User talk:Dovidroth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hi Dovidroth! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! JFW | T@lk 22:19, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Fast of Behav moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Fast of Behav, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Every claim in the article is carefully and accurately sources. Can you please explain what the problem is? Dovidroth (talk) 13:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fast of Behav (January 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Fast of Behav and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Fast of Behav, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Dovidroth! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Rabbi Pinchas Mordechai Teitz.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Rabbi Pinchas Mordechai Teitz.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, I selected "Non-free historic image". Please let me know if there's something else I need to do. Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Fast of Behav has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fast of Behav. Thanks! DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. So how do I make it into an article now? Dovidroth (talk) 04:43, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Fast of Behav has been accepted

Fast of Behav, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

DGG ( talk ) 19:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Dovidroth (talk) 04:22, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for edits

Thank you for your edits on HaAderet v'HaEmunah! They are much appreciated. I am planning to write further articles on piyyutim and other parts of davening in the future and if I do, I may ask for your eyes on them to help with issues of specificity. I also hope you don't mind if I go through Fast of Behav for adding references, minor copyedits, and such-- please feel free to change any edits that I do on that page without concern that I am trying to edit-war. Cheers, Gilded Snail (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I will try to look over what you write. Dovidroth (talk) 05:33, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

The 'small minority' bias

Hi Dovidroth. Thank you for this edit. If you could review the introduction to the article of the Balfour Declaration and comment on it, I'd appreciate it. I think it suffers from similar biases. Thanks in advance! Tombah (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tombah:Thanks for your support and I will try to get to it soon. The person who made the edit that I reversed is fighting with me on the talk page. If you could write something supporting me, I would appreciate it.Dovidroth (talk) 08:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Inappropriate canvassing

Per the above thread and this edit, it appears that you have been canvassing—leaving messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision, debate, or vote. While friendly notices are allowed, they should be limited and nonpartisan in distribution and should reflect a neutral point of view. Please do not post notices which are indiscriminately cross-posted, which espouse a certain point of view or side of a debate, or which are selectively sent only to those who are believed to hold the same opinion as you. Remember to respect Wikipedia's principle of consensus-building by allowing decisions to reflect the prevailing opinion among the community at large. Thank you. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Violation

You have violated the 1RR rule in Six-Day War and you have been warned by it by another user and chose to ignore it. If you make any more edits before reverting your own edit there, you will be reported. Dan Palraz (talk) 14:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Nice try. You are the one who broke 1RR:

first revert

And...

second revert

We can take this to WP:AE whenever you want. Dovidroth (talk) 15:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, if another editor breaches the WP:1RR limit, you should ask them to self-revert on their talk page, and you certainly should not take it upon yourself to revert them when it means you in turn breach the WP:1RR. You've now done this twice, both on Six-Day War and Sam Kassin. Both of you would find yourself in hot water if either of you took this to AE. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't know that. I thought I was allowed to revert someone who already broke 1RR, in a case of 'status quo ante bellum'. My apologies. Next time I'll ask the breacher to revert himself and make a report at AE if he refuses. Although I'm not sure whether Sam Kassin is under 1RR restrictions like ARBPIA articles. Either way, I'll be careful. Thanks for your help. Dovidroth (talk) 18:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right, I got muddled on Sam Kassin, but yes, there's no status quo ante bellum. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently been editing the Arab–Israeli conflict which has been designated a contentious topic. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and

refrain from gaming the system.

Additionally you must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days and are not allowed to make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on a page within this topic.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

RolandR (talk) 12:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

Uncited but ...

Hey, in this edit, it's all uncited and semi-duplicative, but there were quite a few related wiki links that I can't see used anywhere else on the page - the Nebi Musa riots one for instance - isn't it remiss not to have a link to that Jerusalem-specific event? Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The Nebi Musa riots is already linked, just like the other ones. Dovidroth (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I see. It was some deep piping. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for clarification or amendment from the Arbitration Committee. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the Wikipedia:Arbitration guide may be of use.

Thanks, Makeandtoss (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clarification request closed

Hello Dovidroth,

the clarification request regarding Palestine-Israel articles 4 has been closed with the following summary, referring to you:

There is a rough consensus that there is no conflict of interest issue with this particular editor, and as a general principle, simply being the employee of a government does not prevent all editing in a contentious topic that involves that government.

Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Holocaust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Holocaust in Yugoslavia. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Blocked

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dovidroth (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I have been blocked without evidence. I am not a sockpuppet. In the investigation of the sockmaster in question, my user account is not even mentioned. This is a clear mistake.Dovidroth (talk) 04:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Unblocked with the WP:CTOP revert restriction imposed in the following section. To be clear, this constitutes a finding that outright sockpuppetry is unlikely to have occurred here, but that there was a failure to exercise independent judgment in some restorations, without a finding as to how intentional the proxying was. Dovidroth, I note your stated intention to comply with the revert restriction even outside the PIA topic area, and think that that's a very good idea, even if it's not formally required by the restriction I've issued. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Dovid asked me for my thoughts on this block. Compliance notes: They and I have no previous interactions that I can recall, and they did not specify why they contacted me or whether they'd contacted others. Having been adminshopped, I don't intend to take any action here unless by agreement, but I would like to inquire about this, as someone's who's made a lot of behavioral-only blocks of Yaniv sox.

With that out of the way: At a glance, nothing in Dovid's contribs is jumping out at me, and at least one tell I'd expect to find isn't there. Is there something subtle I'm missing, or am I just losing my touch? (Admittedly, getting back into SPI work after several months away.) Happy to talk by email if that's preferable. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I was a little surprised at this tbh, but after going through the contribs the thing that struck me was the number of times Dovidroth restored past Yaniv edits. See for example SoaringLL then WatchIonly and then Dovidroth. Was a story played out repeatedly. So, me personally, surprised but then disappointed I didnt see it way earlier. nableezy - 12:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I've edited literally thousands of articles over the last few years. If there is an edit made by a user that was banned but I consider helpful for the article, I usually restore it. I judge changes based on their own merits, not by who did it. I didn't know that was apparently forbidden on Wikipedia. In any case, that doesn't make me a sockpuppet. Dovidroth (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Stecantur is  Confirmed, and there isn't really any arguing that point. Stecantur edited Michael Oren, after which Dovidroth and Spencer Stevens showed up to restore Stecantur's edit using the same arguments. At Abba Eban, Stecantur and Dovidroth showed up within hours of each other to revert the same edit with the same argument. I'm not really 100% sure of Spencer Stevens, but that account is on the same IP range as a bunch of other socks. Dovidroth is on a different IP range that doesn't seem to have any socks. However, this account is showing up in the same articles, with the same arguments, within hours of a confirmed sock. I didn't make it a CU block, though, so anyone can look into it. I could believe this is meat puppetry or proxying, but it wouldn't matter – the end result is the same. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:48, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are making a mistake. It's Spencer Stevens who copied me. I'm the one who reverted that edit for being pure WP:Gossip. If a sockpuppet then took advantage of that and jumped into the fray and took my side, it's not my fault. He copied me, not vice versa. Also the edit that I reverted and nableezy was referring to was made by an actual sockpuppet (GizzyCatBella). At this point it's impossible to avoid some interlaps with sock edits, since there are so many in Israel-related articles. Dovidroth (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding Stecantur, at the time that sock appeared in the article, he wasn't blocked, so I had no idea about their identity. Why that article wasn't under extended-confirmed protection is beyond me. It belongs to arbpia. Dovidroth (talk) 13:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm still looking into some of this, but I will say off the bat, Dovidroth emailed me from an address that is associated with a specific identifiable person, and their edits are extremely consistent with being that person, including at least one self-cite. Now that only gets us halfway, since AFAIK we don't know Yaniv's IRL identity, but GHBH where the GH identity is known is pretty rare. So to me the question would come down more to if this is meatpuppetry, and for that the question we need to answer per WP:PROXYING is whether Dovid had an independent reason for making these edits. It's worth noting that Yaniv edits often have a fair amount of constructive ones mixed in; the many times I've massrollbacked him, I've often had to manually exclude edits that reverted Holocaust denial, POV-pushing, etc. @Nableezy: I've always known you to be a straight shooter in this topic area, even regarding editors you disagree with. In your opinion, are the restorations that Dovidroth has made wider-ranging than one would expect of someone who (I gather) shares Yaniv's right-of-Israeli-center Zionist POV and interest in Jewish practice? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I started looking at it more and to be frank Im not sure. I could see the Oren sequence going either way, since one of the socks does a Yaniv thing in posting to what he thinks is a friendly editor's talk page and deleting it right after ([1], [2]). The one I cited may have happened from going through GCB's contribs to revert but it just doesnt make sense to me, how do you even come across that edit months later to restore the exact quote with the same phrasing. If you want my best guess? Been in email contact with Yaniv (I just dont buy how you show up at a bunch of discussions with a bunch of other rarely active editors when there is established proof of Yaniv email canvassing, eg the exodus to expulsion and flight move request), but right at this second not totally sure is actually Yaniv. nableezy - 17:24, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, Dovidroth: At The Clinton Parameters, Michael Oren, and Abba Eban, you restored Yaniv content despite having never edited the articles before [3] [4] [5]. Could you please explain what drew your attention to these pages? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:17, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I saw the Clinton Parameters after I found out that GizzyCatBella, an editor so dedicated to revert sock edits across arbpia, turned out to be a sockpuppet herself (oh, the irony). But I didn't revert her out of spite or revenge, but simply because that quote by Bandar is actually pretty famous among those Israelis in the peace camps (no, I'm not a "right-wing" nutjob because I'm religious). Regarding Abba Eban, I had been monitoring the article for a while, which led me to find out about a similar addition on Michael Oren by this new editor with less than 200 edits who is not an extended-confirmed user that should be able to edit arbpia articles or content anyway. Dovidroth (talk) 03:55, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay, here's where I come down:

