Wikipedia: arbitraje/solicitudes/ejecución

Haga clic aquí para agregar una nueva solicitud de ejecución
Para apelaciones: cree una nueva sección y use la plantilla {{ Apelación de ejecución de arbitraje }}
Ver también: Sanciones AE registradas

Apelación de acción de ejecución de arbitraje por JoeJShmo

Dtobias

Recurso de acción de ejecución arbitral por parte de Emdosis

AB Hamad

Ytyerushalmi

KlayCax

Esta solicitud puede rechazarse sin ninguna otra acción si se proporciona información insuficiente o poco clara en la sección "Solicitud" a continuación.
Las solicitudes no pueden exceder las 500 palabras y 20 diferencias (sin contar la información requerida), excepto con el permiso de un administrador revisor.

Solicitud sobre KlayCax

Usuario que envía esta solicitud de ejecución

Prcc27  ( discusión  · contribuciones  · contribuciones eliminadas  · registros  · registro de filtro  · bloquear usuario  · bloquear registro) 00:03, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Usuario contra el que se solicita la ejecución

KlayCax  ( charla  · contribuciones  · contribuciones eliminadas  · registros  · filtrar registro  · bloquear usuario  · bloquear registro)

Buscar alertas de CT :  en el historial de conversaciones del usuario • en el registro del sistema

Sanción o remedio a ejecutar

WP: CTOP

Diferencias de las ediciones que violan esta sanción o remedio, y una explicación de cómo estas ediciones la violan

1. 21 de julio de 2024 Intento de discusión para agregar RFKJR al cuadro de información.
2. 18 de junio de 2024 Se agregó Cornell West al cuadro de información sin consenso.
3. 16 de mayo de 2024 Intento de discusión para agregar RFKJR al cuadro de información.
4. 13 de mayo de 2024 Se agregó RFKJR al cuadro de información sin consenso.
5. 6 de marzo de 2024 Se agregó RFKJR al cuadro de información sin consenso.
6. 27 de febrero de 2024 Intento de discusión para agregar RFKJR al cuadro de información.

Diferencias de sanciones relevantes anteriores, si las hubiera

1. 15 de diciembre de 2023 Se aplica el bloqueo por guerra de edición sobre el artículo de Joe Biden /decisión de arbitraje.
2. 7 de octubre de 2023 Bloqueo parcial por guerra de edición.
3. 4 de noviembre de 2023 Bloqueado por guerra de edición.

Si se solicitan restricciones sobre temas polémicos , proporcione evidencia de que el usuario las conoce (consulte WP:CTOP#Conciencia de temas polémicos ).

• Alertado sobre sanciones discrecionales o temas polémicos en el área de conflicto, el 27 de julio de 2022 (consulte el registro del sistema vinculado anteriormente).

Comentarios adicionales del editor que presenta la queja

KlayCax ha iniciado varias discusiones diferentes y ha realizado ediciones reales presionando para que se agreguen candidatos de terceros (especialmente RFKJR) al cuadro de información. La discusión del 21 de julio literalmente comenzó mientras las discusiones sobre el asunto ya estaban en curso ([84][85]). Han estado intentando continuamente agregar a Kennedy al cuadro de información, a pesar de que el asunto ya se ha resuelto [86][87]. La incorporación de Cornell West iba en contra del acceso a las boletas y de los criterios de votación detallados en el consenso para los cuadros de información estatales. No deberíamos tener una discusión con KlayCax todos los meses para explicar que no hay consenso para agregar a Kennedy en esta etapa. Les han dicho que su comportamiento es perturbador, pero aun así han persistido. Prcc27 ( discusión ) 00:03, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a KlayCax: Para aclarar, esto no es un RfC (usted acaba de afirmar que lo era en su declaración). Llegamos a un consenso para los cuadros de información estatales en la página de discusión del artículo principal: 5%+ promedio de votación y acceso a las boletas. Cornell West nunca ha tenido un promedio de encuestas superior al 5% en Michigan. El principal problema con respecto a agregar a West al cuadro de información es que agregó a alguien que ni siquiera está en la boleta electoral en Michigan y está obteniendo malas calificaciones. Esto no tiene nada que ver con la coherencia de las encuestas; West ha obtenido consistentemente menos del 5% en las encuestas. Prcc27 ( discusión ) 15:09, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a KlayCax: Mal de nuevo. Su edición del 13 de mayo se realizó después de que se cerrara este RfC el 12 de mayo. Sin embargo, estaba claro incluso antes del RFC que el consenso estaba en contra de la inclusión. Prcc27 ( discusión ) 19:47, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a @ Halcón de cola roja : Creo que David O. Johnson era el usuario que inicialmente planeaba informar sobre KlayCax. Pero como ese usuario parece estar ocupado, me ofrecí a hacerme cargo y hacer el informe en su lugar. (Consulte: [88][89]). Prcc27 ( discusión ) 03:16, 30 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Comentario: En lo que respecta a las sanciones, creo que KlayCax debería prohibirse por tema o, dado que las acciones disruptivas de KlayCax no están aisladas de un solo tema, una prohibición más amplia podría ser necesaria. Prcc27 ( discusión ) 02:13, 1 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Notificación al usuario contra el que se solicita la ejecución

[90]

Discusión sobre KlayCax

Las declaraciones deben realizarse en secciones separadas. No podrán exceder las 500 palabras y 20 diferencias, salvo permiso de un administrador revisor.
Los administradores pueden eliminar o acortar declaraciones no conformes. Las contribuciones disruptivas pueden resultar en bloqueos.

