Una solicitud de arbitraje es el último paso en la resolución de disputas de conducta en Wikipedia. El Comité de Arbitraje considera solicitudes para abrir nuevos casos y revisar decisiones anteriores. Todo el proceso se rige por la política de arbitraje . Para obtener información sobre cómo solicitar arbitraje y cómo se aceptan y tratan los casos, consulte la guía de arbitraje .
Para solicitar la ejecución de decisiones de arbitraje anteriores o sanciones discrecionales , no abra un nuevo caso de arbitraje. En su lugar, envíe su solicitud a /Requests/Enforcement .
Esta página se transcluye de /Caso , /Aclaración y enmienda , /Mociones y /Cumplimiento .
Por favor haga su solicitud en la sección correspondiente:
Actualmente, no hay solicitudes de arbitraje.
No se ha cerrado ningún caso recientemente ( ver todos los casos cerrados ).
Actualmente no hay mociones de árbitro abiertas.
Utilice esta sección para solicitar aclaraciones o enmiendas de un caso o decisión cerrado del Comité de Arbitraje.
Para presentar una solicitud de aclaración o enmienda: (¡debe utilizar este formato!)
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}Esto no es una discusión. No envíe su solicitud hasta que esté lista para su consideración; Este no es un espacio para borradores y las adiciones incrementales a un envío son perjudiciales.
Los árbitros o secretarios pueden eliminar o refactorizar la discusión sumariamente sin comentarios.
Las solicitudes de usuarios bloqueados o baneados deben realizarse por correo electrónico directamente al Comité de Arbitraje .
Solo los árbitros y secretarios pueden eliminar solicitudes de esta página. No elimine una solicitud ni ninguna declaración o comentario a menos que esté en cualquiera de estos grupos. No debe haber ninguna discusión en cadena, así que comente solo en su propia sección. Las solicitudes de aclaración y enmienda archivadas se registran en Wikipedia: Arbitraje/Índice/Solicitudes de aclaración y enmienda . Se pueden utilizar numerosos atajos heredados y actuales para llegar más rápidamente a esta página:
Iniciado por Selfstudier a las 13:43, 26 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Para que coincida con WP:ECR (no sé si vale la pena cambiar ambos para vincularlos al espacio de nombres 1).
@ Barkeep49 : @ Zero0000 : La discusión aquí se refiere (en la parte inferior)
@ Zero0000 : No sólo. Consulte la declaración de Barkeep49 en la queja AE correspondiente (aún abierta). Sin embargo, señalaré que la contradicción entre el "área temática" tal como se define y las áreas que ECR no permite está presente. Y entonces, en un escenario diferente, diría que este usuario no debería tener que comerse un bloque que luego podría escalarse si hay transgresiones futuras. Sin embargo, dado que hubo otra conducta que condujo a la prohibición del tema, ese factor no parece aplicarse aquí.
Para ser claros, mi opinión es que la ECR, al ser posterior, debería tener prioridad, pero soy solo yo. Selfstudier ( charla ) 08:43, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Y ahora, otro editor hace referencia al mismo tecnicismo. Selfstudier ( charla ) 10:42, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
@ Zero0000 : Sólo estoy "proponiendo" que este "tecnicismo" que no ha sido identificado por mí mismo se solucione, sólo estoy iniciando el trámite, en la medida en que alguien crea que es necesario. Lo que quiero es que no esté disponible como defensa para editores que no sean de EC; actualmente dos de ellos lo mencionan, y sospecho que habrá más entradas si no se resuelve. Si hay otra forma de limpiarlo, soy todo oídos. Y @ Doug Weller : ahora también ha planteado la pregunta indirectamente https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&curid=21090546&diff=1237149351&oldid=1236465052#Why_does_ARPBIA_allow_userspace_as_an_exception? Selfstudier ( charla ) 12:10, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