1. It seems unlikely that Dovidroth is Yaniv Horon, nor someone working entirely at his direction
2. The charge that Dovidroth has at least sometimes edited at Yaniv's direction is, in my view, not proven, in the Scots sense: A good case has been made for it, but there's no definitive proof, and Dovidroth has provided an alternate explantion, albeit one that requires a fair amount of assuming good faith.
3. Regardless of Dovidroth's intentions, regarding Yaniv edits he has acted in a manner that, overall, showed a failure to exercise independent judgment.

In light of that, I would propose the following: Dovidroth is unblocked, but with the following WP:CTOPIC revert restriction issued:

Within the WP:ARBPIA topic area, Dovidroth may not reinstate any edits that were correctly reverted under WP:BANREVERT, except with permission of the reverting user, by talkpage consensus, or under the usual edit-warring exceptions.

Dovidroth, would you agree to that restriction? (Strictly speaking I can impose it either way, but I'm not interested in doing so if you're not on-board.) @NinjaRobotPirate: Would you be amenable to this? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:33, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I agree not to restore any edit made by a banned user that was reverted (at least without previous agreement from the reverting editor or previous consensus in the talk page). However, if I'm unblocked, I do intent to restore my own contributions that were reverted under the false pretense that I'm a sockpuppet, including Bandar's quote in the Clinton Parameters that was removed by a sockpuppet (GizzyCatBella) and gossip addition in Michael Oren that is supported by unreliable sources (assuming that's ok with you Tamzin). Dovidroth (talk) 06:52, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

So, right after agreeing not to restore sock puppet edits, you say the first edits you're going to make are to continue an edit war to restore sock puppet edits in a topic under discretionary sanctions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I was asking to avoid misunderstanding, but I see you object to that. In that case, I will refrain from restoring the reverted edits in Michael Oren, Abba Eban and Clinton Parameters. I will just restore my own contributions that were reverted by Nableezy after I was accused of sockpuppetry. Dovidroth (talk) 14:03, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

