Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

3Kingdoms

3Kingdoms is indefinitely topic banned from all pages and discussions related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed. — Newslinger talk 05:42, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning 3Kingdoms User who is submitting this request for enforcement Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested 3Kingdoms (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#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 02:59, 27 March 2021‎ 1st revert 18:34, 27 March 2021 2nd revert Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) 1RR violation is a general sanction that only requires the edit notice (here) to be enforced, but the user was notified of DS in the topic area. Additional comments by editor filing complaint The editor asks others to go to the talk page, despite my having already done so and having not joined the discussion. Straightforward 1RR violation, along with a peculiar understanding of what edit-warring is in his or her edit summary claiming that material first added by the user a few days ago may not be removed because only that is edit-warring. The user declined to self-revert when offered the chance, claiming the onus is on people removing material and he or she will just follow the 1RR next time. The user recently had an indefinite block for edit-warring reduced to a page block, it appears that did not have the desired effect. The latest response to asking them to self revert was how about you act like an adult. Saying it will not happen again and refusing to self-revert dont solve the problem here. nableezy - 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC) No, the problem remains a 1RR violation that you apparently refuse to self-revert. nableezy - 18:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC) FYI, the self-revert has been re-reverted, despite 3-1 opposition to the edit through either reverts or the talk page, and despite the prohibition on using sub-standard sources in BLPs after they have been removed and explicitly cited as BLP violations. nableezy - 01:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I tried. Was unsuccesful. nableezy - 22:08, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I mean I tried to help you avoid a topic ban, because the admins below havent been, in my opinion, as blunt with you as they should be about what it is you are doing wrong and what you can do to avoid what seems inevitable at this point (a topic ban and when the behavior is repeated in a new topic area an indef block). Thats what I failed on. Ah well. nableezy - 23:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning 3Kingdoms 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 3Kingdoms Hey I'm sorry that I did not notice the 1rr will not happen again. However, the guy doing this really needs to calm down, I explained why I would not revert it again. My reply about being an adult was about him trying to be a tough guy by saying he was going to report over something not needed. 3Kingdoms (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC) There is no problem, you are just blowing this up. It was a simple mistake, I won't revert because the information stands, especially after what I found to be a childish threat instead of figuring it out like adults. like I said it won't happen again. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2021 (UTC) I do not agree, but if you feel that way I will remove the edit. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC) I reverted my edit. I did not intend to troll, I just felt that the reaction of the other guy was obnoxious. When I saw what others were saying I thought we could end this. I do not think a topic ban is needed, this won't happen again. 3Kingdoms (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Because it had been 24 hours, thus not violating the rule. I stand by the edit, but after hearing, from admins, I removed it to conform with the rules. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I really don't understand what the objection is. I have reverted once the admins made it clear I was in the wrong, I accept that and I apologize for overstepping. It won't happen again and will conform with the 1rr. 3Kingdoms (talk) 19:37, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Also regarding what was posted above, the person is speaking nonsense. Sources were not substandard the user only responded with goal post moving and failing to understand that a sources that is not labeled reliable can still be used. However for another section where I provided 7 different sources from ones offically labeled reliable, he then goal-post moved again and made up a complete abritary rule about the "news cycle". Their entire argument boils down to Wikipedia:I just don't like it which to me is not an argument. Then they decided to file a nonsense report to try and end the discussion as opposed to actual trying to argue. I should have just revert, but when some is going to not bother to have a discussion and then threaten actions, I really just lose respect and have no interest in listening, even when I should. My bad, but I stand by the edits. 3Kingdoms (talk) 21:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC) You didn't try anything. You didn't like an edit, didn't make a goof point, then reported. Don't try pretend that this was some great act on your part after already filing a report and then constanly arguing and goal-post moving. You made this a bigger deal than it needed to be. 3Kingdoms (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC) Given that you yourself don't understand the rules very well, I don't think your in much of a position to lecture, coupled with disingenuous arguments that all amount to Wikipedia:I just don't like it 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning 3Kingdoms This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This is a textbook 1RR violation, and judging by their talk page history and block log it's not the first time they've gotten in trouble like this. I would suggest a topic ban is in order. – bradv🍁 19:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC) The "my bad, it won't happen again" defense is fine, but it goes out the window once you acknowledge that you violated a sanction and still refuse to self-revert. That comes across as willful disruptive editing and trolling. I don't really look favorably on the self-revert because it came after this report was filed, and it was only filed because you refused to self-revert in the first place. I would be inclined to block anyways, but I agree with BradV that a topic ban is probably in order given the past issues. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:33, 28 March 2021 (UTC) Looking at the block log, it appears that the ARBPIA area is not the singular problem, it is one of a low signal to noise ratio everywhere at Wikipedia. I would be more inclined to give a moderately long block but would be ok with a topic ban. I just worry that a topic ban will mean we will see the same problem again, just in a different topic area, perhaps due to immaturity. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC) 3Kingdoms, why DID you essentially revert again after this AE discussion started? [1] Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:53, 29 March 2021 (UTC) I agree with others that a topic ban is likely in order here. While there's cause for concern about editing in other topics, I don't think we're at the point where an indefinite block is in order, and short of that a topic ban seems like a more appropriate way to steer 3Kingdoms towards more constructive editing than a block. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip

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 Elijahandskip

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Fram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Elijahandskip (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

1. 23 March 2021 (the actual violation is deleted, this is the discussion about it): while this violation (a Prod placed on the article of a current US politician) may have been a genuine mistake, it at least will have reminded them of the topic ban;
2. 25 March 2021 Another editor inquires about this link (which was added pre-topic ban), and Elijahandskip indicates that they can't discuss it due to their topic ban (fair enough, I guess, but necessary background for the next diff)
3. 31 March 2021 Elijahandskip adds to their user page "I was (Unofficially) mentioned by News Akmi in their article Wikipedia Editors Censor Hunter Biden Bombshell, Call New York Post ‘Unreliable’ Source on October 15, 2020." (bolding in original). This is a clear and blatant violation, and given their comment from 25 March (diff 2) they should clearly be aware of this. It also harks directly back to the edits for which they were topic banned in the first place.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 2 March 2021 topic banned, logged in Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log#American politics 2

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

While probably outside the scope of this request, the editor has been problematic elsewhere as well, with Draft:Torino Walter Bickmore created and deleted G10 only yesterday as well. This from a week ago also highlights some problematic (though hardly sanctionable in themselves) actions. I think that, apart from strict application of the AP2 topic ban, some mentoring by someone more patient than me is needed here. Fram (talk) 07:58, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, can you please a) stop making personal attacks, as these are unlikely to help your case, and b) provide links or diffs for the statements you make("an admin told me", "another admin told me", things like that)? Fram (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

We are rapidly approaching WP:CIR territory here. I hope that the admins who will look at this compare your claims to what is actually said in those diffs. User:El_C did not state (or even imply) that "as long as I didn't edit articles/discussions related to the t-ban, I was ok"[2], they said that if you want their advice about a specific violation or so, you can link to that edit on their talk page. I don't see in that edit (nor do I think they meant to give you) any permission to post blatant violations, of the kind that led to your ban in the first place), on your user page. But perhaps they will chime in to give their own perspective. Fram (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I guess continuing this back-and-forth won't really help, but for the record: I am not their mentor, I never claimed to be, I surely don't want to be; what I said is that they could perhaps be helped by having a mentor, but that it would need to be someone with more patience than I have. The above CIR claim is not about their personal attacks, but about the things I actually wrote in that post, i.e. your complete misinterpretation of what El_C said. Finally, striking through your personal attacks and then making a statement about the strikethrough where you simply repeat the attacks once again is not making things better, but worse. Fram (talk) 13:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[3]

Discussion concerning Elijahandskip

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 Elijahandskip

Let me discuss each of the 3 edits in question.

