated that "the International Court of Justice has not found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide," which is misleading since only states are allowed to submit genocide cases to the ICJ and no state had done so in the case of Tamil genocide. He further added that, "This judgement was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada," which is a deliberate distortion since the [https://decisions.scc-csc.ca/scc-csc/scc-l-csc-a/en/20924/1/document.do cited source] (another primary source court document, 29 words in all) only states that the Supreme Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal's judgement was with regards to the constitutional validity of the bill "Tamil Genocide Education Week Act", and the mention of the ICJ was only an incidental background detail. The purpose of adding these two misleading statements was to create the false impression that ICJ had rejected the claim of Tamil genocide which is why he insists on using this particularly poor primary source when a better secondary RS would have made it clear that no such a case had been submitted to the ICJ by any state in the first place.

Another editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1283427276&oldid=1283370614 removed] the repetitive content from the lede explaining the appropriate section already had the same content. Later I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1283444981&oldid=1283427276 removed] the whole thing, explaining it needed a better secondary RS. Weeks later, Merline303 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1286183809&oldid=1286110288 re-added] the content to the lede without even engaging other editors either in the edit explanation or the Talk page. I left an [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMerline303&diff=1286187258&oldid=1286186118 edit war warning] in his Talk page, clearly explaining that he was "repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree," to which he [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMerline303&diff=1286500926&oldid=1286187258 replied] the same sealioning response of not being able to understand it.

Days later, I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_104%2C_Tamil_Genocide_Education_Week_Act&diff=1286820818&oldid=1286820592 removed] the same misleading content that he had added to the main article of Tamil Genocide Education Week Act, explaining that he needed a better secondary RS and that the phrasing was misleading. He [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_104%2C_Tamil_Genocide_Education_Week_Act&diff=1287284558&oldid=1286820818 reverted] that days later, despite the edit war warning that had advised him to discuss in Talk, claiming that WP:RSPRIMARY allowed it although WP:PRIMARY states that such sources need to be used with care because "it is easy to misuse them" which is what he was doing.

After another editor had [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1286215914&oldid=1286184092 removed] his re-added content from the lede of Tamil genocide article, he finally opened a Talk discussion, insisting on re-adding the same content to the lede, claiming that WP:RSPRIMARY allows it. Even after the other editor [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_genocide&diff=1287923521&oldid=1286215991 re-added] the content to the appropriate section as a compromise, he keeps [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATamil_genocide&diff=1288055128&oldid=1287923567 insisting] it should be re-added to the lede itself, rejecting any compromise and repeating the same sealioning behavior of not understanding.

This seems to be a case of Clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia.--Petextrodon (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:@SilverLocust

:1) That statement you cited is only a summary of the [https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-104 preamble in the bill] itself. Edits on Vijay Thanigasalam should speak for themselves.

:2) Deliberate distortion: The court document Merline303 cited to support his statement goes against the very principle that he himself had cited: "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". It was an original research on his part and he should have known better.

:3) ICJ: Yes the court document doesn't note that context which is why it's a poor source to use in the way he repeatedly did even after other editors had challenged its reliability and appropriateness.

:Problematic behaviors I had listed should not be seen in isolation but as a whole. As they say, once is a mistake, twice is a coincidence, three times is a pattern.---Petextrodon (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMerline303&diff=1288338456&oldid=1288222094 AE notification diff]

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

I am lost for words? I reject Petextrodon's accusation of POV pushing, badgering and edit waring. I have been creating articles and expanding on gaps in Wikipedia. However, Petextrodon seems to be targeting me for some reason.

• Vijay Thanigasalam - Petextrodon had removed content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Thanigasalam&diff=prev&oldid=1285988142], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vijay_Thanigasalam&diff=prev&oldid=1283448372] and I attempted to engage in Talk:Vijay_Thanigasalam#Content_removal_by_Petextrodon, which Petextrodon didn't taken an effort to. I even took Petextrodon's queue to move content to a topic of its own Bill 104, Tamil Genocide Education Week Act.
• Bill 104, Tamil Genocide Education Week Act - Petextrodon removed content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bill_104,_Tamil_Genocide_Education_Week_Act&diff=prev&oldid=1286820818] without engaging in the talk page until 1 May.
• Tamil genocide - I initiated the discussion on Talk:Tamil_genocide#Judgement_of_the_Canadian_Federal_Court_of_Appeal, and there was progress until, Petextrodon jumped in yesterday [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tamil_genocide&diff=prev&oldid=1288258721] with accusing me of badgering.
• International Truth and Justice Project - Petextrodon removed content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Truth_and_Justice_Project&diff=prev&oldid=1286822306] with a vague comment on 22 April only engaged in the Talk page on 1 May.

I am not going explain the content dispute on the FCA case, instead I would urge everyone to read the discussion in the talk page Talk:Tamil_genocide#Judgement_of_the_Canadian_Federal_Court_of_Appeal. I believe its self-explanatory. I will be happy to answer any questions anyone has. Now I am concerned about making any more edits as I feel these would be portrayed as POV pushing if Petextrodon doesn't agree with me. Merline303 (talk) 05:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• :A topic ban at minimum is warranted. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:47, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

  ::voorts, do you still advocate a topic ban after additional comments have been made in this discussion? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  :::No. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:45, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

  • It doesn't seem to me that Merline303 is trying to discredit those who recognize the Tamil genocide given that Merline303 created an article with the statement "{{tq|the Tamil community in Ontario had families suffering the effects of the genocide that the Sri Lankan state perpetrated against the Tamils during the civil war from 1983 to 2009.}}" I think Petextrodon may be mistakenly attributing a denialist POV to Merline303, but I'd welcome clarification of my confusion. {{pb}}Nor is it likely to be "deliberate distortion" to refer to denial of an appeal (by a court with discretionary jurisdiction) as upholding the lower court's decision. People frequently mistakenly think that the denial of a discretionary appeal (such as certiorari) expresses agreement with the lower court opinion. In any event, it certainly allows the ruling to stand. {{pb}}Nor would I sanction them for thinking the thing about the ICJ not having "found the Sri Lankan state responsible for a genocide" was an appropriate use of a primary source. That certainly qualifies as a "descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". It might be "misleading" not to note that no nation has asked the ICJ to consider that question, but that is context that the court decision also doesn't note. {{pb}}As to the two reverts on April 18 and April 25, I wouldn't impose sanctions for that. It is at most very light edit warring. {{pb}}{{Reply|Petextrodon}} I will give you an additional 150 words if you would like to respond (especially to my first paragraph). (Your filing was already more than 200 words over the limit of 500.) – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 05:52, 2 May 2025 (UTC)
  • I think I align with SL's reading here, noting that it appears to be Merline303 who opened discussion on the talk page, and has not continued the edit war since then. I'm a bit more skeptical of the propriety of citing a court case out of the blue, without reference to a reliable secondary source, but unless there's evidence of this being a pervasive pattern, against clear consensus, it does not rise to the level of sanctions. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:03, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1=Closed unactioned. Valereee (talk) 20:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Kautilya3}} 13:19, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Wikipedious1}}