You canvass an admin via email, and this admin somehow determines that there's no real proof that you've engaged in email collusion with a banned editor. You get offered a mild restriction that only slows you down from restoring edits by banned editors and agree to it. But you then argue that it's too burdensome, and you need to immediately return to edit warring to restore edits made by that banned editor. I would agree to a restriction that you're indefinitely topic banned from restoring edits by blocked or banned editors in WP:ARBPIA. No asking permission to restore edits. If you restore edits by a blocked or banned editor, or you propose restoring edits by a blocked or banned editor, your indefinite block is restored. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:37, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dovidroth: Echoing NRP: If any reverts of your edits are found to not fall under BANREVERT (e.g. an edit you made that had no connection to Yaniv, in the eventuality where you are unblocked), that's an administrative matter I can sort out with Nableezy—who is, like I said, a reasonable guy, and I trust will do the right thing in that eventuality (either self-reverting or correcting his reverts to use some different rationale). This is all independent of the question of any sanctions; it's what I expect in any case where a BANREVERT is later found inapplicable. So, that's something Nableezy and I can sort out; if you do want to get unblocked, you should be looking forward, not backward. Now, I do tend to agree with NRP that, if this is how you're looking at the proposed sanction—immediately trying to return to the disputes that contributed to your block—that a more black-and-white sanction would be better. It's really not much of a burden; I've restored banned users' edits maybe... 10 times in my last 40,000 edits, something like that?

You could also just take a TBAN from ARBPIA. That might be for the best in the long run. Frankly, just looking at your edits from the perspective of a content editor (and the author of, I think, the only Good Article on a Jewish prayer), you seem to be much more in your element when editing about Jewish topics than ARBPIA topics. Just a thought.

So, like NRP said, this is a pretty good offer you're getting. You—I think just by luck?—reached out to one of a pretty small handful of admins who will hear out an "actual innocence" defense to sockpuppetry, and happened to get me the week that I returned to admin work after several months' absence. And, like I said, this is only something I'd be interested in pursuing if you're affirmatively on-board with the idea. I'm not going to drag you kicking and screaming into your own unblock.

On that note, @NinjaRobotPirate, I was serious when I said that, having been adminshopped here, I have no intention of doing anything that isn't by mutual agreement. Maybe I'm misreading tone, but you seem unhappy with the idea of an unblock, and if your partial endorsement here is reluctant, then my involvement will be only a recommendation to whichever admin draws this page out of CAT:UNBLOCK. If there's one thing I do not want to be as an admin, it's that admin who shows up on a blocked established user's talkpage to give them special treatment. I don't think that's what I'm doing, but if it seems that way, I won't be pressing any buttons. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, it's OK. I'm just not in a good mood. I'm bipolar, but I've got it under control. Just have to do damage control occasionally. I shouldn't have been that hostile; sorry. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:24, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Idk tbh, this seems a bit Kafkaesque. If Dovid is not a sock then the BRV reverts are not by themselves something they should be prohibited from doing. Any editor in good standing can take responsibility for content reverted under BRV, and I dont see why somebody should restricted from that. If you are unconvinced about the MEAT/PROXYING possibilities, and my non-admin view is Id appreciate Dovid saying flat out if they have been contacted by email to participate in any discussion, and Id take a yes as a reason to forgive and unblock personally, then he would by the book stay blocked. But it does not strike me as reasonable to both say he is not socking and treat him as though he maybe sorta might have been with these restrictions. nableezy - 20:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I will also say that I do think Dovid has been attempting to POV push through edit-warring in a number of articles and using edit-summaries improperly with their edits (eg this is not an attribution, and then there was this repeated effort to remove what had previously had an explicit talk page consensus for (Special:Diff/1145637062, Special:Diff/1145359349, Special:Diff/1145085395, Special:Diff/1143673243, Special:Diff/1143151184). But those issues are independent of whether or not Dovid should be blocked for sockpuppetry or meatpuppeting or proxying. nableezy - 20:57, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

I have thoughts, but you're right that I forgot to ask for a straight answer on whether Dovid has been in touch with Yaniv. So I'd like to know that too, Dovid; and let's expand that to whether you've been in touch with Yaniv, and/or whether anyone has reached out to you about ARBPIA article content who isn't an established Wikipedia editor. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

No, I haven't been contacted by this Yaniv nor I have any intention to edit on behalf of banned users. I agree not to restore sock edits if unblocked, even if I like those edits. Dovidroth (talk) 18:31, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Nableezy: When I became an SPI clerk, I expressed a reluctance to calling people liars. That got a chuckle out of one or two colleagues, but I've with very few exceptions stood by that. So I'm not going to get into whether I believe Dovidroth's response or not (and I don't like creating situations where someone would have a perverse incentive to falsely confess), and rather will just stand by what I said before: There is adequate evidence that they have failed to exercise independent judgment in restoring banned users' edits within the PIA topic area. In CTOP areas, admins sometimes have to make decisions based on a preponderance of the evidence in terms of what appears to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and I think this is one of those times. So I want you to know I have seriously considered your objection to an unblock with restrictions, but stand by it being the best way forward here. Dovidroth is of course welcome to appeal as described below.