1. The edit in question was a recognized violation by me and I self-reverted after the edit. Basically I was on new page patrol and saw an article (that is now deleted) that at a quick glance, was about a ceo of some small burger place. What I missed was a small section with I think 2-3 sentences about an attempt to run for 2020 President of US. Fram thankfully saw it and messaged me about, so I self-reverted a PROD that I had on the article. I would like to point out that Fram in the link he said above said "I don't tend to try to get people blocked for what seemed like a genuine mistake." Because of that comment and now this, Fram, you will have to earn my trust back as I no longer trust you, since you lied and all.

2. The second edit in question sort a shows that I didn't want to violate my T-Ban. I have a comment on my userpage, "I am not allowed to talk about all of these recognitions until September 2, 2021." which I have had on my userpage since the t-ban started. On my talk page, someone asked a question to a pre-tban edit that was on my user page, and I just told them that I can't talk about it until September 2. This shouldn't even be in this discussion as it was a pre t-ban edit.

3. The 3rd edit in question confuses me and I have been confused on this for a while now. When my t-ban started, [[4] I was told by an admin that linking to things related to the t-ban was a violation. Recently, another [5] admin told me that as long as I didn't edit articles/discussions related to the t-ban, I was ok. I really don't want to violate the t-ban and will be happy to self-revert, but can an admin just say in plain terms what the rule is for userpages & admin talk pages? I have asked before and never got a straight answer. The answers were all in paragraph form, not just a straight answer. Update: I just self-reverted the edits in question.

4. The additional comment made by fram in my opinion just shows that I improved as a Wikipedia editor since the t-ban. One comment in the t-ban discussion was that I went and created articles way too quickly. A few days ago, a CBS reporter was doing some breaking news on a US citizen arrested in front of hundreds of spectators in Puerto Rico. I started a draft on the guy and decided to wait to see how it turned out before either g7'ing the draft (deleting) or working on the draft. While I was asleep, it got g10'ed and to not cause problems (even before this discussion), I decided to not restart the draft. The case is a unique one as the guy in question only got a $100 fine, however, the judge ruled that "He cannot be charged, since he is drunk", which got I think the President of Puerto Rico judges involved. Honestly, that control for me to not create the draft into an article on day 1 shows that I improved a lot since the start of my t-ban.

In my defense, the first edit shows I wasn't trying to violate the t-ban. The second is irrelevant to this discussion (pre t-ban edit). And the third is just confusion for me and I have requested guidance. I don't believe I should be blocked more or anything as I have really tried to to not violate the t-ban. Since the t-ban started back on March 2, I have started 7 articles and I am working to improve them all. I hope the admins that read this see that I don't have bad intentions on Wikipedia and that I shouldn't have a longer t-ban or have a real block. Elijahandskip (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Stating for the record on why I did strikethroughs. My self-proclaimed "mentor" apparently believes that me mentioning that he lied to be is a violation of CIR. Because of that and the fact I do not want another ban/block (because I have worked hard to improve since my t-ban), I am recanting EVERY statement I made about Fram. Apparently, lying is perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia. Good to note. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Update: I recently asked Fram a question on his talk page and he happily answer why my edits were “personal attacks”. I do understand why they were personal attacks and am sorry for them. I would like to ask the admin not consider them in the final discussion as I now understand those mistakes I made. Elijahandskip (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Fram