{{ds/log|Wikipedious1}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBIPA

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

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=1288143703&oldid=1288140871 18:56 30 April 2025] Original edit
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1288494055 00:53 3 May 2025] Reinstatement

; 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):

• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipedious1&diff=prev&oldid=1287816457 28 April 2025]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

{{U|RegentsPark}} has placed the page 2025 Pahalgam attack under Active Arbitration Remedies, which include an enforced BRD. The edit notice on the page states: {{tq|You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message.}}

{{U|Wikipedious1}} added content in diff 1, and, after it was reverted, reinstated it in diff 2 without any discussion on the talk page. Even worse, he has not even answered the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Settler_colonialism? talk page discussion] that I myself initiated.

It seems like a clear violation of the Arbitration Remedy.

: Since the editor has now reverted their reinstatement, I am happy to withdraw the complaint. I would just note that if the reason for revert is not clear, it is perfectly fine to query it on the talk page. There is no need for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kautilya3#Some_reminders_on_how_WP:BRD_works this kind of drama]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:: It looks like I was hasty in expressing my willingness to withdraw the complaint, since the user's WP:BATTLEGROUND attitude continues even on this page.

::* "Pakistani" and "Muslim" are identities that they are bringing to the table. They were neither mentioned by Deutsche Welle nor by me anywhere in the discussion. Clearly, the editor is seeing the whole discussion as an identitarian battle and the substance of the discussions is completely escaping their notice.

::* I had used the phrase 'supposed historian and political analyst' for the expert named by Deutsche Welle, because what he states is completely contrary to what I had written earlier in that talk page section [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#State_subjects,_permanent_residents_and_domicile], where the description given in the Harvard Law Review as well as Indian constitution's provisions were analysed. The expert's claim that the said land laws violate the Indian constitution is unsubstantiated, and completely devoid of fact. The ability to purchase land and settle down anywhere in the country is part of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Indian constitution, and laws can be enacted to restrict it only under the exceptions mentioned in the constitution. The expert is claiming the exact opposite.

::* The editor is also peeved about the term "narrative", which they believe applies to themselves in some way. My [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2025_Pahalgam_attack&diff=prev&oldid=1288472552 edit summary] said, {{tq|Removing "settler colonialism" narrative; present your evidence on the talk page}}. From this it should be clear that it is "settler colonialism" that has been called a "narrative", not the edit or the editor. My [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2025_Pahalgam_attack#Settler_colonialism? talk page discussion] had already explained why it remains a "narrative", which the editor seems to have neither read nor understood. Another scholar had described all this as a "mass-scale hysteria".

:: It seems that the editor's unwarranted defensiveness, inability to follow and comprehend the discussions in a timely manner, and inability to follow quite straightforward edit restrictions, would seem to warrant a topic ban from this page. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wikipedious1&diff=prev&oldid=1288561336 3 May 2025]

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

I made the edit Kautilya3 has linked above, which I regarded as a "bold edit" per BRD. My understanding is that it was fine for someone to revert this edit so long as they followed BRD, i.e., (quoting from BRD) "briefly explain why you reverted. You can encourage the bold editor to start a discussion on the article talk page if they want to learn more about why you reverted. Alternatively, start a discussion yourself on the article talk page about the issue."

Later, I saw that my edit was reverted by Kautilya3. I was not aware that Kautilya3 started a talk page discussion about this content, and I only learned that this discussion was started after seeing it linked above in this very noticeboard discussion. It seems Kautilya3 created a sub-section under an earlier discussion, and did not ping me, so I was not aware of it, as I only checked for recent talk page discussions. All I saw was their revert which completely removed my additions and their edit summary: "Removing "settler colonialism" narrative; present your evidence on the talk page"

I thought their edit summary was ambiguous and hostile ("your narrative", "present your evidence"), and that it violated BRD, mainly because their edit summary did not present an actual dispute with the content and instead gave a vague command. I felt confused as to how to follow the command since I did not know what narrative or evidence Kautilya3 wanted to discuss, I also felt offended that my edit was being dismissed as a narrative, and that Kautilya3 was putting me on the defensive about my edit when I did not know exactly what they disputed. I felt that because it was Kautilya3's dispute with the content, it was on them to, at the least, explain their exact reason for reverting, and at most, start a talk discussion with their specific disputes. Though in reviewing BRD I understand the onus of taking it to talk was on either of us, – and I realize now that, in any case, Kautilya3 did indeed start a talk discussion before making the revert. Not knowing this I reverted Kautilya3's revert and told them to discuss in the talk page in my edit summary.

After reverting Kautilya3's edit I left [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Kautilya3&diff=prev&oldid=1288495332 this] message on their talk page expressing that I believed they violated BRD. Kautilya3 then [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kautilya3&diff=prev&oldid=1288547586 informed] me that for this article, BRD applies "after your edit is reverted". I did not understand this prior to reverting Kautilya3's revert. Understanding this now, I am totally willing to comply, but I do find the instruction confusing because BRD begins with a bold edit and does not begin with a revert. In any case, per Kautilya3's suggestion I have manually reverted the disputed content. I think this is a misunderstanding on my part, and I am willing to discuss any disputes harmoniously, just as I have been. Wikipedious1 (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:This kind of drama? Do you mind explaining why someone would want to engage with you civilly when, before any discussion happens, you dismiss their edits as a "narrative", and when you use language like

:"A supposed "historian and political analyst" called [Pakistani Muslim name]"

:from the talk page discussion you created and linked above. Is there something wrong with that name?