@Sir Kenneth Kho: Muchas gracias por aclarar mi inepta propuesta. Sin embargo, para mí, ECR debería funcionar como un tban, "cualquier edición relacionada con el conflicto árabe-israelí (interpretado en sentido amplio) en cualquier lugar de Wikipedia" Selfstudier ( discusión ) 17:55, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
@ Guerillero : Depende de lo que quieras decir con caso extremo, si quieres decir que no suele ser un problema, claro. Sin embargo, recientemente, no sé muy bien cómo decirlo, ha habido una especie de asalto a la ECR, que en caso de necesidad se podría llamar simplemente wikilawyering. Véase, por ejemplo, Wikipedia: Arbitraje/Solicitudes/Cumplimiento#Apelación de acción de ejecución de arbitraje por parte de Emdosis y el comentario de un administrador allí: "No entendería de inmediato que "espacio de usuario" se aplique a la página de discusión de otro usuario en este caso; parece más bien wikilawyering que cualquier otra cosa para decir que esta edición queda fuera del régimen CT. Podemos arrastrar esto a ARCA si es necesario, pero simplemente aceptar que el presentador presentó un argumento irritante es más fácil". (No los nombraré, ya que creo que no quieren estar aquí). Selfstudier ( charla ) 17:40, 1 de agosto de 2024 (UTC)
Existe una pequeña discrepancia entre el área de alcance y ECR y quizás arbcom quiera solucionarlo. Quizás no sea así. No estoy seguro de por qué estoy involucrado en este caso. Barkeep49 ( discusión ) 14:58, 26 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
¿Podemos explicarnos esta solicitud, por favor?
No veo ninguna contradicción entre "espacio de usuario" en "área de conflicto" y "espacio de conversación" en ECR. Sirven para diferentes propósitos.
Un lugar dice que el "área de conflicto" no se extiende al espacio de usuario (lo que implica que sí se extiende al espacio de conversación). ECR indica que el espacio de conversación tiene algunas diferencias en las restricciones en comparación con el espacio de artículos. Ambas cosas tienen sentido y pueden ser ciertas al mismo tiempo. Definitivamente no queremos que el "área de conflicto" excluya el espacio de conversación, porque entonces las restricciones del ECR al espacio de conversación no se aplicarían a él.
O tal vez no entendí por completo el punto. Charla cero 15:14, 26 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
A mi modo de ver, la Definición del "área de conflicto" define qué páginas y ediciones están sujetas a restricciones de edición en ARBPIA, y WP:ARBECR dice cuáles son esas restricciones. No veo ninguna contradicción allí, y me parece que cambiar "espacio de usuario" por "espacio de conversación" en el primero eliminaría las páginas de discusión de artículos del área de conflicto y desactivaría todas las restricciones allí. Charla cero 02:43, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Al editor Selfstudier : La contradicción que usted afirma existir en realidad no existe. Empecemos por ECR:
El Comité puede aplicar la "restricción confirmada ampliada" a áreas temáticas específicas." Entonces ahora preguntamos, ¿cuál es el "área temática" en el caso de ARBPIA? Esa frase tiene una nota a pie de página:
Las áreas temáticas actuales bajo esta restricción aparecen como "restricción confirmada extendida" en la tabla de
sanciones activas del Comité de Arbitraje
" .Entonces hacemos clic en ese enlace y encontramos una tabla grande. ARBPIA está cerca de su fin. Dice:
Todo el conjunto de artículos cuyo tema se relaciona con el conflicto árabe-israelí, interpretado de manera amplia; ediciones relacionadas con el conflicto árabe-israelí, páginas y discusiones en todos los espacios de nombres
con excepción del espacio de usuario
" .(énfasis mío) Entonces, de hecho, ECR está de acuerdo con WP: Temas_contenciosos/Conflicto árabe-israelí # Definición del "área_de_conflicto" de que las ediciones en el espacio de usuario no están en el "área temática" de ARBPIA. ¿Dónde está la contradicción?