Declaración de KlayCax

Respuesta al EA inicial de Prcc27:

Para resumir:

• Prcc27 se equivoca al afirmar que mis opiniones violan el principio de WP: POV o que estoy empujando candidatos al cuadro de información. En artículo tras artículo, incluido el más reciente en las elecciones generales del Reino Unido de 2024 (apoyé al Sinn Féin , al Reform UK , al Partido Unionista Democrático y a otros partidos que se agregaron), siempre he sido un defensor de mostrar ampliamente a los candidatos dentro de los artículos electorales dentro de el cuadro de información. Las diferencias de opiniones entre los editores son normales. Especialmente cuando se trata de temas controvertidos como las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos de 2024 . La discusión en la página de discusión en estos casos es algo bueno. Una mirada a las ediciones en cuestión muestra que fue un intento de buena fe para llegar a un consenso. No es un intento de revocar el RFC.

• Además, no estaba "intentando" revocar una "[forma] ya... resuelta". En ningún momento intenté siquiera revocar el RFC. Por el contexto, debería quedar claro que estaba encuestando a los editores sobre si se habían cumplido los requisitos del RFC. (Dado que varios editores han señalado que los criterios establecidos son muy ambiguos y dependen de fuentes contradictorias). Debido a esto, claramente estaba llamando a los editores involucrados para declarar que parece que Kennedy Jr. se había reunido o estaba a punto de hacerlo de inmediato. Cumplir con los requisitos del RFC: estar certificado en un total de estados que superen los 270 votos electorales y obtener más del 5% de votación. El objetivo de la discusión era ver si ahora había consenso para agregar.

• Las ediciones del 6 de marzo y 13 de mayo fueron anteriores a la conclusión de este RFC o de su significado . (Agregado más tarde: El RFC concluyó el día 12. Muchos consideraron que las peticiones de votación contaban).

• Tanto Jill Stein como Cornell West obtuvieron/estaban por encima del 5% en las encuestas y habían informado mediante WP: RS o habían confirmado el acceso certificado a la boleta en el momento en que se realizó la edición del 18 de junio, fue una edición autoproclamada de WP: BOLD , y fue sobre el artículo sobre las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos de 2024 en Michigan , no sobre el artículo sobre las elecciones presidenciales de Estados Unidos de 2024 . Prcc27 estaba a favor de "tres criterios de encuesta + 5%", pero no había nada en la fuente vinculada que dijera que se trataba de un consenso de los editores. (Incluso bajo WP: ONUS ) Luego lo eliminó, no se revirtió y no me siento particularmente fuerte de ninguna manera acerca de que West o Stein estén en el cuadro de información.

• Las ediciones de los usuarios de Lukt64 y Sendpls no tuvieron nada que ver con las discusiones sobre si se resolvió el RFC. Más bien, eran solo solicitudes para agregar RFK al artículo, por lo que no se trataba simplemente de "enviar spam con lo mismo tres veces" como se argumentaba.

Finalmente, muchos editores declararon a mediados de julio que era necesario revisar el tema. Los demás aspectos están claramente sacados de contexto y no son violaciones de las reglas. KlayCax ( discusión ) 07:46, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a la respuesta de Prcc27:

El RFC era este .

1.) Expliqué mi razonamiento en ese momento. Tanto Jill Stein como Cornell West han obtenido un 5% o más en Michigan. Nunca hubo consenso sobre si el 5% debería ser un promedio o encuestas individuales (dado que RFK fue el único que obtuvo ambas cosas, no se abordó en absoluto fuera de nuestras conversaciones) y el asunto se dejó a discreción del editor.

2.) En ese momento, los periódicos locales informaron erróneamente que la declaración de acceso a la boleta de West era un hecho en su propia voz , ya que West había declarado que había sido certificado con acceso a la boleta en ese momento. (Los periódicos en cuestión, por supuesto, se consideraron WP: RS y yo estaba trabajando a partir de eso). En términos de Jill Stein, ella tiene acceso a las boletas en Michigan como miembro del Partido Verde .

3.) Según WP: ONUS no fue restablecido. KlayCax ( discusión ) 21:48, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta al tercer Prcc27:

No es cierto. El 13 de mayo, muchos editores consideraron que el "acceso a la boleta" había "tenía suficientes peticiones" (como se ve claramente), se revirtió, se aseguró una discusión en la página de discusión y yo no lo restablecí según WP: ONUS . KlayCax ( discusión ) 23:53, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a Muboshgu:

Las afirmaciones de Muboshgu de que estaba violando WP: NPOV en los artículos de JD Vance y Kamala Harris . En respuesta a esto:

No estaba promoviendo ningún tipo de punto de vista de "izquierda" en el artículo de JD Vance; parece que estás argumentando que estoy violando WP: NPOV al promover una izquierda desproporcionada (en el artículo de Vance) Y una derecha. perspectiva de ala (sobre el artículo de Kamala), y con el debido respeto: eso no tiene sentido , al señalar que ha sido influenciado por el movimiento de la Ilustración Oscura , un hecho y una descripción que también ha afirmado y ha sido ampliamente informado. Ciertamente parece vandalismo cuando no se recorta sino que se elimina por completo del artículo. Toda la noción de que se trata de un punto de vista parece basarse en la afirmación de que "sus opiniones sobre X o Y son impopulares, por lo que no deberían estar en el artículo". Por supuesto, eso no es lo que significa WP: NPOV . WP: NPOV trata de reflejar la opinión de fuentes fiables. No "no mejora ni disminuye su posición a los ojos del votante medio". Fuentes confiables han mencionado los vínculos de JD Vance con la "derecha disidente/vanguardista en línea". Ciertamente merece una mención en Wikipedia y el pensamiento reaccionario no es de ninguna manera un concepto demasiado "oscuro" ni demasiado difícil de entender para los lectores.