:You can obviously do whatever you want, but I want to hear what uninvolved admins have to say now, so no, I would advise you to not withdraw the complaint. (Edit) And to be perfectly clear I still would engage with you and anyone else with civility. But from reviewing the aspects of the complaint and what led up to it, and your rhetoric, I do now want to hear what admin have to say. Wikipedious1 (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• So, having agreed that the initial edit by Wikipedious1 was a good faith lack of understanding of the relevant sanctions in force and that they now understand what not to do, this has devolved into petty bickering. {{u|Wikipedious1}}, unless you have additional diffs demonstrating that Kautilya3 has a habit of dismissing Pakistani and/or Muslim sources on frivolous grounds, there is no basis for any sanctions. I think "this kind of drama" quip was unnecessary, I can understand being put off by it, but I can't fault Kautilya3 for expressing displeasure for receiving a long and imperious lecture when they were in the right. I would recommend closing without further action unless you have additional diffs to present. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 22:53, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  {{hab}}

{{hat|{{user1|Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti}} is indefinitely topic banned from Albanian and Serbian topics, broadly construed. Sennecaster (Chat) 18:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)}}

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|voorts}} 23:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti}}

{{ds/log|Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe#Contentious topic designation

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

1. 3 May 2025: OR RE Bajgora offensive. None of the sources mention this offensive by name.
2. 20 April 2025: More OR. (See user talk discussion.
3. 5 April 2025: More OR.

; 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 7 September 2024.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

• This editor has been warned several times on their talk page regarding original research and use of reliable sources. voorts (talk/contributions) 23:08, 3 May 2025 (UTC)
• {{ping|Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti}} The link you've shared doesn't work for me, but even if it did, citing an entire non-English book without providing a page number is not helpful. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:52, 4 May 2025 (UTC)
• Dr. Kurti basically admits that the Bajgora offensive article is OR: Special:Diff/1288902321. voorts (talk/contributions) 12:22, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Another response in the AfD: Special:Diff/1288965135. I think some sort of editing restriction is warranted here. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:36, 5 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::Some POV editing thrown in: Special:Diff/1289229650. voorts (talk/contributions) 04:15, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::Almost all of his edits have been related to the Kosovo War, which is covered by Albanian/Serbian TBAN. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:17, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Special:Diff/1288638628

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.

The offensive is mentioned by name in the book i referenced by the professor Dr Sabit Syla.asa.edu.al/site/ih/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2022/01/Revista-Studime-historike-3-4-2020-223-248.pdf I request you remove my article from deletion and check this link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti (talk • contribs) 09:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:What page? Can you quote the source material? Mooonswimmer 07:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• To be honest, the edits I find most concerning here are the provision of offline book-length sources without page numbers (and particularly doing so to make sweeping claims about cultural patrimony, as in the second diff that the report cites. {{u|Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti}}, you need to acknowledge this and refrain from making further unverifiable edits. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

  :Given that {{u|Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti}} appears to have decided to take a relatively abrupt and unprecedented break from editing following this report, I would propose to close this with a topic ban from Serbian and Albanian topics, broadly construed, in a few days' time if they have no further response here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:52, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

  • Agree with Rosguill above, adding that talk page comments like {{tq|my edits are being wrongfully reverted based on lies by serbs like you}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dr_Dijon_Ethem_Kurti#c-Dr_Dijon_Ethem_Kurti-20250421124200-Sadko-20250421100100]) don't give me a lot of hope. -- asilvering (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • Rosguill and asilvering; I'm intending to close this with a topic ban but I'm uncertain if you think Albanian/Serbian topics is enough or if you'd want to make it Balkans to make it more clear. Sennecaster (Chat) 03:39, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :If we're broadening it past Albanian/Serbian topics, better to stop at "former Yugoslavia" or something. I'm not sure "Balkans" actually makes it any more clear. -- asilvering (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • ::Er, "Albania and former Yugoslavia". I swear I understand historical geography. -- asilvering (talk) 04:26, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
  • :I think Albanian/Serbian would be enough, as the crux of the issue in this case seems to be Albanian claims to Yugoslav patrimony, but the broader definitions are also fine by me. N.b., Dr Dijon Ethem Kurti has continued editing the topic area over the past few days, so I expect that they will require an extended explanation of the topic ban once it is placed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

  {{hab}}

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Closetside}} 18:47, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|M.Bitton}}

{{ds/log|M.Bitton}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:ARBPIA

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

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1287863241] Refuses to acknowledge a map of a RS and calls my reading of it an "interpretation." Furthermore, incredibly arrogant by refusing to recognize there even is a dispute, considering themself a mere purveyor of what the RS say.
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288011383] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288012918] Insists I wait for a 3O despite stating they don't disagree with me on those points (I previously assumed they did)
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288013737] Baselessly calls my perspective OR, despite previously providing sourced despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1287821134| previously providing RS] to back up my position
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288461023] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288481599] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1289098650] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1289109260] Again, refuses to acknowledge the sources I brought up to support my position, even though a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288461392| 3O explicitly told them] they were ignoring my sources beforehand.
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288483543] Despite the dispute being hashed out well already and advised by a 3O, they insisted we go to DRN. While this may be fine, they subsequently haven't opened up anything on DRN yet despite their insistence.
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1289100031] Refused to acknowledge a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288800587| legitimate rebuttal] to their interpretation of the sources they cited.
7. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1289108273] Insisted on coming here despite [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1289106986| me giving them] one last chance to correct their behavior and avoid this report.

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1182#h-Bludgeoning,_POV-pushing,_personal_attacks_and_incivility_from_M.Bitton-20250304080700] Blocked for disruptive editing (quite similar behavior) 2 months ago.
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=62724514] Blocked for disruptive editing in 2015.

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MilesVorkosigan&diff=prev&oldid=1288466989]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

I would like to respond to the allegations M.Bitton raised against me a few days ago.

• I rewrote the lede after the RM was resolved. At the time, I thought the dispute was whether the Wadi Gaza and Besor Streams were one stream or two, and I thought the RM settled it as one. I was unaware of M.Bitton's notion of it originating near Hebron and did not revert their revert once they reverted it. My other rewrites were bold attempts at compromise per BRD and I did not revert their revert
• My last declaration of retirement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Closetside&diff=prev&oldid=1279894998] was way before the AE report on MilesVorkosigan, so no, I wasn't gaming the system.
• In Nahal Hevron removed "which is in the Palestinian Authority" for consiceness, not to declare that the West Bank was part of Israel. In fact, later on in the lede, I updated the jursidictions of the stream in Israeli territory and omitted Israel's administrative divisions in the West Bank, which implies the West Bank is not in Israel.
• Nahal Hevron is the article name and the COMMONNAME. It deserves to be first (Hebron River/Stream is not the "official name" or anything), and providing a Hebrew translation for the transliteration is appropriate. The Arabic names remained in the main text in the first sentence. Compare this to the Nahal Be'er Sheva, an article I created about a stream entirely in Israel, where I relegated the Arabic to a footnote.