También repetiré (por favor responda): Parece que está proponiendo que "ediciones relacionadas con el conflicto árabe-israelí, en páginas y discusiones en todos los espacios de nombres con excepción del espacio de usuario " en WP:Contentious_topics/Conflicto árabe-israelí#Definición del "área_de_conflicto" se cambie a "ediciones relacionadas con el conflicto árabe-israelí, a páginas y discusiones en todos los espacios de nombres con excepción del espacio de conversación ". ¿Por qué tiene eso algún sentido? ¿Quieres eliminar el espacio de conversación del área temática? Charla cero 11:54, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Al editor Selfstudier : Si arbcom desea deshacer la exclusión del espacio de usuario del área temática de ARBPIA, es su decisión, pero su propuesta hace mucho más que eso. Charla cero 12:25, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Si se debe considerar un cambio en el estado del espacio de usuario, sugiero que arbcom considere todos los temas de CT y no solo ARBPIA. Personalmente, no entiendo por qué a un editor se le debería prohibir mencionar el tema en su propio espacio de usuario (a menos que sea activamente disruptivo allí). Por ejemplo, un editor que se acerca a las 500 ediciones puede desarrollar algo de texto en su entorno de pruebas para insertarlo en los artículos una vez que se logre el EC. ¿No es eso perfectamente razonable? Un editor que abusa de esta asignación (por ejemplo, mediante pings excesivos) puede ser tratado fácilmente. Charla cero 04:37, 29 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Quizás esta reversión que hice hace un par de días sea una prueba útil. ¿La reversión es válida o inválida según los remedios? Sean.hoyland ( discusión ) 12:51, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Esta solicitud de enmienda me llegó después de que @Doug Weller me la señalara , creo que puedo brindar cierta claridad a los árbitros.
Creo que hay un error en la solicitud como lo señala @ Zero0000 : la solicitud prevista probablemente sea "eliminar la excepción del espacio de usuario" en lugar de "cambiar el espacio de usuario a espacio de conversación" en WP:PIA , y el lado opuesto sería "agregar excepción de espacio de usuario" a WP:ECR .
La respuesta dependería de si los árbitros tenían la intención de que el WP:ECR A(1) anulara o confirmara el WP:PIA 4(B); si hay una respuesta, hemos terminado.
Si los árbitros no lo consideraran en absoluto, el argumento más fuerte para el lado iniciador sería WP:BROADLY , ya que lo más amplio posible no sería una excepción al espacio de usuario.
Estoy argumentando a favor del lado opuesto, el argumento más fuerte sería WP:UOWN , ya que tradicionalmente el espacio de usuario también tiene una amplia libertad, parece que WP:ECR y WP:UOWN deberían tener su propia jurisdicción y, en general, WP :ECR no debería ser excesivamente amplio.
@ Selfstudier : señaló muy bien a WP:TBAN en apoyo a la parte iniciadora, pero vale la pena señalar que WP:TBAN tiene como objetivo "prohibir a los editores realizar ediciones relacionadas con un área temática determinada en la que sus contribuciones hayan sido disruptivas", mientras que WP :GS tiene como objetivo "mejorar la atmósfera de edición de un artículo o área temática", lo que se aplica aquí ya que WP:GS incluye específicamente "restricción confirmada extendida". Sir Kenneth Kho ( charla ) 16:50, 28 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Mi entendimiento es que"
A menos que se piense detenidamente, existe una contradicción potencial entre lo que se define como contenido relacionado:
También existe la posibilidad de que cualquier restricción (por ejemplo, prohibición de tema o 0RR) impuesta sobre temas polémicos no se pueda aplicar en el espacio de usuario o se pueda restringir a un editor para editar una página de usuario o una página de discusión de usuario.