{{{1}}}

Statement by Grandpallama

I'm fairly sure this edit, which precedes the ones noted by Fram, was also a clear violation of the TBAN; however, I suspect Elijahandskip didn't realize it would be considered as such. That said, in line with Fram's concerns about greater editing issues that are outside the scope of this enforcement, but which lend credence to the idea that Elijahandskip needs mentoring, is the "unofficial" Wikipedia Current Events Twitter account Elijahandskip has created (he appears to have scrubbed mention of it from his userpage[6]). Apart from the questionability of a relatively new user under sanctions creating what looks like a WP-sanctioned account is the fact that Elijahandskip name-checks editors on the account who suggest certain current events aren't notable, which seems tied to prior complaints of him discussing user conflicts off-wiki. There do seem to be competence issues at play here. Grandpallama (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Elijahandskip, the problem isn't you mentioning the existence of your own ban; when you are under an AP2 topic ban, commenting in a noticeboard discussion about an AP2 topic ban for another user is a violation. You must stay away from all things AP2, period. That's what the "broadly construed" part of the ban means. Grandpallama (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Grandpallama

Wait, that is a violation of the t-ban? How. I was told as long as I didn’t edit articles about the post 1992 US Political realm, then I wouldn’t be in violation. I didn’t know that mentioning I had a t-ban was a violation. Does that mean I violated it on my talk page (in #2 of Fram’s original reasons) since I mentioned I had the t-ban? Elijahandskip (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

OH. That makes more sense. Thanks for that! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@Grandpallama: If I may ask, what was wrong that that Twitter thing? In my mind, it was a way to help spread information about current world events and the Wikipedia articles associated with them. At the start of this, I stopped tweeting from it until I can get some answers. It was unofficial and never had any affiliation of Wikipedia, so I didn’t see a problem in it. Would love for you to elaborate on that some more so I can learn and adapt. Thanks! Elijahandskip (talk) 14:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply to Dennis Brown

(See below for his statement in the “Result” area.) I would be perfectly fine with a strong warning. I hope that other editors allow me to show that I don’t want to violate the t-ban again, so hopefully (Crossing fingers) no one starts that ANI during this or even right after this discussion. It isn’t too hard to live with the t-ban as there is millions of articles that I can still edit and improve. The difficult comes from a stray edit that is accidental or done without really thinking about it, which can result in a full on Wikipedia block. Thank you for your comments! Elijahandskip (talk) 16:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Elijahandskip

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

• Obvious mistakes were made, but it seems they were reverted and more importantly, based on the limited evidence I'm seeing here, Elijahandskip appears to be trying to live by the tban. Instead of talking about how unfair it is, they appear to be reasonably quick about correcting mistakes. It seems that good faith is being exercised, even if mistakes are being made. I can only imagine how difficult it can be to work under a tban, as I've never had them. As long as they are being cooperative and fixing the errors when pointed out, I find it difficult to slap harsh Arb related sanctions on them. That said, a strong warning is due, and they need to exercise better diligence in staying compliant with the tban. Personal attacks don't require AE, but since we are here, Elijahandskip needs to knock that off as well. Apologizing for it afterwards isn't a substitute for simply having civil discussions with all editors. As for CIR issues, that would require more digging and is really outside of the scope of Arbitration Enforcement. That is something that would best be discussed at WP:ANI where the entire community can join in. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis. We should not punish someone for an honest mistake that they owned up to. We should also allow editors a little leeway on their own user pages. A logged warning clarifying the scope and extent of the topic ban would seem to strike the balance between the need to enforce the restrictions and AGF. Logging the warning means that there will be a record of it for admins in future should Elijah end up back here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Katafada

