User talk:Rafe87

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Rafe87. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google Books

If you look on Google Books, you can often find secondary or tertiary sources for things. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:12, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip! I did find one source that can be useful there. Tomorrow I should be posting an updated version of the proposed paragraph if I find more! Rafe87 (talk) 04:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thanks. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 1

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Isabel Kershner, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Rafe87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. I don't even know how to use them. (I wish I did, though, but for other reasons.) Rafe87 (talk) 23:15, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. You forgot to provide your IP address, so we can't investigate your claim. You may use WhatIsMyIP to find your IP address. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 23:57, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

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

Rafe87 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

IP is 177.134.222.176

Accept reason:

The IP appears to no longer be an open proxy, so I have unblocked it. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 04:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought

Hello Rafe87. An unsolicited bit of friendly advice, which I hope you'll take in the right spirit. You were completely correct about the disputed content at Colin Jackson, but it's generally better not to personalize a disagreement in that way. I know firsthand how frustrating it can be to deal with this sort of situation, but making an extra effort to be patient and polite on the talk page, and leaving a more neutrally-worded post on the WikiProject page, is likely to help you prevail in a dispute. It may even win you an unexpected ally or two somewhere down the road. Your decision, of course, but I've seen some level-headed editors taken out of the running when they let that kind of thing get under their skin. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Rafe87. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit to Haditha massacre as labelling news website NewsMax as "far-right" (a) needs a reliable source, and (b) without RS is not WP:NEUTRAL. It may well be a far-right website, I don't know it, but if RS supports the claim, then it should go into the NewsMax article for a start. Thanks, Batternut (talk) 11:12, 7 January 2018 (UTC) it’s really fun to just change what people say but i haven’t :)[reply]

ALERT

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Report at AE

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&type=revision&diff=840678810&oldid=840533076--יניב הורון (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed this with: "Raf87 has now been notified properly of discretionary sanctions and the assumption is that they fully understand the editing restrictions and behavioral expectations involved in the area." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:29, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions alert for gender=related disputes or contreversies etc

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Doug Weller talk 12:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

It appears that you have been canvassing—leaving ~~messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages~~ biased messages on project 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. NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I have not "left messages on a biased choice of users' talk pages to notify them of an ongoing community decision". I have left messages on PROJECT TALK PAGES. Withdraw your accusation now. Rafe87 (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:41, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no Wikipedia policy against inviting users on PROJECT TALK PAGES to take in a discussion elsewhere to settler a dispute, NeilN. Quit moving the goal posts in order to avoid admitting your accusation against me was plain wrong.Rafe87 (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:CANVASS: "Canvassing is notification done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way, and is considered inappropriate." "Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on Talk:Anti-Arabism. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 17:06, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note I changed the section heading. Please don't change it back. Doug Weller talk 17:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people: A, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brockhampton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 10:51, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Report at AE

[1]--יניב הורון (Yaniv) (talk) 04:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2018

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Gatestone Institute. 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:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
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.
This is the fifth occasion in which you have attempted to unilaterally remove an NPOV template while a discussion is ongoing. Endymion.12 (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA

Please use article talk pages to discuss article content, and not the conduct of other users. You have now twice baselessly accused me of seeking to "accommodate bigotry", which is inconsistent with several general principles passed by the Arbitration Committee. I will take this further if necessary. Endymion.12 (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Take a hike, moron. You have no right to remove what I say in the Talk Pages. Rafe87 (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafe87: One more attack like that and I'll make a post at WP:ANI. I notice you have already been blocked once for personal attacks and harassment, so it's advisable that you stop doing this. Endymion.12 (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1RR (original author provision)

You violated the original author provision of ARBPIA 1RR, in reverting content you authored less than 24 hours since it was reverted. Kindly self revert.Icewhiz (talk) 17:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Rafe87. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Tone

Hi, Rafe87. When making edits like this, keep WP:Tone in mind. By that, I mean, for example, per MOS:PERSON, the use of first-person pronouns such as "we" are not used on Wikipedia (except for when quoting a source or the other exceptions the guideline gives). And wording like "in fact" is WP:Editorializing. Also take care to make sure that you are not engaging in WP:Synthesis. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Razan al-Najjar

The New York Times published an investigation of the killing of Razan al-Najjar. Ira Stoll wrote a column in The Algemeiner attacking the investigation. Stoll's column was incoherent, rambling, tendentious nonsense. I summarized Stoll's column to demonstrate the nature of the attacks. Why don't you want to let readers see for themselves that the attacks on the Times story are tendentious nonsense? --Nbauman (talk) 20:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sex differences in intelligence article