In conclusion, this editor has returned to their disruptive editing despite being blocked for a month a mere two months ago due to it. I wish they took the off ramp, but alas they didn't, so here we are.

:Now to respond to M.Bitton's statement.

:1) From the maps in the very source M.Bitton quoted in the statement, the Nahal Hevron ends at its confluence with the Nahal Be'er Sheva, so it is not in Gaza. Furthermore, when the very quote lists the Nahal Hevron's names, including both its Arabic names, Wadi Gaza is not one of them. Because the stream is not in Gaza, removing it from the Gaza category was justified.

:2) {{u|MilesVorkosigan}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288463863| thought] they were giving a 3O. M.Bitton even [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1288480116| opined] that 3O was a waste of time, which was an acknowledgement that there was a 3O. And this was before {{u|Richard Nevell}}, so this was a clear reference to MilesVorkosigan.

:3) I had a legitimate challenge to Richard Nevell, which I asked, and Richard Nevell has chosen not to respond to while editing elsewhere, as he may. His comment was a mere suggestion, not an ironclad recommendation, as evidenced by the "perhaps." Regardless, this is Wikipedia where all editors are equal. Experience does not confer privilege in discussions, a lesson M.Bitton hasn't internalized.

:4) With the RM, all editors are equal. I had my position, Richard Nevell had his, and the closer closed it as no consensus. Richard Nevell never accused me of incivility, and contrary to M.Bitton's framing, the "speaking time" in the discussion was roughly even.

:5) I did not violate the 1rr, edit war, or unilaterally change the title. Furthermore, all my three edits conform to BRD; the second and third were attempted compromises, as evident from the edit summaries. The first two also occurred when I was unaware of the locus of the dispute (i.e. the origin of the Besor). So no, at least as far as I can tell, I did not repeating my past errors. Furthermore, this is about past, not ongoing behavior; I haven't edited the page in a week as I wait for the dispute to be resolved. Sanctions address ongoing, not past behavior per WP:NOTPUNITIVE. Closetside (talk) 22:14, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:6) The accusation that I was "recruiting a friend" is ludicrous. MilesVorkosigan, came to me, not vice versa, in response a report this very M.Bitton reported against MilesVorkosigan. Similarly, the bludgeoning accusation is ludicrous; my arguments evolved throughout, including during my reply to Richard Nevell. M.Bitton's argument (two RS support the notion that the Besor originates in the Hebron Hills, while none oppose) was repeated by M.Bitton like a broken record, even as I cited opposing RS and eventually rebutted the claim those 2 RS support the notion. To hit this point home, he once referenced a comment by Bergman which they claimed supported the notion and dropped it in subsequent formations of his argument, referring back to only their 2 RS. Furthermore, they refused to engage with my rebutals whatsoever. Closetside (talk) 23:34, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• {{u|Richard Nevell}} {{u|Barkeep49}} see my penultimate diff where I argued that M.Bitton had no RS that backed up his position and rebutted the argument that the RS he brought supported his position. He did not respond my rebuttal, merely repeating his claim that those RS do support his position, provide new RS that support his position, or respond to my inquiry asking how his position would refer to what my position would name Upper Besor and Be'er Sheva streams. If his position were valid, responding to the last challenge and one or both of the first two would be trivial. Therefore, his position is invalid, and suggesting a compromise between my valid position, backed up by many RS, and his invalid position, not backed by a single one, is an application of the middle ground fallacy. And if he can respond sufficiently (to the above standard), I'd be happy to compromise or even concede if he can argue that the RS overwhelmingly supports his position. So far, he is uninterested in arguing or conceding gracefully, instead beating the same drum like a proponent of a canard, and this behaviour is harmful to the encyclopedia. Closetside (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• :@Barkeep49 thanks for clarifying. The way to get to consensus is to make your point and let the community decide through consensus, not repeatedly trying to get your dispute opponent to concede. I withdraw the "refusing to argue or concede gracefully" part from the report and plan on starting in RfC to let the community form a consensus. However, insisting on a 3O despite not having a 2O and claiming that they are the faithful purveyor of RS, repeating the same argument many times like a broken record and claiming that I am pushing my POV through OR without RS (even though I am citing RS) is problematic behavior that deserves AE. This came from @Richard Nevell's last line {{tquote|Reading more of the article I think the way forward, content wise, is to emulate the description in the 'Introduction' section, noting the main channel and tributaries. As the source describes the Besor as having multiple headwaters trying to select a single one may be overly reductive.}}, which suggests a compromise which seems to me as an application of the middle ground fallacy. However, I will respect the community's conclusion. Closetside (talk) 22:12, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::I have opened an RfC on the Talk:Besor Stream. @M.Bitton @Fiveby @MilesVorkosigan @Samuelshraga (not pinging Richard Nevell because he is already aware of it). Closetside (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1289143456]

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.

Since this is in response to my question to the admins, I'll copy and paste here what I mentioned previously:

• Apart from the fact that Closetside has been canvassed, I will note that they have have a history of gaming the system (pretending to be "retired" when feeling the heat) and disruptive editing: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive322#Closetside and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive351#Closetside. Interestingly, after the last report, they went straight back to one of the articles that they edit warred on: despite what they claimed in that report {{tq|I self-reverted those changes and I will not reinstate them until there is consensus|q=yes}} (diff), they did not reinstate the sourced content that they removed; and a month later, they removed again the mention of Palestine (without consensus). As for them mentioning a block, all I can say to that is: that's rich coming for them. I will also note that their response to me suggesting we take the dispute to DRN is puzzling (to say the least).
• These edits are also worth looking into: casting aspersions in an attempt to recruit a friend and removing the "retired template" (after I commented on it, even though others questioned it long before that). Being accused of bludgeoning by an editor who bludgeoned all the discussions (with walls of text) to death is a first.