As a final bit of housekeeping, since I'm unblocking with a finding that negates BANREVERT, as discussed before could you please either self-revert or dummy-edit re-justify all BANREVERTs that didn't originate from Dovidroth restoring Yaniv content? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry was out of commission since Saturday afternoon, Dovid has already done all that and I have no issue with it. nableezy - 07:23, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Great! Dovidroth (talk) 07:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

As a revert restriction, you may not restore any edit within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area that was made in violation of a ban or block and reverted for that reason.

You have been sanctioned for failure to exercise independent judgment in your restorations, as described above.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#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.  -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you Tazmin for taking the time to look into the issue! Dovidroth (talk) 03:25, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I've restored only my own contributions, not the sock edits. I will abide by the rules and refrain from restoring all edits made by banned users from now on. I apologize for any inconvenience I caused. Dovidroth (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 7

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Holocaust, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Holocaust in Yugoslavia.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Edits at Operation Nachshon

Regarding your edits at Operation Nachshon, after you removed the fact that it was defeated arguing Not in source., I reinstated it with the specific supporting quote from the source cited. You removed it again, again arguing Not in source even though I provided the specific supporting quote.
This is WP:Refusing to get the point and it is WP:Disruptive editing. Please don't waste your colleagues' time. إيان (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Even so, "defeated operation" is not proper English nor appropriate for the first line in the introduction (you meant "failed operation" perhaps?). It's already explained at the end of lead that the operation was unsuccessful but ultimately lead to the opening of the Burma road. Opening with "defeated operation" is redundant, unnecessary and POV. Dovidroth (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

You could acknowledge that you made a mistake—repeating Not in source after being presented with exactly where in the source it is— and apologize instead of deflecting.

This is a conversation about your WP:Disruptive conduct in this specific instance. Discussion of article content should take place on the relevant article's talk page. إيان (talk) 17:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jerusalem Talmud, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arad.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Disscusion invloving you on Zionism

You do know there is a major discussion going on due to an edit you made on Zionism, and you were pinged, and your input is also needed here. Crainsaw (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Dov Zakin

Hello. Regarding this edit, are you able to provide a link to the source for WP:V purposes? Cheers, Number 57 15:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

It’s coded in the MARC tags here, but that’s not very readable to someone who is not a librarian/cataloger. Dovidroth (talk) 15:59, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

A little concerned to see Wikipedia/Wikidata stuff in there. Is it possible it is just pulled from he.wiki/Wikidata, which has had his DOB as 29 September for some time? Cheers, Number 57 16:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

All NLI authorities should have the Wikidata identifiers. It is possible that various sources were copied from each other, but NLI authorities are considered a reliable source. I have added birthdates to Wikipedia from NLI to literally hundreds of pages. Dovidroth (talk) 16:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for assistance

There are some issues over at the Israel entry in the article on Self-determination. Given your expertise, I'd greatly appreciate your assistance in addressing biased language, inappropriate linking, and disregarded talk page discussions.

Recognizing your expertise, I understand that you may have pressing bias concerns in major articles to address. However, your insights into historical context, key concepts, and diverse viewpoints would significantly enhance the article's credibility.

I'm committed to promoting unbiased discourse and respectfully request your input to rectify these challenges.

If feasible, your contribution would be invaluable.