Para evitar la confusión y contradicción creada sugiero que:
Callanecc ( discusión • contribuciones • registros ) 07:16, 31 de julio de 2024 (UTC)
Callanecc , me temo que no recuerdo con mayor profundidad que mis comentarios en el taller, lo siento. La excepción del espacio de usuario fue sugerida por Huldra y Zero0000, quienes hicieron algunos comentarios sobre: páginas de discusión de usuarios que, al revisarlas, parecen preocupaciones razonables; No puedo decir si todavía son aplicables o no. ♠ PMC ♠ (discusión) 02:24, 1 de agosto de 2024 (UTC)
Creo que sería fácil dejar claro que al mencionar el espacio de conversación nos referimos al espacio de conversación del usuario y no prohibimos las solicitudes de edición cuando la sanción específica lo permita. Seguramente no queremos que los editores confirmados no extendidos puedan agregar material a su propio espacio de usuario que no pueden agregar en ningún otro lugar. El propósito, según tengo entendido, de las 500 ediciones y los 30 días es permitirles conocer nuestras políticas y directrices y, con suerte, cómo trabajar de manera constructiva con los demás. También creo que no queremos que los usuarios que no son usuarios de ECR utilicen su espacio de conversación o el espacio de conversación de otros para discutir el tema. Charla de Doug Weller 12:24, 1 de agosto de 2024 (UTC)
Preferiría no nombrar esto, pero recientemente me comuniqué con otro editor con el mismo problema, pero otros lo convencieron de que estaba equivocado, aunque aparentemente tenía razón. Charla de Doug Weller 18:06, 1 de agosto de 2024 (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.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
KlayCax has started several different discussions and made actual edits pushing for third party candidates (especially RFKJR) to be added to the infobox. The July 21st discussion literally was started while discussions on the matter were already ongoing ([92][93]). They have continuously been trying to add Kennedy to the infobox, even though the matter has already been resolved [94][95]. The addition of Cornell West went against the ballot access and polling criteria spelled out in the consensus for state infoboxes. We should not have to have a discussion with KlayCax every month explaining that there is no consensus for adding Kennedy at this stage. They have been told their behavior is disruptive, but nonetheless they have persisted. Prcc27 (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
[98]
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.
Response to Prcc27's initial AE:
To summarize:
Finally, many editors in mid-July stated that the issue needed to be revisited. The other aspects are clearly taken out of context and not rules violations. KlayCax (talk) 07:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to Prcc27's reply:
The RFC was this.
1.) I explained my reasoning at the time. Both Jill Stein and Cornell West have polled at or above 5% in Michigan. There was never a consensus on whether 5% should be an average or individual polls (since RFK has been the only one to get both it's not been approached at all outside of our conversations) and the matter was left to editor's discretion.
2.) At the time, local newspapers wrongly reported West's ballot access statement as a fact in their own voice, as West had stated that he had been certified w/ ballot access at the time. (The newspapers in question were of course considered WP: RS and I was working off of that.) In terms of Jill Stein, she has ballot access in Michigan as a member of the Green Party.
3.) Per WP: ONUS it was not reinstated. KlayCax (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to third Prcc27:
Not true. On May 13th, "ballot access" was seen by many editors as having "had enough petitions" (as clearly visible), it was reverted, a talk page discussion ensured, and it was not reinstated by me per WP: ONUS. KlayCax (talk) 23:53, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to Muboshgu:
Muboshgu's claims that I was violating WP: NPOV in the J.D. Vance and Kamala Harris articles. In response to this:
I was not pushing any kind or sort of "left-wing" point of view in the J.D. Vance article — you seem to be arguing that I'm both violating WP: NPOV by promoting a disproportionate left (on Vance article) AND right-wing perspective (on Kamala article), and with all due respect: that doesn't make sense — by noting that he has been influenced by the Dark Enlightenment movement, a fact and description that he has also claimed and has been widely reported. It certainly does look like vandalism when it's not trimmed but removed from the article entirely. The entire notion that it is POV-pushing seems to be based on the claim that "his opinions on X or Y are unpopular so they shouldn't be in the article". That is of course not what WP: NPOV means. WP: NPOV is about reflecting the opinion of reliable sources. Not "doesn't improve or diminish their standing in the eyes of the median voter". Reliable sources have mentioned J.D. Vance's ties to the "dissent/edgy online right." It certainly does deserve mention on Wikipedia and reactionary thought is by no means too "obscure" a concept or too difficult to understand for readers.
At the time, there was already a Wikilinks for readers who want more detail. I reached out on talk - as you noted - and a majority wanted it kept.
Many American conservatives do use Marxism as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, is labeled a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it, nor "fail verification"
. It's also typical to list the ideology of economists in the first sentence of the article. (See Richard D. Wolff for instance.) Explanations for both edits were also given on their respective talk pages before the start of the WP: AE.