En ese momento, ya existía un Wikilinks para los lectores que quisieran más detalles. Me acerqué para hablar, como usted señaló, y la mayoría quería que se mantuviera.

Muchos conservadores estadounidenses utilizan el marxismo como un insulto contra quienes sostienen posiciones económicas de izquierda. Sin embargo, claramente esto no fue lo que fueron mis ediciones. Donald J. Harris es considerado un economista de las escuelas de pensamiento poskeynesiano y marxista . Sus principales influencias son Adam Smith, David Ricardo y Karl Marx; múltiples fuentes lo etiquetan como economista poskeynesiano y marxista, y no es un punto de vista forzado mencionarlo, ni tampoco una "verificación fallida" . También es típico enumerar la ideología de los economistas en la primera frase del artículo. (Ver Richard D. Wolff, por ejemplo). Las explicaciones para ambas ediciones también se dieron en sus respectivas páginas de discusión antes del inicio del WP: AE .

Usted omitió que también agregué al mismo tiempo una declaración que socava la idea de que Donald J. Harris influyó en Kamala en un grado significativo. (Donald J. Harris y Kamala Harris no son muy cercanos y difieren mucho en política). La diferencia de la edición se puede ver aquí, mostrando que se agregó al mismo tiempo que las diferencias citadas por él. ¿Son los marxistas fanáticos del Partido Demócrata? No, por supuesto que no. Todo esto, nuevamente, son simplemente diferentes perspectivas editoriales que llevaron a la discusión. KlayCax ( discusión ) 21:16, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a SashiRolls:

Ediciones en cuestión.

La edición del 12 de junio de 2024 se refería a partidos políticos más que a coaliciones. La inclusión del Nuevo Frente Popular o sus partidos constituyentes habría sido WP: CRYSTAL en ese momento debido a la notoria fragmentación de la izquierda francesa. La fuente interrogada del Deccan Herald afirma: En Francia, actualmente hay dos grandes partidos en liza, entre otros. El primero es el partido gobernante, Renaissance (RE), o ¡En Marche! como se conocía anteriormente. Tienen la mayoría en la Asamblea Nacional, la cámara baja de Francia y el Senado... En la oposición está Marine Le Pen y su partido, Agrupación Nacional, también conocido como Rassemblement National (RN). RN es un partido populista de derecha que recientemente obtuvo un gran número de escaños en las elecciones de la UE de 2024 .

La edición del 26 de febrero de 2024 hacía referencia a este artículo, que comienza diciendo: En los debates, a menudo polémicos y enconados, sobre... (con respecto a los historiadores y politólogos sobre el asunto). t la opinión del autor sobre el asunto. A lo que se hacía referencia era a su metanálisis del estado de la literatura a 2023.

La edición del 1 de octubre de 2023 proviene de una encuesta en línea. Eso es cierto. Sin embargo, las encuestas telefónicas se han vuelto cada vez más imprecisas en los últimos años debido a las bajas tasas de respuesta y otros factores, y las diferencias entre la precisión de las encuestas en línea y telefónicas están disminuyendo drásticamente. Las encuestas partidistas están bien siempre que provengan de un WP: RS . (Consulte WP:LDS/RS para Deseret News ). Posteriormente también lo reemplacé con esta fuente de mayor calidad que se ve aquí.

Abastecimiento en cuestión.

La edición del 21 de abril de 2024 obtuvo The Spectator ( WP:SPECTATOR ), un WP:MREL , y siguió las pautas para una vista de derecha de WP:RSOPINION , atribuyendo la vista exclusivamente a Jeff Fynn-Paul.

La edición del 20 de septiembre de 2023 no hace el reclamo. Afirma que la afirmación ha sido ampliamente creída entre los sociólogos. Se trata de dos afirmaciones diferentes con dos significados muy distintos.

Notas finales finales:

He dudado en mencionar esto hasta ahora, y no estoy seguro de qué puedo escribir sobre esto fuera de referencias vagas, algunas de las personas que comentan en este hilo han realizado ataques personales, acusaciones falsas de WP:SOCKPUPPET y cosas similares en mi contra. el año pasado. Creo que algunos de los comentarios de WP: AE son de naturaleza de represalia y que el cerrador de WP: AE debería tenerlo en cuenta. KlayCax ( discusión ) 15:25, 2 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

He alcanzado el límite máximo de palabras (~1500) para responder a cada reclamo, pero por lo anterior debe quedar claro que los reclamos son infundados/arrojan el fregadero de la cocina. KlayCax ( discusión ) 16:44, 2 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Declaración de Qutlook

: También cabe señalar que KlayCax ha sido advertido en el pasado sobre otros artículos por edición engañosa y ha recibido una "Advertencia final" por parte de ScottishFinnishRadish. Sólo para su información y mi granito de arena por el momento. Qutlooker ( discusión ) 04:11, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Esto ya se ha dicho en el encabezado, por favor ignórelo. Qutlooker ( discusión ) 18:31, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