More worrying though is the:

• Disruptive editing and POV pushing: 1) Closetside removed the mention of the "Palestinian Authority" (West Bank) and Gaza (including the category), even though both are mentioned in the only cited source in that article, and 2) they added Hebrew to the lead to make it 100% Israeli. They did this in the middle of the discussion about a related subject. [https://old.ecopeaceme.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Community_Based_Problem_Solving_Nov_2016_Final.pdf The cited source] says: "The Hebron stream has many names: Wadi Al-Khalil, Wadi Al-Samen and Nahal Hevron. The stream originates in the Hebron Hills in the West Bank running southwest along 45 km crossing Be’er Sheva in Israel, and ending in Wadi Gaza and the Mediterranean Sea."
• This edit is in line with the above: they adjusted the content to suit their POV and then started a RM (to make all the shared rivers and the streams 100% Israeli).
• They edit warred over this content removal (which reeks of nationalism) until they were blocked by SRF for a week.

with regard to some of their comments:

1. I stick to every word that I wrote in this comment. The reliable sources that I cited here are very clear.
2. There was no 3O response.
3. Here's what an experience editor said. Obviously, Closetside didn't agree with them. They also drove them up the wall during the RM discussion that they bludgeoned (while refusing to compromise).
4. I didn't open a DRN because I didn't edit for the last 3 days and I was awaiting a response to this request. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

In conclusion, I don't think Closetside is capable of editing PIA related articles without pushing a nationalist POV, as evidenced by the two previous reports (September 2023 and April 2025) and the PIA related block. M.Bitton (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Liz: I was told that I couldn't complain about them in the other report because the scope of a discussion is limited to the "conduct of two parties". The section was collapsed and my request to add their name to the report was ignored (this report was made after they saw my request). I responded to what is worth responding to, the rest is them complaining about the fact that I don't agree with them and their attempt to censor properly sourced content that doesn't align with their POV (this is not a one off either). I will ping the other editor who is familiar with the discussion. {{re|Richard Nevell}} your input would be highly appreciated. Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• What MilesVorkosigan (a non EC editor at the time who violated the ECR policy) is claiming is far from what happened. They accused me of ignoring the sources, and when I asked them which sources they are referring to, they provided what can only be described as "non answer", with a battleground approach to boot. M.Bitton (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• The source that was mentioned by Fiveby was used in a specific context: to prove that even the author of the map (that was presented by Closetside as a source that contradicts those that I cited) does not deny the West Bank origin of the stream. M.Bitton (talk) 17:22, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

• @Liz: the two are related. I cannot ignore the fact that they only started this report after realising that I was about to start one about their behaviour. That I don't agree with their interpretation of what happened is a given: they removed properly sourced content (the root of the issue), dismissed all the reliable sources that don't align with their pov, cited less explicit sources (not to prove another origin, but to disqualify the other and justify the sourced content removal), insisted on only using their {{tq|preferred description|q=yes}} (which they characterised, without a shred of evidence, as the " typical description"), etc. Luckily, {{u|Richard Nevell}} (who followed the discussion from the start) provided a third-party perspective. Had this been a one off, I would have dismissed it as a simple content dispute, but it's not, and the fact that, in the middle of the dispute, Closetside did the same thing to another PIA related article (mentioned above) is a serious cause for concern. M.Bitton (talk) 18:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

For a quick primer on the content dispute here i'd suggest admins take a quick look at figure 1 in "Analysis of extreme rainfall trend and mapping of the Wadi pluvial flood in the Gaza coastal plain of Palestine" ([https://link-springer-com.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/article/10.1007/s11600-024-01446-9 WPL Springer link]) (the abstract of which MBitton has quoted on the take page) which illustrates the main channel of the stream and the drainage basin of all the tributaries. Not to decide the content issue but to determine if editors are making valid arguments and representing sources appropriately on the talk page. fiveby(zero) 14:07, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

{{u|Richard Nevell}}, there is no controversy or confusion as to the physical geography here, a mundane bit of content with concepts and terminology we should have all learned in middle school. How and why such controversy and confusion has been manufactured on the talk page is an exercise for the admins here. While there are many ways of describing our water body we should not entertain those which move the source to the Hebron Hills nor those which have the course somehow reaching the Med without passing through Gaza.

I submit that neutral editors would realize both that there are important issues concerning the tributary waters from the West Bank and that there is no need to alter the course in order to provide that content. fiveby(zero) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

In his statement, M.Bitton says that there was no 3O. That is only very, very technically correct, because I saw the request on the 3O page and went to the talk page for the article. I asked both users some questions, ClosetSide responded, M.Bitton refused to engage and just kept repeating that he would only use the one source that agreed with him. He would not explain why he chose to ignore the other sources mentioned on the talk page or why he would not discuss them. After I reminded him of policy, he filed a complaint here, trying to pretend that asking him about his sources violated the Arb decision about Israel/Palestine.

Then he removed all of my comments from the talk page.

MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:Note that M.Bitton is perhaps slightly misleading in his most recent reply when he calls me a 'non-EC' editor. As he knows, it turns out I was at *that* time eight edits way from EC, and I am now well past that number, as pointed out by neutral editors in his complaint against me.

:That is the reason that the most recent recommendation in his complaint is to close it without action.

:As to the 'battleground' statement, I'll point out that M.Bitton has three blocks for edit warring in that last few months. I have none.

:MilesVorkosigan (talk) 17:42, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::He {{diff|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement|next|1289290279|edited his prior statement}} with an unclear edit summary, so now, after I mentioned it, it is correct. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 18:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I just noticed that there is another clear inaccuracy in M.Bitton's statement, where he accuses Closetside of WP:Canvassing. Closetside didn't need to bring this new complaint to my attention, I obviously noted it because I was already watching the page, it was on my watchlist because of M.Bitton. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 20:48, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I am commenting here as both parties have pinged me in their comments. My previous involvement on the talk page largely been around the article title. I have watched the discussion about the current points of contention unfold but contributed little as my available time is unpredictable and I didn't want to join a conversation and go quiet.

There is some talking at cross purposes and not much meeting in the middle. M.Bitton has been quoting explicit statements from sources (eg: "The Khalil Besor river originates in the West Bank") whereas those used by Closetside are less explicit. Closetside has been making special pleading that the sources provided by M.Bitton define the watercourse in a different way to other sources. Even if that is the case, that does not negate the sources provided by M.Bitton it means we need to work out how to reconcile those differences.