30/500 rule explained to Katafada on their talk page in a logged notification/warning. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Katafada User who is submitting this request for enforcement Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Katafada (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:ARBPIA4 :Tendentious editing Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 18:23, 22 March 2021 Adding {{History of Israel}} to article Jund al-Urdunn. That is changed to {{History of Palestine}} 00:25, 25 March 2021 Katafada rv to {{History of Israel}}, with edit-line: "Reverting vandalism" 20:12, 1 April 2021 Re-adding [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel]] to the Dead Sea Scrolls; with the edit-line "Reverting political vandalism". (All the Dead Sea Scrolls were found on the West Bank, ie, not in Israel) If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Alerted, 20:16, 25 March 2021 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Katefada has less than 100 edit; they have been told "Please note especially the 30/500 rule" when given the ARBPIA-alert. Still they continue to make extremely controversial ARBPIA-edits, with inflammatory edit-lines. Also; I am very disappointed that Sir Joseph (talk · contribs) re-adds [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel]] about discoveries done outside Israel (link): he should know better than this, Huldra (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC) User:HJ Mitchell, my "Please note especially the 30/500 rule" (diff) was not a template. In general; I am disheartened by such aggressive edit-lines as this user makes; one is not very tempted to engage in discussions with editors who repeatedly calls you a vandal. Huldra (talk) 23:14, 1 April 2021 (UTC) User:Sir Joseph: the Dead Sea Scrolls were not found in Israel, as I think you know very well; how do you justify placing the cat Archaeological discoveries in Israel on the article? Huldra (talk) 23:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC) The Qumran Caves are wholly on the West Bank, undisputedly not in Israel, Huldra (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Now that the Cave of Horror has been included in the Dead Sea Scrolls article; I withdraw this report. (Although; noting the opinions/attitude that Katefada has shown on the Talk:Dead Sea Scrolls-page: I suspect that Katefada will find themselves back here soon), cheers, Huldra (talk) 22:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Katafada 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 Katafada I am new to Wikipedia. I am not a political activist or a keyboard warrior. As you can read on my profile, I am allergic to propaganda. I'm mainly interested in linguistics. Some years back (2015 if I remember correctly) I edited the Modern Hebrew page which had been vandalised by anti-Israel editors who gave undue weight to fringe theories in order to classify Modern Hebrew as "Relexified Yiddish", I provided most of the sources that enabled other editors to fix the article, its classification section is largely based on my initial draft. I had no account back then. What prompted me to create an account was the appearance of the [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine]] category on the Dead Sea Scrolls page, this category was created in February 2021, ostensibly with the intention of granting undue weight to the Palestinian Authority's ownership claim (which is entirely spurious, what Huldra conveniently ignores is that the "West Bank" was under illegal Jordanian occupation from 1948 to 1967, and that the PLO made no claims on this area until 1968). To make sure the article is more balanced, I have added the [[Category:Archaeological discoveries in Israel]], which Huldra seems quite keen on removing, using Huldra's logic the "Archaeological discoveries in the State of Palestine" category should also be removed as there was no "State of Palestine" when the scrolls were discovered. As for the other edits, I have no issue if the Palestine infobox were added as well in the Jund Filastin and other articles, that being said Huldra should have no problems with the Palestine infobox's absence, after all if we are to follow her logic none of Jund al-Urdunn was in the territory normally assigned to Palestine (Gaza & the West Bank) , most of it was in what is now Northern Israel. Replacing the Israel infobox with the Palestine infobox obviously is a political edit. The impression I'm getting so far is that I've stirred a hornet's nest and am being unfairly targeted for it. Katafada (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Sir Joseph Note to Huldra who decided to mention me here, you'll notice I didn't remove "State of Palestine" from the article but it's just silly to not have Dead Sea Scrolls as part of the Israeli archeology cat. Not everything has to be a conflict. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Nableezy I dont know how anybody reads the edits, talk page comments and hell the response on this page and doesnt say WP:NOTHERE and good bye, but thats just me. Beyond the 500/30 violations, which the user continues to repeat despite being informed of, the actual POV being pushed here goes well beyond fringe. But if you feel that AGF is in fact a suicide pact, at least make sure that the user understands the 500/30 rule, and uses the time to learn that WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS is not in fact the purpose of Wikipedia. nableezy - 00:54, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Beyond My Ken Whether Katafada is actually "relatively new" or not (per HJ Mitchell below) is thrown into doubt by their statement that they edited the Modern Hebrew article "Some years back (2015 if I remember correctly)". There is indeed an IP who made edits which fit their description in May 2015. If Katafada was that IP, and they were editing with proficiency 6 years ago, then it seems wrong to treat them as if they were a newbie. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by Shrike The only edit that could be under scrutiny is the last edit as other edits were before an alert--Shrike (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2021 (UTC) The new discoveries was founded in Israel[7] ,[8] so its not WP:TE at all .The removing the Israel category by Huldra it is [9] I don't know if it rise to level of WP:BOOMERANG but this case should be dismissed Shrike (talk) 20:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Result concerning Katafada This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. At first glance this does look like tendentious editing but only one of the diffs is post-alert and this is a relatively new editor. Has anyone attempted to explain the problem with a hand-written (ie non-templated) message? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC) I've actively tried to avoid this case, but it seems no one else wants to jump in. HJ Mitchell has already modified the Dead Sea Scrolls article to EC, which is probably a good thing. I'm having trouble buying all the innocence from Katafada, to be honest. If this wasn't PIA, it would be a simple content conflict, but it is PIA so here we are. At a minimum, we probably need a logged warning, with instructions to Katafada to avoid PIA topics until they have the required 500 edits. Even if the page isn't locked as EC. How "new" they are is up for debate but the spirit of the Arb ruling is pretty clear, so it's just a good idea. Not sure what else to do. I'm not really thinking a block or topic ban is due for a first time issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC) I agree with HJ and Dennis that an explanation of the 30/500 rule would be a good first step and that it would be appropriate to log that notification/warning. If Katafada continues to edit in the PIA area after my message to them then a block would likely be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Gilabrand