(Respuesta a la primera declaración del guía de izquierda) Sí, hice esa denuncia. SIN EMBARGO, no tenía las diferencias de las que hablaba la gente. Entonces no abrí un caso. Qutlooker ( discusión ) 14:41, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

(Respuesta a la segunda declaración de Super Goku V) Tal vez sería mejor aclarar que me dijeron que si quería una acción disciplinaria contra KlayCax necesitaría abrir un AE. Aunque, como dije, no tenía las diferencias que serían necesarias para abrir correctamente una solicitud de AE. Qutlooker ( discusión ) 03:30, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

No, quiero decir, ¿todos han dicho lo que querían decir? Qutlooker ( discusión ) 16:22, 7 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

(Respuesta al punto número 5 de KlayCax) Una encuesta atípica no es, y NO PODRÍA, argumento suficiente para una inclusión en el cuadro de información, ni un partido que "afirme" tener acceso a las boletas significa nada hasta que se verifiquen los hechos y se demuestren mediante hechos. fuentes. Qutlooker ( discusión ) 20:40, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

(Respuesta al comentario de Prcc27) Que se considere que se haga un bloqueo indefinido considerando que usted ha dicho que no es solo un tema con el que interactúan. Qutlooker ( discusión ) 04:44, 1 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

(Respuesta a KlayCax) El límite máximo de palabras que le dijeron que debía cumplir era de 1000 palabras. No 1500. Qutlooker ( discusión ) 16:00, 3 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Creo que todos aquí han tomado una decisión sobre KlayCax, ¿verdad? Qutlooker ( discusión ) 02:32, 7 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Declaración de David A.

Personalmente creo que este editor parece bien intencionado y en su mayoría inofensivo, así que espero que su castigo (si lo hay) no sea innecesariamente severo. ¿Quizás un administrador de Wikipedia simplemente pueda ordenarle que deje de intentar agregar a West, Kennedy y otros candidatos menores al cuadro de información? David A ( discusión ) 09:15, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Declaración del guía de izquierda

Vale la pena señalar que hace menos de una semana, un usuario diferente al presentador de esta solicitud presentó una queja aparentemente similar en la página de discusión de un administrador. Guía izquierda ( discusión ) 09:23, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Ejecuté la sección de KlayCax en la herramienta de recuento de palabras y el resultado fue 1241 palabras , más del doble del límite de 500. Guía izquierda ( discusión ) 00:42, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Declaración de Muboshgu

KlayCax ha realizado ediciones disruptivas de puntos de vista en la página de las elecciones presidenciales de EE. UU. de 2024, como se discutió. También han sido perturbadores en otros artículos relacionados con las elecciones, incluido JD Vance , editando en conflicto por algunas opiniones políticas oscuras. Ver charla: JD Vance#¿Debería haber un resumen de la ideología de Vance al principio? para la discusión que comenzaron después de que fueron revertidos. También hicieron acusaciones de vandalismo cuando un usuario eliminó información que debería haber sido eliminada, y "aparente eliminación accidental/vandalismo de WP: SPA. (?)". También intentaron agregar a Donald J. Harris y Kamala Harris que Donald Harris estaba involucrado en el marxismo, lo cual no se puede verificar y es un término de punto de vista significativo utilizado por la derecha en la situación política estadounidense actual. Consulte Charla: Kamala Harris # Eliminación de Shyamala Gopalan y Donald J. Harris del liderazgo para obtener más información sobre esa discusión. –  Muboshgu  ( discusión ) 16:34, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Declaración de GreatCaesarsGhost

Estoy de acuerdo con David A en que KlayCax es mayormente inofensivo pero merece alguna sanción . Mi preocupación es que no se adhieren a WP:RECKLESS . KlayCax está siendo demasiado audaz al realizar ediciones importantes que saben que estarán sujetas a reversiones o controversias. Como señalé aquí[93], a veces actúan en contra del consenso establecido debido a la evolución de acontecimientos que consideran que han negado ese consenso (cuando la mayoría de los demás no están de acuerdo). Desearía que reconocieran y reflexionaran que las críticas a sus ediciones provienen de muchos editores. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:48, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Golpeando mi anterior defensa de la indulgencia. Tengo un compromiso limitado con KC y, por lo tanto, no estoy en condiciones de comentar sobre su comportamiento general. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 8 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Declaración de Super Goku V

Parece haber cierta confusión sobre el RfC que se mencionó debido a cómo se vinculó, por lo que, para aclararlo, entiendo que el RfC al que se hace referencia es "RFC: ¿Cuáles deberían ser los criterios de inclusión para el cuadro de información? (Pregunta 1) " - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 03:22, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Para agregar, la discusión de la página de discusión archivada que se menciona a continuación es relevante para esto, ya que involucró una discusión los días 22 y 23 sobre las ediciones de la página de discusión de KlayCax. Hubo comentarios de que el lugar apropiado era ANI o AE. - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 04:13, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a la guía de la izquierda: Sí, parece ser de esta discusión archivada en la página de discusión. Qutlook dijo en ese momento: Después de hablar con un administrador que advirtió a KlayCax antes sobre una edición disruptiva, me dijeron que hiciera esto... Un problema, no tengo esas diferencias, por lo que actualmente no tengo una solicitud AE abierta. . No estoy seguro de por qué dijo que le dijeron que lo hiciera, pero en mi opinión está relacionado. - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 03:22, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a Qutlook: Te tengo. Señalaré anteriormente que la discusión archivada de la página de discusión sigue siendo relevante para esta discusión. - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 04:13, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