You left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The difference of the edit can be seen here showing that it was added in at the same time the diffs cited by him were. Are Marxists fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not. All of this, again, is just differing editorial perspectives that led to discussion. KlayCax (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to SashiRolls:
Edits in question.
In France, currently there are two major parties in the running, among others. The first is the ruling party, Renaissance(RE), or En Marche! as it was earlier known. The hold the majority in the National Assembly, France's lower house and the Senate... In opposition is Marine Le Pen and her party, National Rally, a.k.a. Rassemblement National(RN). RN is a right wing populist party that recently gained a large number of seats in the 2024 EU elections.
In the often contentious and acrimonious debates over...(in regards to historians/political scientists over the matter.) What was being cited there wasn't the author's opinion on the matter. What was being referred was his meta-analysis of the the state of the literature as of 2023.
Sourcing in question.
Final concluding notes:
I've been hesitant about mentioning this until now, and not sure what I can write on this outside of vague references, some of the individuals commenting in this thread have made personal attacks, false WP:SOCKPUPPET accusations, and similar things against me over the past year. I believe that some of the WP: AE comments are retaliatory in nature and that the WP: AE closer should keep that in mind. KlayCax (talk) 15:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I've reached the max word limit (~at 1500) to respond to every claim but it should be clear by the above that the claims are baseless/throwing the kitchen sink. KlayCax (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
:It may also be noted that KlayCax has been warned in the past on other articles for deceptive editing and has been given a “Final Warning” by ScottishFinnishRadish. Just FYI and my two cents for the time being. Qutlooker (talk) 04:11, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
KlayCax has made disruptive POV edits at the 2024 US presidential election page as discussed. They have also been disruptive on other articles related to the election, including JD Vance, edit warring over some obscure political views. See Talk:JD Vance#Should there be a summary of Vance's ideology in the lead? for discussion they started after they were reverted. Also they made accusations of vandalism when a user removed information that should have been removed, and "apparent accident deletion/vandalism from WP: SPA. (?)". They also tried to add to Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris that Donald Harris was involved in Marxism, which fails verification and is a significant POV term used by the right wing in today's US political situation.[99][100] See Talk:Kamala Harris#Removal of Shyamala Gopalan and Donald J. Harris from the lead for more of that discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the RfC that was mentioned due to how it was linked to, so to clear that up it is my understanding that the referenced RfC is "RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1)" --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to Left guide: Yes, that seems to be from this archived talk page discussion. Qutlook said at the time, After speaking to an admin who has warned KlayCax before for disruptive editing I have been told to do this... One Problem, I don't have those diffs so I don't currently have an open AE request.
Not sure why he said he was told to do so, but it is related in my opinion. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to Qutlook: Gotcha. I will note above that the archived talk page discussion is still relevant to this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Response to KlayCax: Just to check, do you understand the word limits as noted at the top of this page? --Super Goku V (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
My understanding is that you get 500 words total for your statements, not 500 words per statement.
I agree that the problem is not related to the topic area. I'm not sure I would agree that KlayCax is entirely harmless after having had to spend a lot of time cleaning up after them.
KCx is known for edit summaries which hide the nature of their edits:
your edit summary makes no sense in relation to the actual edit, and your response is to repeat the same irrelevant citation, this time with a quote which also totally doesn't make your point." and four days later adds "
It's just one deflection after another" further suggesting bringing the problem up at ANI for disussion of a topic ban. 2 March 2024
KCx also seems to have trouble identifying reliable sources, beyond the Deccan Herald example cited above.
the final "death nail" of the secularization hypothesisbased on an article that argues that this claim is empirically false (without using the term "death nail" of course). When questioned on it, he says that it's a poor source (not for the claim, but in general).
Finally, KCx has a habit of creating RfC & RM that are snow-closed against the position they were promoting: Cf. here and here and insists on long discussions about RfCs past they disagree with (see the context of the 26 February 2024 diff above).