As noted on the article's talk page, I will fix up the entire article. Just give me the weekend to do it. Although I'd rather not spend my weekend on this, it's a good thing that you have urged on fixing up the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated info

I am Salvatore Antonio, and I did ask that the line stating my sexual preference be removed, because I have never stated this information in any press, and definitely did not in the article that was cited (written by Richard Burnett). Please respect my right to disclose information on my own terms and not publish unsubstantiated inormation. Meduso (talk) 01:15, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meduso: You could have saved us time and told you were Antonio from the beginning. This would have been advisable because on Wikipedia there are restrictions on the ability of editors to change an article if they have a personal stake in the topic. Incidentally, this entry also contains information about your sexual orientation using Burnett's article as reference (which is where I found it).Rafe87 (talk) 08:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Kathua rape case. Bbb23 (talk) 00:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New message from DiplomatTesterMan

Hello, Rafe87. You have new messages at Talk:Kathua rape case.
Message added 05:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have replied to your comment. Please see. DTM (talk) 05:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Hello, I'm Kautilya3. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Kathua rape case that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of editing restrictions on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders

This edit[2] is a violation of this editing restriction: "24-hr BRD cycle: If a change you make to this article is reverted, you may not reinstate that change unless you discuss the issue on the talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit). Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts." You should self-revert immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought the rule that applied was the 3RR. I think you should consider reverting yourself, though; not everything that you deleted was "synthesis", Snooganssnoogans. Rafe87 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December 2019

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Please stop with the unexplained insertion of improper content in article space. Consider using Wikia instead. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

- Mr X 🖋 14:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Criticism of the BBC. - Mr X 🖋 13:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

January 2020

Hello, I'm WMSR. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Media coverage of Bernie Sanders seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. WMSR (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My edits are fair; Jacobin is a legitimate source for opinion and the entry cites it in numerous other lines not written by me. The one who's being animated by bias there is you. Do better, WMSR. Rafe87 (talk) 20:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it is cited in other parts of the article is equally problematic. Wikipedia relies upon reliable sources to convey facts. Being a legitimate source for opinion is not the same as being a reliable source for factual information. Wikipedia has no business citing a non-notable opinion writer's prediction about how the media will react to something. WMSR (talk) 20:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have a corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding of what Wikipedia's NPOV policy entails. Opinion articles have never been banished from its entries, and their use is allowed as long as it is made clear that it represents an individual perspective and not the facts themselves. But seeing your behavior in the entry's talk-page, where you're railing against any acknowledgement of Ed Schultz's firing from MSNBC, an extremely notable fact and very relevant to the entry's subject, shows what you're all about. You don't care about notability, you care about pushing a pro-corporate media POV.Rafe87 (talk) 20:26, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you posted the same thing on my talk page, I responded there, but I strongly suggest striking your personal attacks both places. WMSR (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:WMSR. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. If you have a dispute with me about the content, we can talk about the content. I have been, and will continue to be, open to such discussions. But rest assured, my next step will be ANI if you continue to attack me instead. The accusations you have made against me are unfounded and, plainly, wrong. WMSR (talk) 22:19, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about yourself in third person, makes you look even worse. Rafe87 (talk) 22:57, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the ANI discussion created here regarding a dispute you're involved in, I decided to leave you a message in hopes that it will put an end to the issues discussed there. There seems to be an issue regarding the understanding of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy (see the link I provided you above for more information), but that's not the main reason why I'm here. I'm here to talk to you about the repeated personal attacks that you've been leaving in your messages and comments toward other editors here (cases in point: 1, 2, and definitely 3). Calling another editor a "POV warrior disguised as someone with merely "procedural" objections" and "a POV warrior with an agenda is (sic) to suppress evidence of media bias against Bernie from Wikipedia", and saying that they have a "corrupted, perhaps intentionally mendacious, understanding" of something - are personal attacks, plain and simple. The comments are directed toward another editor and they're attempting to discuss the editor themselves instead of discussing the content and the issue at-hand. Your edit calling someone a "retard" is absolutely unacceptable... I don't think I need to explain that particular edit any further.