No estoy seguro de lo que quieres decir. Si te refieres a tu comentario anterior sobre el bloqueo indefinido, entonces no estoy de acuerdo con eso. - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 03:03, 7 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Entendido. Por mi parte, creo que cabe señalar que hubo una única acusación falsa de SOCKPUPPET , no múltiples. Aparte de eso, creo que los remedios sugeridos por ScottishFinnishRadish o Prcc27 funcionarían. - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 18:42, 7 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Respuesta a KlayCax: Sólo para comprobarlo, ¿comprende los límites de palabras que se indican en la parte superior de esta página? Las solicitudes de cumplimiento y las declaraciones en respuesta a ellas no pueden exceder las 500 palabras y 20 diferencias , excepto con el permiso de un administrador revisor. Tengo entendido que obtienes 500 palabras en total para tus declaraciones, no 500 palabras por declaración. - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 19:22, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Llamativo dada la solicitud de prórroga. - Super Goku V ( discusión ) 20:58, 30 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Declaración de SashiRolls

Estoy de acuerdo en que el problema no está relacionado con el área temática. No estoy seguro de estar de acuerdo con que KlayCax sea completamente inofensivo después de haber tenido que pasar mucho tiempo limpiando sus desechos.

KCx es conocido por sus resúmenes de edición que ocultan la naturaleza de sus ediciones:

• 12 de junio de 2024 : si bien el resumen de la edición es WP:MOS , de hecho presenta contenido POV que no es compatible con la fuente proporcionada. Cuando se le preguntó sobre esto, KCx luego proporcionó un enlace al Deccan Herald en el TP, que tampoco respaldaba la amplia declaración, aunque sabiamente se abstuvo de agregarla a la entrada después de que dos personas señalaron la afirmación que quería agregar a la primera. La línea del lede era una tontería.
• 26 de febrero de 2024 : @Drmies : escribe : " su resumen de edición no tiene sentido en relación con la edición real, y su respuesta es repetir la misma cita irrelevante, esta vez con una cita que tampoco expresa en absoluto su punto. " y cuatro días después agrega " Es sólo una desviación tras otra ", sugiriendo además llevar el problema a la ANI para la discusión de una prohibición de tema. 2 de marzo de 2024

KCx también parece tener problemas para identificar fuentes confiables, más allá del ejemplo del Deccan Herald citado anteriormente.

• 21 de abril de 2024 : vuelve a agregar un artículo de opinión de The Spectator (cf. su entrada en RSN ) como segundo enlace en el comienzo de una entrada, después de haber sido eliminado.
• El 1 de octubre de 2023 se añaden los resultados de una encuesta online realizada por encargo de Skylight, "una iniciativa de la fundación Radiance". La fuente afirma: "La misión de Skylight es utilizar la tecnología para ayudar a los jóvenes a adoptar hábitos espirituales centrados en Dios.
• El 1 de octubre de 2023 se añade la misma encuesta online a otra página de nivel superior, enterrada bajo una avalancha de texto.
• 20 de septiembre de 2023 : se inserta la afirmación de que la religión en los EE. UU. es el último "clavo de la muerte" de la hipótesis de la secularización basándose en un artículo que sostiene que esta afirmación es empíricamente falsa (sin utilizar el término "clavo de la muerte", por supuesto). Cuando se le pregunta al respecto, dice que es una fuente pobre (no por el reclamo, sino en general).

Finalmente, KCx tiene la costumbre de crear RfC y RM que están cerrados contra la posición que estaban promoviendo: Cf. aquí y aquí e insiste en largas discusiones sobre los RfC pasados ​​con los que no están de acuerdo (consulte el contexto de la diferencia del 26 de febrero de 2024 arriba).

Admito que algunas de estas diferencias están un poco anticuadas, pero un patrón es claramente visible durante el año pasado...-- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 17:52, 1 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

12 de junio: La fuente que añadió KCx no respaldaba de ninguna manera su afirmación de que RN era uno de los dos principales partidos políticos de Francia. El artículo del Deccan Herald que se encontró más tarde habla de una elección. Para contextualizar, la RN tiene tres de 348 senadores (<1%).

21 de abril: la segunda línea del lede dice "Remini... afirma" algo. La fuente "marginalmente confiable" de KCx no menciona a Remini ni una sola vez. - SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:18, 2 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Resultado sobre KlayCax

Esta sección debe ser editada únicamente por administradores no involucrados. Los comentarios de otros se trasladarán a las secciones anteriores.