This is pretty cut and dry, an obvious violation of the topic ban. Blocking for the same period as last time, 3 months. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Gilabrand User who is submitting this request for enforcement Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:10, 2 April 2021 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Gilabrand (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 ARBPIA topic ban Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 06:48, 1 April 2021 Removes large section about "private Palestinian land was taken and given to Israeli settlers by the World Zionist Organization....." 07:08, 1 April 2021 Ads a JVL source about "Zionism: World Zionist Organization (WZO)" The content of the source is part of the A-I conflict. 07:19, 1 April 2021 ads image about "First Zionist Congress in Basel where the Zionist Organization was founded" Gilabrands first topic ban violation was reverted by an administrator: [10] I asked Gilabrand to self revert her third topic ban violation of the First Zionist Congress image: [11], her next edit after that was to re ad the Aliyah template, she had previously removed: [12], she did not revert the addition of the First Zionist Congress image she added that was also against her topic ban. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Long list If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Not applicable Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified:[13] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Discussion concerning Gilabrand 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 Gilabrand Statement by Huldra 10:45, 23 December 2020, Gilabrand also broke their topic-ban on Al-Sinnabra, I couldn't bother doing anything about it, Huldra (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by ZScarpia Note that the Israeli Foreign Ministry is listed as the source for the Jewish Virtual Library (JVL) article which was added as a citation in the second diff. The JVL has been discussed multiple times at the Reliable Source Noticeboard. The cosensus arrived at in the last discussion was that it should be regarded as a mostly unreliable source. In addition, the JVL is a tertiary, rather than secondary, source.     ←   ZScarpia   02:39, 3 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by JzG I concur with the analysis above: this is both a topic ban violation and POV-pushing, i.e. recidivism, so enforcement is warranted. I have no strong opinion on how long the block should be, but given the time since the last one it should probably be no longer than mine was. Guy (help! - typo?) 17:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Gilabrand This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Pinging EdJohnston since he is familiar, based on this diff. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:09, 4 April 2021 (UTC) Also pinging JzG, who made the last block on Gilabrand in 12/2016. Note, the last block was for 3 months, but that was over 4 years ago. I get the feeling that a block is going to happen here, but I don't know if it should be "escalating" given the time since the last problem. Something in the 1 to 3 month range seems reasonable. I would also support longer but feel that the shorter period is more appropriate. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)