This behavior cannot continue any further. They violate of one of Wikipedia's core fundamental principles and policies, and they have absolutely no positive benefit at all - there's no reason to make personal attacks toward others like this. This is your final warning; you are expected to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines at all times, and your comments are to be in compliance with those policies. Please avoid incivility and the use of personal attacks, and aim toward respectful, peaceful resolve. Word your messages, comments, and responses in a manner that encourages peaceful and fair discussion, establishing a consensus, and building an encyclopedia.

I hope you know (and can understand) that I very much dislike scolding and warning editors like this. It's obviously not a fun thing to do, and I could argue that leaving these kinds of messages is just as crappy as receiving them. Unfortunately, this comes bundled with the duties and responsibilities that I accepted here. I hope that we can resolve these issues, and that we can steer the conversation, the ANI, and the relevant discussions and articles from "you, Wikipedia, comments, what you did, bad" and toward something like, "you, Wikipedia, comments, no more bad, all good, everyone happy", and "Wikipedia article, we discuss, make many edit, WP:NPOV issues go poof". ;-) If you have any questions or need my input or guidance on these policies and how we can improve things and avoid future missteps, my user talk page is always open to you and you're welcome to message me any time you need or want to. I'll be more than happy to help. :-) Thanks for taking a few moments to read and listen to this message, and I hope that it's what turns this issue around and starts the process of having it become an issue in the past, rather than a current issue in the present. Cheers - ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an administrator new to this matter who has just read several of your recent edits, I want you to know that if you call another editor a "retard" or anything else disgusting like that again, I will block you from editing for a very long time. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah and Cullen328: I disagree with the need for warnings here. As noted at ANI, they have been blocked before for personal attacks, and they have a history of not only recent attacks, but ones where they double-down after being accused of attacks. I hope you noted, Cullen, that the edit in which Rafe87 called another editor a "retard" was recent but in a discussion that took place in 2006! And they attacked an editor who has not edited the project since May 2019.

I would have already blocked the user but I consider myself WP:INVOLVED because of edits to Kathua rape case and the spillover to this discussion in December 2019 at Talk:Kathua rape case#Severe downplaying of religious angle in the article. I did not participate in the discussion (I have little time for editors like Rafe87 and their methods of addressing content disputes with attacks), but here are some attacks on editors:

"Indian and Hindu topics on Wikipedia are often the monopoly of Hindutva users, who have an axe to grind against Muslims, and this omission no doubt reflects their influence on Wikipedia."

"But there is, I repeat, a coalition of far-right elements on Wikipedia, including Hindu nationalists and pro-Israel fanatics, many of whom are administrators, whose edits are, in part, dedicated to talking down terroristic crimes against Muslim minorities."

"Jesus, take that boot off your mouth."

" I myself am not in the mood to keep being reverted and threatened repeatedly by Islamophobic Wikipedians for merely asserting facts here." (the word "Islamophobic" was struck by another editor, not by Rafe87)

--Bbb23 (talk) 13:52, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

he said, she said

I just added that (it's an adjective, right?). I still want to take some scissors to that paragraph, but since I've already used up my daily revert, and I know I tend to be too terse/concise (especially in mainspace), it's just as well that I can't mess anything up. Do you mind that addition? 🌿 SashiRolls ^{t · c} 17:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

t, I think your addition is fine — the controversy is indeed a he said/she said situation — but just to pre-empt attempts to revert you it is probably better to find a source describing the controversy as such. — Rafe87 (talk) 19:09, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective3000 (talk • contribs) 19:17, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restriction violation

Hi Rafe87. You just violated the both editing restictions on Media coverage of Bernie Sanders rather blatantly. If you will please promptly self-revert your reversions, it will probably help you to avoid being blacked or topic banned. - Mr X 🖋 14:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for partially self-reverting. Please self-revert these ones also [3]. - Mr X 🖋 14:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

El_C 23:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, come on

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --WMSR (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2020

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for unsubstantiated accusations against another editor of islamophobia, shortly after a previous 1 week block for personal attacks, and *in the middle* of an ANI thread about other personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

{{ublock|reason=So let me get this straight — if I perceive an editor to be engaging in bigotry on Wikipedia, I should stay mum and not raise my voice? Oh, OK. — Rafe87 (talk) 19:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

You messed that up and I can't see why I should spend time fixing it. Obvious decline as you just don't get it. Carry on like this and your block may be extended. Doug Weller talk 19:26, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rafe87, I understand why you are frustrated, but you need to leave wikipedia for one or two weeks then you can make an appropriate unblock request. And I suggest you remove this unblock request.-SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed). Rafe87 (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2020 (UTC) }}.[reply]