• Tenga en cuenta los límites de palabras y solo comente en sus propias secciones. Rábano finlandés escocés ( charla ) 23:51, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

  Bueno, no estoy muy impresionado con la respuesta a las frecuentes advertencias y bloqueos de edición en guerra que son molestos y contundentes. Este parece ser su comportamiento general cuando hay desacuerdo, en lugar de limitarse a un artículo o tema. Rábano finlandés escocés ( charla ) 13:40, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

  KlayCax , te sugiero que condenses lo que ya tienes. Puedo decirles que no creo que los economistas marxistas/marxistas vean el capitalismo como algo inherentemente ligado al conflicto de clases (aunque esto puede ser reprimido en sus puntos de vista a través de una falsa conciencia) y la explotación posterior. Muchos conservadores estadounidenses lo utilizan como un insulto contra quienes ocupan posiciones económicas de izquierda. Sin embargo, claramente esto no fue lo que fueron mis ediciones. Es un hecho indiscutible y demostrable que Donald J. Harris es considerado un economista en las escuelas de pensamiento poskeynesiana y marxista. Sus principales influencias son Adam Smith, David Ricardo y Karl Marx; múltiples fuentes lo han descrito como un economista poskeynesiano y marxista, y no es forzado a mencionarlo en el artículo. Ciertamente no "falla la verificación" y puedo proporcionar más de una docena de fuentes sobre el tema. Además, omitiste que también agregué al mismo tiempo una declaración que socava la idea de que Donald J. Harris influyó en Kamala de manera significativa. (Donald J. Harris y Kamala Harris son notoriamente no cercanos y difieren mucho en política). La diferencia de la edición se puede ver aquí. ¿Asumes que los marxistas son fanáticos del Partido Demócrata? No, por supuesto que no. ^{194 palabras, o 2/5 del límite de palabras,} particularmente útil. Rábano finlandés escocés ( charla ) 18:40, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

• Dos cosas:
  1. @ Prcc27 : ¿Puede explicar por qué esto se presentó una semana después de la edición más reciente que colocó en la lista de diferencias?
  2. @ KlayCax : si desea una extensión, solicítela en la charla de Wikipedia: Arbitraje/Solicitudes/Cumplimiento . Pero por lo demás, condense un poco el comentario.

- Halcón de cola roja  _(nido) 02:49, 30 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Pidieron una extensión en mi página de discusión y les dije que intentaran mantenerla en menos de 1000 palabras. Rábano finlandés escocés ( charla ) 14:58, 30 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Me lo había perdido. - Halcón de cola roja  _(nido) 18:08, 30 de julio de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

@ KlayCax : todavía estás por encima de la extensión del límite de palabras en aproximadamente 500 palabras. Por favor, condense o mencione detalles intrincados. - Halcón de cola roja  _(nido) 10:35, 2 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Halcón de cola roja , ¿ya tuviste la oportunidad de ver esto? Con su historial de edición en guerra, y pasando a este IDHT/contundente, creo que la prohibición de temas de seis meses a partir de las elecciones presidenciales estadounidenses de 2024 podría ser la opción. Rábano finlandés escocés ( charla ) 11:34, 5 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

He aprovechado la oportunidad para leer todas las diferencias todavía, no. Tampoco creo que lo haga en las próximas 24 horas, así que no me espere si ya ha encontrado aquí algún enfoque personalizado que crea que funcionará. - Calcetín de cola roja  _{(nido de halcón de cola roja)} 13:02, 5 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Todavía estoy en el aire entre una prohibición de tema limitada o algo más amplio. Teniendo en cuenta los problemas con las guerras de edición que han llevado a múltiples bloqueos y una advertencia final antes de una indefinición que condujo a este comportamiento reciente, no estoy seguro de que una prohibición de tema estrictamente adaptada sea suficiente. Rábano finlandés escocés ( charla ) 12:28, 8 de agosto de 2024 (UTC) [ respuesta ]

Apelación de SashiRolls de la prohibición de AE ​​Topic presentada en Sagecandor v. Tlroche

Oleg Yunakov

paraíso griego

Astropulse

O.maximov

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

Request concerning O.maximov

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

O.maximov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

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

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

Other similar issues:

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

alert, response

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re Vanamonde93's question about talk page edits:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

to this:

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1238598820

Discussion concerning O.maximov

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

Statement by O.maximov

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

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

• Claims of Jewish Conspiracy in U.K. Campaign Finance Scandal Has Local Community Worried
• Keep Talking Report (CST)
• Antisemitism and Radical Anti-Israel Bias on the Political Left in Europe (ADL)
• Resurgence of Antisemitic Conspiracy Theories (Open Democracy)
• Anti-Israel Camp Split on Zionist Conspiracy (The JC)
• David Miller: A Textbook Case of Anti-Zionism Becoming Vicious Antisemitism (Haaretz)
• What is Antisemitism (CAA)
• Debunking Myths (ENAR)
• BBC Politics: Labour Story
• Testing the Israel Lobby Thesis (Brookings)
• British Baroness Chastised for Pro-Israel Lobby Comments (JPost)
• The Guardian: Iraq Politics
• The Guardian: Labour Story
• Ynetnews Story
• BBC Politics
• Totally Jewish News Archive
• The Guardian: Liberal MEP Resigns

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

Vanamonde93, ScottishFinnishRadish, Barkeep49

The article talks also about British Politics, MPs and their remarks in the body. [101] [102], [103], [104] , [105] , [106], [107] , [108], [109] The article also talks about Jewish community being scared of what some say is a conspiracy theory. [110]. Here sources talk about Israel/Zionist lobby as exaggerated as a conspiracy theory. [111],