I grant some of these diffs are a bit dated, but a pattern is clearly visible over the past year...-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Marxian/Marxist economists see capitalism as being inherently tied to class conflict (albeit this can be repressed in their views through false consciousness) and subsequent exploitation. Many American conservatives do use it as an insult against those who hold left-wing economic positions. This is however clearly not what my edits were. It is an uncontroversial and demonstrable fact that Donald J. Harris is considered an economist in the post-Keynesian and Marxian schools of thought. His primary influences are Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Karl Marx, he's been described as a post-Keynesian and Marxian economist by multiple sources, and it's not POV-pushing to mention it in the article. It certainly does not "fail verification" and I can provide over a dozen sources on the matter. Furthermore, you left out that I also added at the same time a statement that, which undercuts the idea that Donald J. Harris influenced Kamala to any significant extent. (Donald J. Harris and Kamala Harris are notoriously not close and differ widely on politics.) The diff of the edit can be seen here. Are you under the assumption that Marxists are fans of the Democratic Party? No, of course not.194 words, or 2/5 of the word limit particularly useful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2024 (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.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
On Aug 3, O.maximov reinstated one of ABHammad's edits. (ABHammad received a 0RR restriction at Jul 31 20:52, see #ABHammad.)
were expelled by Jewish and then Israeli forces or fledto
were expelled or fled due to various causeswith the edit summary
last consensual version of this before weight changes
various causeslanguage, changing
were expelled or made to flee, by paramilitaries and later its military, an expulsion known as the Nakbato
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.
Other similar issues:
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
More on media
behind Qatar
Israeli media is diverse, reflecting the spectrum of Israeli audiences.)
One time event, wp:bold
reasoning
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.
Allegations of antisemitic incidents were documented during the protests, ...back to
Numerous ...
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.
allegationsto
incidents
ethnic cleansing of Palestiniansto
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)
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
Re Vanamonde93's question about 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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
a conspiracy theory or groups and individuals seeking to influence UK foreign policy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
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).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#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:Requests_for_arbitration/Wikipedia:Blocking_policy
f) I'm not convinced i violated 1RR -> I removed a tag on the page [[111]] -> 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 [[112]] because another editor reverted two people edits here [[113]] which itself i believe is a violation of 1RRAstropulse (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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 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.
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log
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.
Ronda 2: " ¿Deberían incluirse a los combatientes de Hamas en el recuento de muertes por genocidio? " También colapsé y archive ese hilo, publiqué una plantilla de advertencia y alerta en la página de discusión del usuario y comencé un nuevo hilo sobre el mismo tema general (¿cuál es el Número de muertos por genocidio según RS), con fuentes, sin violaciones de FORUM/BLP/NOR.
Ronda 3, en el hilo que comencé: 1 , 2 ; el segundo es después de la alerta de concientización de CTOP.
En las 3 rondas, trajeron exactamente una fuente (en la Ronda 2), y esa fuente no contiene las palabras "Deif" o "genocidio". De lo contrario, no hay fuentes. 11 de 12 de sus contribuciones más recientes (del 3 al 7 de agosto) son violaciones de FORUM/BLP/NOR mencionadas anteriormente.
En resumen, 3E1 utiliza persistentemente la página de discusión de este artículo para discutir si ciertos individuos/grupos son lo suficientemente inocentes como para ser considerados víctimas de genocidio, sin ningún compromiso real con RS. Esto viola nuestras políticas FORUM/BLP/NOR.
Tenga en cuenta que recientemente ha habido un aumento en la cobertura de prensa de este artículo (consulte la plantilla de prensa en la parte superior de la página de discusión del artículo para ver los enlaces), y con ello un aumento en la interrupción, y la página de discusión actualmente está ECP como un resultado. Levivich ( charla ) 18:37, 7 de agosto de 2024 (UTC)
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.
Entiendo que el acusado tiene problemas con el artículo, ya que también inició una RM sobre él. Eso no es una licencia para forar la página de discusión, negándose repetidamente a captar la indirecta. Creo que este editor tal vez debería mantenerse alejado de la página por un tiempo. Selfstudier ( charla ) 18:57, 7 de agosto de 2024 (UTC)