Though not raised by Closetside in their opening statement, there is also the issue of the removal of sourced content about the Wadi Gaza Nature Reserve, which Closetside justified as being undue. Five sentences explaining the reserve's extent, ecological issues, and rehabilitation not only seems like useful information but an appropriate level of detail for the article in question. On reflection, I should have said as much on the talk page as the situation unfolded.

Closetside's approach is to make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them. It is a rhetorical approach which attempts to control the discussion and treats it more as a debate to be won rather than being based on consensus building. The contribution of the 3O giver was unhelpful as they misunderstood the ARBPIA restrictions and reacted poorly to being informed that they were not yet eligible to engage by accusing M.Bitton of owning the page, and I thought the mention of a topic ban read like a threat.

As a non-expert in this subject area I would look for secondary sources explicitly stating "the Besor Stream originates xyz". Speaking of which, thank you to User:Fiveby for pointing to fig 1 in Bergman et al 2022. That and the text from the same source quoted by M.Bitton suggests that there are different ways to describe the stream. It would explain how the sources M.Bitton and Closetside have been taking different approaches. Reading more of the article I think the way forward, content wise, is to emulate the description in the 'Introduction' section, noting the main channel and tributaries. As the source describes the Besor as having multiple headwaters trying to select a single one may be overly reductive. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Full disclosure: M.Bitton and I have a history, and I am the one who filed the recent AN/I thread which led to their month-long block.

The reason I am commenting here is because I don't think that M.Bitton's behaviour has meaningfully changed. They are fresh off a block for a litany of behavioural violations. I detailed then, for one, IDHT and invoking contrived interpretations of policy (then it was NPOV), without specifying what in the policy supports their position. In the Besor Stream dispute here, they similarly invoke WP:OR vaguely even when confronted with sources[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor%20Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1287727320], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1287733020], or just throws it at any opposing argument.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1287732696]

This behaviour is not specific to this dispute or topic area (in fact the earlier behaviour was in a completely different topic area). Their POV-pushing there is still evident - here they tell an editor that their content doesn't belong on the Morocco page and to place it in the more obscure Germany–Morocco_relations[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Morocco&diff=prev&oldid=1286776116], only to then revert that editor there 3 times in a row [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany%E2%80%93Morocco_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1287082760][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany%E2%80%93Morocco_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1287228978][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany%E2%80%93Morocco_relations&diff=prev&oldid=1287304938]. M.Bitton proceeds to template this editor (twice) for edit-warring. That editor has 352 edits by the way, so WP:BITE is a real concern, but I don't think that this would be proper conduct to anyone.

One of the reasons that M.Bitton got blocked is that when they were being reported for aggressive behaviour, they doubled down and went on the offensive. This is another instinct that has not changed since their block, if their first response above is anything to go by.

All I sought last time was for M.Bitton to recognise the problematic behaviours and change them. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:M.Bitton&diff=prev&oldid=1279439437 M.Bitton ended up apologising when they were caught for block evasion], but I am not aware of any instance of them recognising why they were blocked in the first place and undertaking, no matter how casually, to improve. Rather they've returned and within a month are embroiled in intractable content and conduct disputes across multiple topic areas.

Is it possible that this whole dispute with Closetside could have been avoided by starting it with a touch more civility and a lot fewer aspersions and assumptions of bad faith?[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1279138008][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Besor_Stream&diff=prev&oldid=1287723785] I think so. And if M.Bitton doesn't see the problem with their behaviour, is there any chance they're not going to be brought back again and again by far less experienced editors who they've attempted to beat into submission? Samuelshraga (talk) 20:12, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

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

:Hello, M.Bitton, it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you. Since Closetside opened this complaint and not you, it would be helpful if you could consider the examples they brought up and either confirm them or contest them rather than starting a brand new complaint against them. Otherwise we have two separate complaints going on at the same time. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

::M.Bitton, you are correct that due to recent changes, complaints at ARE now can only concerns details about two editors, the filing party and the editor whom the complaint is about. So, that is why your comments about Closetside were not welcome on the other complaint but suitable for this one since Closetside is the filing party. But my own comment made yesterday was to encourage you to engage with Closetside's opening critique rather than bringing up unrelated complaints you had against Closetside. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:While I do not agree with all of the ways M.Bitton is characterizing Closetside, I do think he is correct to have noted that the 3rd opinion giver was not qualified to do so; given the complexity here it would be the incredibly rare editor who is capable even at 500 edits of being capable of understanding both the content and policies at play and so 8 edits short of extended confirmed or not I think he's right to give short shift to that. While on the narrow question at play here, I come to largely similar conclusions to Richard Nevell on the broader behavior questions I share Samuelshraga's concerns even if the evidence presented post-block do not appear to be in this forum's remit. I antcipate that I may not have time to further weigh in on this dispute and so do not need to be consulted by any admin(s) attempting to form consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{re|Closetside}} I am not suggesting a compromise nor do I see Richard Nevell doing so. Instead I agree with his comment that you, even in this comment I'm replying to, {{tqq|make their point and set conditions which need to be met to 'disprove' them.}} which isn't actually how consensus - not compromise - can be built. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

I've only skimmed this and have no position on the overall merits, but I am disappointed to read {{tq|So far, he is uninterested in arguing or conceding gracefully, instead beating the same drum like a proponent of a canard, and this behaviour is harmful to the encyclopedia.}} and {{tq|it seems like your comment in this discussion is making further accusations against Closetside and not responding to the points they brought up in their complaint against you}} in light of my recent block of M.Bitton. -- asilvering (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|UtoD}} 04:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Yarohj}}

{{ds/log|Yarohj}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/SL

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

1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mullivaikkal_massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1289065915 6 May 2025] Continously removes content from the page of Mullivaikkal massacre insisting there is no RS despite the other user who added it again naming the RS and the same RS being discussed in talk page.
2. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mullivaikkal_massacre&diff=next&oldid=1289074814 7 May 2025] And again reverting to remove the same content while insisting no RS. No talk page activity and clearly didn't even check it out.
3. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=1289067118 6 May 2025] Adding large blatant WP:SOAPBOX copy-paste section dumps on the Sri Lanka Armed Forces page. No talkpage explanation either as the exact issue has been discussed and solved through RC.
4. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=next&oldid=1289081925 7 May 2025] Uses reverting to try and force back the content and again, no talk page activity.
5. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=1289159831 7 May 2025] And reverted again. No talk page activity which makes me give them a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%20talk:Yarohj&diff=prev&oldid=1289189990 warning and notify them of CT sanctions] despite them being previously active in SL pages under CT just in case if they are unaware.
6. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces&diff=prev&oldid=1289207352 7 May 2025] Ignores the warning and reverts yet again and dumps the massive WP:SOAPBOX section despite already being warned and notified of the CT sanctions in place.