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

[113] , page 1,7,8

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

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

[116] , page 110 - 112, all relevant, specific sentence also relevant “The conspiracist element of ‘new antisemitism’ is most obvious in discussions about the existence and the machinations of what has become known as the Israel/Zionist/Jewish lobby. A common assumption of left-wing anti-Zionist critique is that Israel commits its fiendish acts with the unwavering political, military and financial support from America and to a lesser extent Britain, whose governments are in the grip of the menacing and all powerful pro-Israel lobby”. , [117] “A more recent example of how such ideas can appear in mainstream media coverage of Jews, Zionism and Israel was found in the 2009 dispatches documentary by the British journalist Peter Oborne, entitled “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” … This misses the point that using such a framework to explain Jewish or Zionist political activism relies, however unwittingly, on ideas and common understandings drawn from preexisting antisemitic conspiracy theories in order to make sense to its audience. At the very least, it was inevitable that antisemites would, and did, interpret it as an endorsement of their own conspiracy theories about Jews”. , [118], [119] pg 60, 65,66, [120] page 31 to 32 from “Within Labour” to “modern Labour politics” [121] “Labour MPs were found to have used “anti-Semitic tropes and suggesting that the complaints of anti-Semitism were fakes or smears.” A case cited in the report involved former London Mayor Ken Livingstone, who said “the Israel Lobby,” which aimed “to undermine Corbyn’s leadership,” was responsible for allegations of anti-Semitism against fellow Labour MP Naz Shah. Livingstone later resigned from the party. The EHRC found a further 18 “borderline cases” involving local councillors, election candidates, and branch officials. It also noted several incidents of political interference by the Leader of the Opposition’s Office in addressing complaints of anti-Semitism. ”. My mistake was not to attribute to Haaretz in the lead. I am sorry about it. I know about WP:NOR and WP:V but I thought that it was established enough without written attribution in the lead. O.maximov (talk) 17:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Checkusers should be run on O.maximov and ABHammad.

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

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

Statement by ABHammad

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

Statement by FortunateSons

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

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

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

Statement by fiveby

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

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

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

Statement by xDanielx

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

Result concerning O.maximov

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

• Nableezy, which material are you talking about? The Nakba in the lead of Israel?
  I'm seeing some fairly straightforward partisan editing, but not anything severely out of the norm in the topic. Although that is a bit concerning, I'm more interested in where their editing has violated established consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Vanamonde93 about those most recent diffs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Fiveby, unilaterally changing the topic of an article from lobbying efforts by a country in another country to a conspiracy theory or groups and individuals seeking to influence UK foreign policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm still parsing some of this; to me the distinction between tendentiousness partisanship is at least partly determined by whether the user is justifying edits on the talk page and/or otherwise engaging in discussion; I'm less happy with reverts or substantive changes in the absence of consensus without accompanying substantive talk page engagement. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I am still struggling to wade through the morass of talk page discussions. But Levivich's recent diffs are extremely concerning, these two in particular: [122], [123]. I would consider a TBAN for those edits alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  A unilateral POV change would be concerning, per SFR, but to me it's more than that; it's a unilateral change to the lead and framing, without supporting sources and without an equally substantive change to the body. The statement justifying it here at AE is bordering on a competence issue. This source (the 9th O.maximov provided, the first I clicked on) speaks of a single British MP, who claimed Tony Blair was being influenced by a coterie of Jewish advisors, and who was roundly criticized for saying so. It has no bearing at all on the claim that the Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory, or otherwise; because there is no substantive analysis of the phenomenon in the source at all. I have no opinion on the existence or otherwise of an Israeli lobby; but if someone writes that it is a conspiracy theory, I expect that claim to be backed up by multiple heavyweight sources explicitly supporting that. O.maximov needs to show they can comply with WP:NOR and WP:V before they are allowed to mess around in a contentious topic. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Your errors go a lot further than that, O. maximov. There is a profound difference between "Criticisms of UK policy toward Israel have veered into anti-semitic conspiracy theories" (which your sources support) and "The claim that an Israeli lobby exists in the UK is a conspiracy theory", which is effectively what you wrote. You appear to be unable to separate that nuance, which to me shows you have gotten too close to the material you're trying to edit. Further argument here isn't going to fix that; you need to show that you can edit within the bounds of policy, outside the CTOP. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I haven't investigated this, but presuming what Vanamonde writes is true (and I do) conflating anti-semetic conspiracy theories and Israeli lobby is a conspiracy theory is more than just a failed nuance. It is, in my mind, POVPUSHING. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  So I have now examined many (but not all) of the sources presented. I do find there to be support to the idea of the Israel Lobby being called a conspiracy in the UK. I think this is most clearly seen on p.10 of Conspiracy Theories: A Critical Introduction. Not all the sources I looked at make the grade, but enough of them do that I feel more comfortable saying that we're in content, rather than conduct, territory with that particular piece. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure when/if I will have time to look into the merits of the complaint here as it seems like a lot of background reading is required. However, I know enough to say that I find the calls for CU as unconvincing as I do the call for a boomerang on BM. Assume good faith matters just as much, if not more, in contentious topics. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Givengo1

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Astropulse

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

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

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

7 day block on article Hammas

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

Administrator imposing the sanction

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:AE/User_talk:ScottishFinnishRadish#appealing

Statement by Astropulse

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

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

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

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

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

f) I'm not convinced i violated 1RR -> I removed a tag on the page [[124]] -> this was being counted as a revert. But i think it is just a edit because that tag was not needed anymore. No one re-added the tag - after i removed it. I dont know what is the problem. The only revert was this [[125]] because another editor reverted two people edits here [[126]] which itself i believe is a violation of 1RRAstropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

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

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

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

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AstroPulse

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Astropulse

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

• @ScottishFinnishRadish: For posterity's sake, can you link to the diffs that violated the 1RR? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Red-tailed hawk: The offending diff and the context are given in the original enforcement thread. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for that. I do see a clear violation of WP:1RR there. The user was aware that this is a contentious topics area. This looks like an extremely ordinary case, where a warning or reminder would have been sufficient had the appellant self-reverted after being asked, but the appellant refused to do so.

