User talk:Makeandtoss/Archive 12

WP:1RR at Israel–Hamas war

1. 10:49, 23 January 2024 and 10:52, 23 January 2024
2. 10:55, 23 January 2024

I've raised this with you previously, so I won't give you the extended spiel again. BilledMammal (talk) 11:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The first two edits are consecutive and thus considered 1 revert per WP:1RR. The third edit is not a revert. Please remove this false warning. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the first two, that's why I listed them in the same line.

Regarding the third, you removed a counteroffensive named, saying the WP article in question is titled invasion not counteroffensive. This was a partial revert of 02:27, 10 January 2024, which added a counteroffensive it called - in the intervening weeks it received some minor edits to bring it to the form you removed. BilledMammal (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: The article changes drastically in a single day. You cannot seriously consider a 13 day edit a revert because everyone editing that article would be considered reverting others. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it generally is. Once something has been stable it is no longer a revert to remove it; on an article like that one very little content will be stable and so editors have to be particularly cautious when removing content. BilledMammal (talk) 11:27, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking through your edits, I'm seeing violations elsewhere, such as at Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh:

1. 15:41, 20 January 2024
2. 15:08, 20 January 2024 and 15:07, 20 January 2024
3. 11:10, 20 January 2024
4. 11:00, 20 January 2024

Personally, I wouldn't count 15:41, 20 January 2024 as a separate revert from 15:08, 20 January 2024 as the only edit in between was by a bot, but the others are all separate reverts. BilledMammal (talk) 11:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: Nothing is stable on that article, so 13 days are pretty much a very much stable situation.

On assassination article there was an ongoing talk page discussion in which there was agreement for the edits.

Please stop trying to find baseless faults on my editing to get me banned, this is not a sign of good faith behavior. And remove both false notices. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get you banned, I'm trying to help you follow the bright-line rules that are in place to keep this topic area semi-functional. Please, just self-revert and we can drop this topic.

Regarding agreement on the talk page, please see WP:3RRNO for the list of valid exemptions. BilledMammal (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: I don't want to think you want to get me banned because of my editing, but throwing false accusations of violating 1 RR, twice, is making it harder for me not to think so. There was agreement on the talk page for the latter "incident". Editing warring: "Editors engaged in a dispute should reach consensus or pursue dispute resolution rather than edit war"; the guideline clearly describes reaching consensus on talk pages to be opposite of edit warring. Consensus was reached and the edits were made in agreement. I am awaiting your kind removal of both notices, as an editor acting in good faith would do. Not to mention that the second article has now been moved, and there is no way for me to revert myself because it has been dramatically changed. My edits aren't even there anymore. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

To put it one way; if I wanted to get you banned, I could have taken you to AE as soon as you refused to self-revert.

To put it another way; if you do believe I want to get you banned, the way to prevent that is to self-revert.

I understand you can't self-revert at Assassination of Sadegh Omidzadeh; I'm showing that you've made other mistakes, and I'm asking you to be more careful in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal: No I didn't make any mistakes, the first "incident" was not a revert; and the second incident was after agreement was reached on the talk page. Neither are true. The behavior of making weak accusations of 1RR violation by yourself against others users of old edits has been documented at AN in a discussion closed just 3 days ago. The refusal to drop the stick has been also documented there by mutliple editors. I realize your hesitancy from going to AN stems from a concern that your own behavior will come under scrutiny for the second time in a week. I ask you for the third time to kindly remove these baseless warnings so we can continue constructively editing WP despite our differences. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@BilledMammal

It takes at least two people to have an edit war, whose edits are being reverted here? Irtapil (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Friendly advice: Play safe and don't push the boundaries. There isn't uniform agreement on what constitutes a revert even amongst us administrators, so if someone takes you to a noticeboard you can get unlucky. You are a great editor and we don't want to lose you. One thing you are wrong about is this: agreement on the talk page implies you aren't edit-warring, but it doesn't imply you aren't making a revert. Too many reverts can get you into trouble even if every edit was justified; that's just how it is. Let someone else do the edit, or wait before doing it yourself. There's no rush. Cheers. Zero^talk 12:56, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Thanks for elaborating your view, appreciate it. Does that mean if an editor explicitly tells me I am allowed to revert them, it would still be considered a revert? That doesn't make sense, although I understand the technical limitations of WP. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

You should look at the evidence and self-revert if there is even a small chance that you broke the rule. It's less of a hassle than arguing anyway. In a rapidly changing article it can be quite hard to determine if an edit reverses something done by someone else recently. I usually look at the history and self-revert without being asked if I'm not sure. Saving your edits and doing them all at once is one way to avoid running into trouble. Zero^talk 13:11, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Zero0000: Sorry I didn't understand, which evidence? Assuming I reverted once, then another editor reverts me; who then agrees on talk page that his revert was made in error, and that I am explicitly allowed to revert him; is that a violation of 1 RR? AS for the point about doing the edits at once, it is helpful, so thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is a 1RR violation. The 1RR restriction is imposed by the Arbitration Committee and another editor cannot give you permission to violate it. Of course there are serious violations and mild violations and this example is fairly mild; but it is still a violation. Zero^talk 13:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a report involving you at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement regarding a possible violation of an Arbitration Committee decision. The thread is Makeandtoss. Thank you.

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are warned to avoid (slow-motion) edit warring in the area of the Arab-Israeli conflict. You are also warned to adhere to the area's topic-wide one revert restriction.

You have been sanctioned pursuant to an arbitration enforcement request.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at WP:ARBPIA4#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Houthis and Anti-Christian sentiment

Why was my edit undone? I found a legitimate source. Firekong1 (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1: Clearly a committee website, a Jewish American one, is not a reliable source. Makeandtoss (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Alright then. But what reliable sources can I find for citing in the article? Firekong1 (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

@Firekong1: Please refer to WP:RS Makeandtoss (talk) 22:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)