Thank you for considering this request. MemoryGuardian (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

@MemoryGuardian hello, i am working on a project to accelerate fixing the anti israel misinformation on wikipedia. I would love to get your contact details. And Dovid. Need a collection of anti revisionist editors and admins. Reddynot (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Feel free to email me. Dovidroth (talk) 05:03, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I sent connection request on linkedin. Roz. Reddynot (talk) 05:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

August 2023

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from History of Israel into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — SamX [talk · contribs] 19:41, 17 August 2023 (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 Dovidroth. Thank you. Makeandtoss (talk) 10:29, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

BANREVERT

You made an agreement, actually you were sanctioned and you agreed to the sanction, part of your unblock by Tamzin here, not to re-revert edits made reverting socks of banned users. You violated that agreement here in which you restored several edits by a sock of a banned user. Kindly self-revert or I will request your sanction be enforced and a topic ban imposed. nableezy - 09:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Show me the exact link of the edit/s made by HaNagid (the sockpuppet) that I supposedly restored. There were around 40 edits after the sock in question by MANY different editors and many more before him in that article's lead (including by yourself), before you came and reverted them all.Dovidroth (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

This is just one of them, but there are several more. And thats not even getting in to the factual errors you re-introduced. Are you going to self-revert? Its a very simple question, but I need to know the answer before deciding how much time to spend on an AE report for violating your editing restriction. nableezy - 16:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I've asked the administrator who imposed my ban if I broke it. If I did, I will certainly revert myself. Have a nice day. Dovidroth (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Looks like you got your answer. nableezy - 17:43, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

You have once again violated this restriction. The material you re-inserted at Hamas, laughably citing WP:ONUS which requires consensus for inclusion, was first added by a sock of a banned user. I invite you to self-revert before being reported. nableezy - 15:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I removed the sentence from HaNagid. Dovidroth (talk) 15:53, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, but your edit summary is effectively calling for a WP:PROXY violation, asking others to make an edit you cannot make is also a violation of our policies. nableezy - 15:57, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd be happy to learn. Please show me where WP:PROXY says that I cannot put that in my edit summary. Best regards. Dovidroth (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, WP:PROXYING. nableezy - 16:21, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Ahed Tamimi

Please see the talk page, reverting a claimed BLP violation is explicitly forbidden by policy and if you do not self revert I will be reporting it. nableezy - 16:44, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

And also:

You have recently made edits related to articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. This is a standard message to inform you that articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. nableezy - 16:52, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Reported by Maariv, which is reliable. Also a content dispute is not a violation that requires sanctions. I also find strange that your threat is directed at me but not all the other editors who added the content in the first place. Dovidroth (talk) 17:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Restoring material that is claimed to be a BLP violation requires an explicit affirmative consensus on the talk page. The other editors restored material prior to it being claimed to be a BLP violation. You did that after. Please abide by WP:BLP which requires that disputed BLP content stay out absent an explicit consensus for it. Are you declining to self-revert? nableezy - 17:34, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on USS Liberty incident. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. VQuakr (talk) 16:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I've made one single revert in that article ... not one in 24 hours, just one altogether! Is that your definition of "edit-warring"? And according to this definition, you are also edit warring because you reverted me. Dovidroth (talk) 05:29, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

You attempted to force through a contested proposed edit be repeating a revert. It doesn't matter that you were repeating someone else's revert. Don't edit war. The WP:ONUS to establish consensus is on the party proposing the change. VQuakr (talk) 08:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Toxic edit summary

This edit with edit summary "Never mind all the pictures of Gazans crying" is a disgrace, you should be ashamed of yourself. Selfstudier (talk) 18:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground Parham wiki (talk) 18:26, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

If I see an edit summary or any other commentary like that from you again you'll face sanctions. There is no need for inflammatory actions like that in this topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, my comment was a response to this. But I should have chosen different words, and I sincerely apologize. It won't happen again. Dovidroth (talk) 07:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits to Yossi Cohen

I made changes to the Yossi Cohen, primarily to reflect that he's still alive. According to MOS:TENSE, living people should be referred to in the present tense. Therefore, "Yossi Cohen is an Israeli politician and former director of Mossad" is the proper intro. I understand you may disagree with him being a politician, and though he is rumored to throw his name into the ring in a possible upcoming election, I can play along with him not fully being a politician. Therefore, is it acceptable to change the first sentence to "Yossi Cohen is an Israeli and former director of Mossad?"

heat_fan1 (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t read amazingly, so I would kind of prefer “Yossi Cohen is the former director of the Mossad” and leave out the Israeli part, but I will accept your suggestion as well. Dovidroth (talk) 18:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thank you.

heat_fan1 (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Persistent POV editing

This edit is but the most recent example. ONUS? This material is being added without consensus so the ONUS lies elsewhere. It is also being discussed in talk and your edit just ignores that.