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

  As such, I think that the sanction is reasonable in light of the appellant's refusal to abide by 1RR, and I would decline this appeal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 15:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I am sensitive to the position of someone who would otherwise be willing to self-revert an isolated 1RR violation, but does not want to be associated with an edit in their name that they feel would reintroduce bias or misinformation into the contentious article. If this is indeed a "first offense," I would probably have warned rather than p-blocked, and certainly would not have p-blocked for a full week. A block (of any reasonable length) from just a single article is not a severe sanction in and of itself, but it can have a stigmatizing effect and will also be invoked if this user's comes to be scrutinized again. In short, I am somewhat troubled, but I am not sure my disagreement rises to the level of !voting to overturn the sanction. Looking forward to other admins' thoughts. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I also don't think I'd have p blocked in this instance. However, I think it was with-in the range of admin discretion given the facts in play here - if at the very upper end. As such I don't think the standard to repeal has been met and so I also am in favor of declining this appeal. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a shorter p-block could have done the job, but before p-blocks were rolled out a site-wide block would have been considered quite normal for a 1RR violation. This is far from the most severe block we could have handed out. And loath as I am to disagree with Newyorkbrad, I agree with SFR's assessment above; every single edit-war in this topic has participants who believe they are the ones correcting an egregious NPOV violation. That is not, in my view, reasonable grounds for leniency. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

Request concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Levivich (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:37, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPIA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

No blocks or CTLOG entries, some warnings on the UTP

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

Special:Diff/1239002016

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1239171553

Discussion concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

Statement by 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

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

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

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

Statement by Selfstudier

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

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

Statement by xDanielx

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sean.hoyland

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

Statement by BilledMammal

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 3E1I5S8B9RF7

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

• Levivich, so this is the sole diff from after they were given a CTOP alert? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:36, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Same question from me: is there evidence of CTOP awareness earlier? The single edit SFR notes is a bit of a NOTFORUM violation, but not at a level where I would consider any action for it alone. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm okay with a logged warning. 3E1I5S8B9RF7, if you have concerns about the text, please raise them without any number of straw men and rhetorical questions. This cannot reasonably be construed as an attempt to improve the article. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  (Please keep your comments to your own section.) A logged warning for violating WP:NOTFORUM, and for treating Wikipedia as a battleground. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Given Levivich's comment I would be in favor of a logged warning. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bluethricecreamman

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

Request concerning Bluethricecreamman

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

Diferencias de las ediciones que violan esta sanción o remedio, y una explicación de cómo estas ediciones la violan

Violar WP:1RR y editar la guerra contra el genocidio de los pueblos indígenas al restablecer repetidamente el mismo contenido en disputa:

1. 17:49, 24 de junio de 2024
2. 20:28, 5 de agosto de 2024
3. 13:21, 6 de agosto de 2024 (revertido 13:51, 6 de agosto de 2024 después de la solicitud de la página de discusión)
4. 12:44, 7 de agosto de 2024

Se negaron a la reversión automática , diciendo que debido a que se revirtieron a las 13:21, 6 de agosto de 2024, eran libres de volver a implementar la edición. Sin embargo, tengo entendido que la reversión automática, particularmente cuando se realiza solo después de que se solicita la reversión automática, no permite a los editores ignorar la reversión más reciente al volver a implementar la edición y hacerlo aparece como WP:GAMING .

Es relevante que se realizó un RfC sobre la inclusión de este contenido , el cual cerró como "sin consenso". Como el contenido estuvo solo en el artículo durante seis semanas, insuficiente para establecerlo como el status quo, esto significa que debe excluirse hasta que se encuentre un consenso para incluirlo y los editores no deben restablecerlo incluso cuando lo hagan sin guerra de edición o 1RR. violaciones.

Diferencias de sanciones relevantes anteriores, si las hubiera

Si se solicitan restricciones sobre temas polémicos , proporcione evidencia de que el usuario las conoce (consulte WP:CTOP#Conciencia de temas polémicos ).

• Alertado sobre sanciones discrecionales o temas polémicos en la zona del conflicto, a las 16:29 horas del 19 de enero de 2024 (consulte el registro del sistema vinculado anteriormente).

Comentarios adicionales del editor que presenta la queja

Notificación al usuario contra el que se solicita la ejecución

23:42, 8 de agosto de 2024

Discusión sobre Bluethricecreamman

Las declaraciones deben realizarse en secciones separadas. No podrán exceder las 500 palabras y 20 diferencias, salvo permiso de un administrador revisor.
Los administradores pueden eliminar o acortar declaraciones no conformes. Las contribuciones disruptivas pueden resultar en bloqueos.

Declaración de Bluethricecreamman

• a) Le expliqué que la reversión y luego la reversión automática no cuentan para el contador, pero BilledMammal ha estado acosándonos a mí y a otros en la página de discusión para que se revierta automáticamente. También como... ¿no sería el lugar aplicable para este informe el tablón de anuncios de edición de guerra? WP: AN/EW . Bluethricecreamman ( discusión )

Declaración de (nombre de usuario)

Resultado sobre Bluethricecreamman

Esta sección debe ser editada únicamente por administradores no involucrados. Los comentarios de otros se trasladarán a las secciones anteriores.