{{ping|User:Femke}} Note that user [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mullivaikkal%20massacre&diff=prev&oldid=1288962576 Johnwiki] states the main citation is the UN panel report in Mullivaikkal page which is also present in the in-line citations. Also note that for Sri Lanka Armed Forces the issue has been discussed before and also an RfC decision for the page not to content dump WP:SOAPBOX sections which are already present in more relevant pages on it but to have a concise section in History explaining the things and give links to relevant articles which is already present. However the issue being reported is user Yarohj edit warring and trying to push them through by force even after being warned -UtoD 10:09, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :

1. [http://Difflink1 Date] Explanation
2. [http://Difflink2 Date] Explanation

;If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yarohj&diff=prev&oldid=1289189990]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yarohj&diff=prev&oldid=1289211545]

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.

The source you linked literally says "The UN says most of those civilians died in government shelling as they were crammed into ever-diminishing “[http://nofirezone.org/ No Fire Zones]” – though the Tamil Tigers are also alleged to have committed grave abuses including suicide bombings and the use of human shields.", I don't how you can mention allegations as established information, and make a big claim that LTTE has done massacres against Tamils in NFZs, while its well known established fact, that Sri Lanka Armed Forces have committed countless genocidal atrocities against Tamils in NFZs, backed by a lot of sources as mentioned in that article and @UtoD has removed a whole section of content from Sri Lanka Armed Forces page too, it was relevant content copy pasted from other articles with attribution, I don't know how any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, significant notable activities that happened in the civil war, how can that be WP:NPOV, portraying as if nothing happened, like there is no cases against them of genocide, war crime and human rights violations, not mentioning any of this is WP:SOAPBOX, a propaganda recruitment page for Sri Lanka Armed Forces. Yarohj (talk) 08:21, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• Yarohj: I see you've not yet found your way to talk pages. When an edit is reverted, the standard route is to open a talk page discussion, to see if you can come to a consensus, for instance via compromise. This is called WP:Bold, revert, discuss. When you repeatedly revert, this is edit warring. I don't see any recent discussions of sourcing on Talk:Mullivaikkal massacre on either side. Can you explain why you believe the cited source ([http://www.channel4.com/news/sri-lanka-united-nations-justice-war-crimes-inquiry]) did not support the statement? Maybe you're unaware that the infobox does not always repeat citations for the rest of the article. Or do you believe that Channel4 is unreliable? These discussion need to happen on talk, not via repeated reversions in edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
• : Continuing the discussion as a normal admin action may still be warranted. Yarohj: do you understand that thinking you're right is not an excuse for edit warring? Especially in contentious areas like this, you need to talk and reach consensus instead of edit warring. When you want to change the direction and tone of a page, you need to convince people on the talk page that the previous version was not neutral and did not reflect how the very highest-quality sources describe the topic. How much attention you give certain aspects of a topic impacts the neutrality (for good or worse), so text that is neutral is one article can be WP:UNDUE weight and non-neutral in another article. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• I will just say (without having looked at the complaint in detail) that this is not a valid CT notice: the rule on awareness is that {{tq|Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert}}, and more importantly I don't think "CT sanctions apply to these articles" is at all useful for a new editor who likely has no idea what CT even stands for. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:45, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections{{space}}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 : {{userlinks|Göycen}} – Yamla (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

; Sanction being appealed : Arbitration enforcement (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2): topic ban violations, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2024#User_sanctions_(AA) and see Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2025#AA

; Administrator imposing the sanction : {{admin|Firefangledfeathers}}

; Notification of that administrator : notified

(copied by Yamla without endorsement) I understand I was blocked after a series of reverts.

Recently almost all my edits were re-reverts of material I believed to be inaccurate; I added no new content related to the ArbCom case and even replaced dead links with live archives to keep sources verifiable.

My editing record on the Turkish Wikipedia (see contribs there) shows consistent, constructive work. I am currently on hiatus, preparing for my medical board exams, and only logged in briefly to address these disputed edits.

My comment asking another editor to restore reliably sourced material was made in good faith and read more harshly than I intended, but I now see it can appear as canvassing; I accept responsibility for my wording and will be more careful.

If unblocked I will:

• limit myself to one revert per issue unless consensus is obtained;
• open or join a talk-page discussion (or seek WP:3O/DR) before reverting again;
• stay civil, assume good faith and focus strictly on content;
• comply fully with all ArbCom and community sanctions in the topic area. I unconditionally agree to refrain from editing, commenting on, or otherwise participating in any page, discussion, or edit related to the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed, as defined by ArbCom and community sanctions.

I hope this demonstrates I understand the problem, will not repeat it, and can continue making constructive, policy compliant edits. Göycen (talk) 20:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

(copied from user talk page) Dear Liz Rosguill and asilvering,

I respectfully request that you review the complaint that led to my ban. I apologize for not providing enough context in my appeal; I assumed Firefangledfeathers would clarify the situation, but no further explanation was offered on my appeal page. I would therefore like to supply the missing background and address any misunderstandings.Göycen (talk) 07:43, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Firefangledfeathers,

I would appreciate it if you could provide a more detailed explanation for my ban in light of following messages¹,² and the recent ban of the same sockpuppet from last year. I recognize that my reference to "Qajars" may have connections to Azerbaijan, and it's possible my comments regarding "kete" were perceived as canvassing. Göycen (talk) 13:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Rosguill,

Thank you for your last comment. However, I still haven’t seen your assessment regarding my appeal. Responding only by criticizing the tone and questioning my understanding is not, with all due respect, a sufficient response. Göycen (talk) 13:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Dear Firefangledfeathers, Thank you for your comment. I also do not want to take more time of yours. Perhaps I should be more open: I am not entirely appealing your decision. My messages are simply intended to demonstrate my goodwill. I understand that I should be banned; I only find it unfair to be banned from Wikipedia indefinitely. I would appreciate it if you could consider reducing the length of my ban. I did not intentionally edit hot topics related to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Although I acknowledge that I violated the topic ban, my actions were motivated by good intentions, particularly in response to edits made by a problematic IP address. Göycen (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm aware of this appeal (thanks Yamla!), and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Göycen, I didn't realize you were looking for further explanation. Is that still the case? Which part would you like me to clarify? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

:"...light of the following messages": I don't see #1 as relevant. #2 (a comment by me from last year) includes some examples of topics to avoid, including edits "tied to some Azerbaijan–Turkey cultural conflict". Some of your recent topic ban violations were related to cultural conflicts involving. For example, your edits at Pekmez were part of an edit war over how much to state or emphasize different nationalities' relationship to the drink, with both Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey involved in the edit war. I didn't remember providing the guidance I did in #2, but the reminder makes me more concerned that you didn't recognize those edits as TBAN violations.