And this edit is another example, source misrepresentation.

Kindly do not make idle threats in edit summary, if anyone is going to be reported, it is yourself should I see any further edits of this nature. Thanks for your attention. Selfstudier (talk) 15:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

POV editing is a serious accusation. We should try to act here in good faith.

Regarding the first edit, this material had been on the page for quite some time, and thus removing it falls into WP:ONUS. Makeandtoss was bold, he was reverted by Homerthegreat; instead of reverting, you should have started a discussion on the talk page. Your restoring it again constitutes edit warring.

I admit that the second edit was not worded well. Not POV editing, but a phrasing mistake. You reverted me and I left it that way. Dovidroth (talk) 16:30, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:ONUS, particularly the last sentence. nableezy - 16:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

And here you invite others to circumvent a ban in your edit summary. Honestly, it's remarkable to me that you've haven't been site banned yet given your ubiquitous battleground mentality. @Nableezy: is it time to propose such a ban? I haven't seen a shred of introspection or contrition from this editor, either in words or behavior. VQuakr (talk) 18:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

He did not know about WP:PROXYING, hes been duly informed. Time to move on imo. nableezy - 18:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:52, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Qatari support for Hamas

Hello! Thank you for your contribution on Page "Qatari support for Hamas". But the content you reverted were a tag of Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Contributor00001 (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the comment. Is there something I should do now since I didn’t realize that when I made the edit summary, or should I just keep it in mind for the future. Thanks. Dovidroth (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Theodor Herzl

Why did you revert my edit? Only facts were used. AstroSaturn (talk) 21:21, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

It was not well written so did not contribute to the article. Dovidroth (talk) 05:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Wdym by that? "Palestine" was a Ottoman region at that time. AstroSaturn (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

It wasn’t written well and wasn’t clear. Dovidroth (talk) 18:19, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Israel Hamas war Talk Large removal

You may start an RFC for this matter instead of WP:BLUDGEONING a discussion where the consensus is clearly against you. Selfstudier (talk) 14:55, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus against me, the discussion is still ongoing. We should steer away from WP:STONEWALLING. But starting an RfC is a good idea. Dovidroth (talk) 15:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination

Hey, just to let you know that I’ve nominated Article should be deleted for speedy deletion under G6, as (judging by the history of Black Friday (bombing campaign)) it seems like it was created as the result of an unintentional pagemove.

Best, ^user:A smart kitten_meow 11:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Correct, I was trying to delete the Black Friday (bombing campaign) article because it was created by a non-EC user, and I did something wrong. Dovidroth (talk) 11:52, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on 2023 Israel–Hamas war

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page 2023 Israel–Hamas war, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Concern about WP:BANREVERT

I've noticed you've made quite a few reverts at Genocides in history (1946 to 1999) removing disputed content and you keep citing WP:ONUS. @nableezy already cautioned you that doing the same revert as those made by sockpuppets is a violation of WP:BANREVERT. While your point about WP:ONUS is correct, I'm concerned your agreement with @Tamzin has been violated by you reverting this edit when @Materialscientist. I understand that consensus regarding the disputed content has not been reached on the article's talk page and that WP:ONUS does indeed apply but I just wanted to remind you of your agreement with @Tamzin. I really think you shouldn't be reverting any edits that were reverted based on the original editor being a suspected sockpuppet. Philipnelson99 (talk) 13:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out. As far as I know, my ban only includes reverting people banned as sockpupets. Matelialscientest wrote "rvt sock" in his edit summary, but he's reverting a banned IP who was banned for violating 3RR, not for being a sock. So as far as I know, I am allowed to revert IP contributions, as we discussed sock-puppets, not IPs. Am I missing something? @Tamzin, am I correct? Dovidroth (talk) 13:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I think per WP:ARBPIA, you're correct about reverting IPs but in this case the user you reverted was not an IP. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The user I reverted was reverting an IP, not a sock puppet. And therefore I believe that it is not included in my ban, which is only to revert things reverted from sock puppets. If I missed something, please let me know. Dovidroth (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOCK says IPs can be socks. Philipnelson99 (talk) 14:44, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

The IP that was reverted was not banned as a sock as far as I can tell, only for a 3RR violation. Dovidroth (talk) 14:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't have time right now to look into this full situation, but to be clear, the restriction I imposed is that you may not restore any edit within the Arab–Israeli conflict topic area that was made in violation of a ban or block and reverted for that reason. Neither prong of that involves what the user was blocked for, or even them getting blocked at all. A user saying "rv sock" is enough to create a presumption that this restriction applies. People are of course wrong from time to time about sockpuppetry, but the solution there is to contact the reverting user and ask why they think sockpuppetry has occurred. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:19, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I self reverted to be safe. Dovidroth (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Multiple reverts in less than an hour

You've made multiple reverts in less than an hour at Hamas:

• 09:14, December 10, 2023. This edit makes multiple reverts, among other things, it restores "In later years, specifically during agreements with Fatah between 2005 and 2007, Hamas began acquiescing to the 1967 borders as an interim solution" even though the source doesn't say these specific agreements proposed the 1967 borders as "interim solution".
• 09:32, December 10, 2023. In this edit summary you say you removed "duplicated content", but in fact you removed the text that I added that Hamas proposals "are seen by many as being consistent with a two-state solution." That wasn't duplicated content and now its gone from the lead. This isn't the only non-duplicated content you removed from the lead.

The article is under 1rr, please self-revert.VR _talk 18:51, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

First of all, a series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as a single revert. The reason why I edited several times is because I duplicated content by mistake and I was trying to fix that. Sometimes it happens. (Although Makeandtoss edited in the middle, I simply removed content and we worked any issues where our edits collided.) Secondly, even if I wanted to self-revert now, I couldn't due to conflicting intermediate edits in that article. Third, Makeandtoss himself seems content with the current lead version (although you could ask him directly in case I'm mistaken). Dovidroth (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

But these are not consecutive edits. For example, this edit at 9:16 intervenes in between your two reverts. I don't think Makeandtoss has endorsed your blanket reverts, at least I didn't see it anywhere. Finally, you can absolutely revert your edits. My contention is about the edits you made to third paragraph of the lead and there's nothing preventing you from restoring the longstanding version.VR _talk 05:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

There has been too many changes in article. I don't think I broke 1RR, and I am concerned that if I revert at this point, I will be actually breaking 1RR for real. If you wish to change something, please send me the link to the revert you want me to do and I can check if I can do it without actually violating 1RR. Dovidroth (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The issue here is what the 3rd paragraph was "5 days ago" (as you yourself referenced in this edit summary), as can be seen in this version, for example. Can you revert to that and then continue the discussion at Talk:Hamas#Edit warring? As you see there, when I made the revert, I actually made a point of discussing[6], yet you seemed to have been reverting without any recent efforts to discuss.VR _talk 06:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you want. If you want, show me the link for a self-revert. This is a request to edit and I won't edit on your behalf. Dovidroth (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I want you to self-revert your reverts of my edits as you violated 1rr, and then discuss at the talk page, where there is a long-term ongoing discussion about the very material that you reverted.VR _talk 06:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Once again, I asked you for a link for the edit(s) you think I need to revert. Dovidroth (talk) 06:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

The links I gave above at the top? Its true that you can't revert those edits fully due to intervening edits, but you can edit those partially? I'm sure you know how to do that. Please revert to the version before those reverts.VR _talk 06:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that there is a 1RR violation here. I believe that this was simply an editing mix-up and not more than one revert. As such, I am tagging admin @ScottishFinnishRadish and will comply with their answer. Dovidroth (talk) 07:12, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Tell me which of the following statements you disagree with:

• 09:14, December 10, 2023 reverts another user's edit(s) in part.
• 09:32, December 10, 2023 reverts another user's edit(s) in part.
• These two edits are not consecutive edits (meaning there was at least one intervening edit by another user in between).
• The two reverts were made within a 24 hour period.

VR _talk 07:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

If not, we can try at WP:3rrn and see what the admin there says.VR _talk 07:34, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. VR _talk 08:03, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Appeal of the removal of EC membership for User:DMH43. Thank you. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 17:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Archive 1