:"...recent ban of the sockpuppet": this is not relevant. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:51, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill, @Asilvering Interestingly, their last appeal got rejected due to AI involvement [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G%C3%B6ycen&diff=prev&oldid=1231142561]. This new appeal seems AI-generated as well, and for what it’s worth, it’s a total shift from the way they spoke last time in ANI (I dug up the archive below)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#Repeated_WP:GS/AA_violations] I decided to look into the archived ANI case since I couldn't recall any specific things. This is where Göycen lost their EC rights, and there was a [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1159#Reverting_pages_to_vandalized_version,_Pov_pushing_Archives908 subscetion] of “vandalism”/POV accusations that Göycen made in the same report which eventually led to their own blocks. It's kind of noteworthy they've been MIA since last August and just came back recently, and they still inaccurately label things with the term vandalism [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pastirma&diff=prev&oldid=1288960774], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grape_syrup&diff=prev&oldid=1290018823].

Göycen has barely made any edits since last year, with their recent contributions primarily consisting of tban violations, improper use of vandalism to revert edits, and canvassing to WP:GAME their lack of EC rights; WP:GAME being the reason they lost it in the first place [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G%C3%B6ycen&diff=prev&oldid=1230138031]. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 13:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

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

I copied the appeal from User talk:Göycen and believe I count as an uninvolved editor. Please excuse any mistakes in procedure with my action here, I don't often see enforcement appeals while patrolling unblock requests. My opening of this appeal is in no way an endorsement of the appeal itself, I'm simply bringing it to the community. --Yamla (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

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

• This appeal doesn't appear to acknowledge that Göycen is subject to a topic ban or that their edits violated it, which leads me to suspect that an AI was used to draft this statement. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:49, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• :Sure looks like AI to me too. GPTZero gives it its firmest possible no, however, which is an interesting failure, given that the editor's natural English last year looks like this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:G%C3%B6ycen&oldid=1232639307]. Göycen, if this appeal isn't robot-voice, I'm impressed. But I can't say I'm impressed by the content of the appeal itself, for the reasons Rosguill has mentioned. -- asilvering (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{u|Göycen}}, I'm afraid that the report on FFF's talk page that you point to doesn't change my assessment of the situation, and I am confused as to why you believed that it would.
• ::Reviewing now the link to prior discussions with Göycen that asilvering provided, I now see that these problems of failing to understand things in the face of clear explanations seems to be an ongoing feature, and would recommend that greater prejudice be used toward future requests from them. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 13:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• :::In response to Special:Diff/1290550589: successful appeals are supposed to demonstrate an understanding of the editing restrictions that the appellant is subject to and an intent to respect them. I'm not seeing that here; instead, I see promises to be {{tq|careful}} and avoid edit wars when what we actually expect from you is to avoid Armenia/Azerbaijan topics entirely. I don't think I've commented on tone at all thus far, which raises further CIR/IDHT concerns. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 14:10, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• I'm not clear on what {{tq|limit myself to one revert per issue}} covers. Is this "per article", "per day", "per incident" (and how to guage that)....it seems murky and I can see where an editor and an admin could have different interpretations on whether or not an edit violates that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• And not only was there a topic ban but the editor had EC status removed (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&logid=162772777 here]) for GAMING ECR status. It doesn't appear that Göycen ever requested ECR permission to be restored so they shouldn't be editing any contentious topic that requires EC status. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
• I don't think this needs to continue any further; I cannot imagine any consensus developing to lift this block. The block is indefinite, and not timed, because we want to know that you understand why you were blocked before you go back to editing. Since you do not understand, you would simply be immediately reblocked, and there is no reason to unblock. -- asilvering (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1={{nobold|1=Blocked indefinitely as a non-AE action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)}}}}

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

; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Snokalok}} 16:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Gazumpedheit}}

{{ds/log|Gazumpedheit}}

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender_and_sexuality#Standard_discretionary_sanctions] (GENSEX)

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

Gazumpedheit is WP:NOTHERE to write a good encyclopedia, but rather here to POV-push for “gender-critical” views in violation of WP:HID.

His page opens with {{tq|Gender-critical editor, trying to reinstate neutrality into heavily biased articles which are currently making a mockery of Wikipedia}} [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gazumpedheit]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1286052256] 17 April 2025 When later advised by @User:GraziePrego on his talk page to remember NPOV, he goes on a long rant about {{tq|the the damage the T has done to my LGB community}} and about the evils of transgender wikipedia editors who cannot {{tq| accept that reality has won out, and that humans cannot change sex. The good thing is that the Talk pages contain all the receipts we need. Look for the ones with trans flags in the signatures}}

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:LGB_Alliance&diff=prev&oldid=1288184773] 1 May 2025 Going on a whole thing calling trans women men and trans lesbians straight men, as reason to strip the word “cisgender” from the article.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snokalok&diff=prev&oldid=1290194668] 13 May 2025

Long unasked for tangent on my talk page about the definition of man and women and {{tq|males gaining access to female only spaces}} and how that doesn’t make one transphobic. Tagging @User:HandThatFeeds for their involvement at this point

When I responded by quoting the first diff and pointing out his openly stated desire to POV push for GC beliefs, he replied as thus:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Snokalok&diff=prev&oldid=1290532875] 15 May 2025

In which he states that he stands by everything said in his April 17 diff, and politely cast aspersions of me being against gay rights simply for supporting the rights of trans people

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

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1288489549] CTOP alert

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gazumpedheit&diff=prev&oldid=1290571871]

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

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

{{abot}}