This isn't really an unblock request. If it's a question directed at me, you can just post it like a normal question. If it's intended as an unblock request, I can fix the formatting, but I can guarantee it will be declined. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with the admin above. See my block log, I have always successfully made request for unblock. You need to follow my advice and remove these unblock requests right now.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Floquenbeam, I am redacting this unblock request and have revoked talk page access. Enough is enough. Rafe87, unblock requests containing personal attacks will not be considered. Talk page access revoked. You may still submit an unblock request via the Unblock Ticket Request System, but I suggest a close read of the guide to appealing blocks first. El_C 19:39, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; I'll defer to your better familiarity with this user's behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El_C, Floquenbeam, Is it possible to return his talk page access after one week?. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't speak for El_C, but my own inclination would be to instead have them request talk page access be restored at UTRS. An admin there can determine the legitimacy of the request. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur — if they want a public unblock request, they may request restoring talk page access via UTRS. El_C 19:54, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:47, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1RR on Al-Tabaeen school attack

@Rafe87: In these two edits you have violated 1RR:

Please self-revert, or be reported to AE. ABHammad (talk) 17:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing it to my attention but I'm only seeing your comment now. Rafe87 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CNN controversies, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gaza. 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) 19:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief 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.

Selfstudier (talk) 16:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

February 2025

Hello! Your image was inserted successfully on the page Fellatio, but because it appeared to be irrelevant to the article or violated the image use policy, it has been reverted or removed. Please use your sandbox for any tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Almost everyone sees the Seedfeeder fellatio image as the first image. There is no need to change it. Brennan Everette (🗣️ | ⏳) 12:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Rafe87 (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafah paramedic massacre close

Hey Rafe87 – I added the close template to the Rafah paramedic massacre MR, feel free to replace it with one that credits you etc – or was there a reason you didn't add it? Smallangryplanet (talk) 12:21, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I simply didn't know how to do it. Rafe87 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! For the future, this page has the procedure documented. :) Smallangryplanet (talk) 09:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 2025

Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, without good reason. They should have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Please develop consensus to move the page and change the topic. There is already an ongoing merge discussion that also is also discussing the topicality. Ost (talk) 21:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ost, alright, but I frankly don't understand why you have to delete all the edits I made, which in many cases provide new material and context, or simply improve the formatting of many paragraphs. I don't understand, for example, why Use of human shields by Hamas needs such a long intro, while the article that opposes it is censored in this regard. This style of editing simply doesn't lead to good relationship between editors. I promise not to change the name of the article until I get input from other editors, but if you don't revert the deletions you made now, I will revert them again tomorrow. Rafe87 (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for understanding and discussing. I reverted because you changed the topic, not because of the new content; if you think the information is relevant, it may be worthy for you to restore it and I'm sorry for being overzealous and not taking the time to look at all of the changes in depth.

As for the long intro on Use of human shields by Hamas, that can likely also use a copyedit (which I already did to shorten it some and move content/references into the article), but the lead on Human shields in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is also likely too short; per WP:LEAD, the introductions to articles should be summaries of the article content. Please keep in mind that each article is independent and while there is a manual of style, all articles are works in progress, and while some pages may not follow the MOS fully, that is not a reason to ignore the MOS on other pages. The short lead may be an indication of naive editing rather than censorship. —Ost (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Anti-Defamation League

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Anti-Defamation League, 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) 04:24, 3 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS1 error on Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated 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) 14:55, 6 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Should we try to correct for reliable sources being systematically biased against Palestinians?. Thank you. --Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 23:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Why are you tagging my posts with the insinuation that I'm a sockpuppet? Rafe87 (talk) 01:02, 8 June 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

It's the WP:SPA tag, which says that you exclusively edit in a single area. Not a sockpuppet tag. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:25, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Rafe87 (talk) 01:26, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are indefinitely subject to a balanced editing restriction regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict.

Full text of the balanced editing restriction

In a given 30-day period, a user under this restriction is limited to making no more than one-third of their edits in the Article, Talk, Draft, and Draft talk namespaces to pages that are subject to the extended-confirmed restriction under Arab–Israeli conflict contentious topic procedures.
This will be determined by an edit filter that tracks edits to pages in these namespaces that are extended confirmed protected, or are talk pages of such pages, and are tagged with templates to be designated by the arbitration clerks. Admins are encouraged to apply these templates when protecting a page, and the clerks may use scripts or bots to add these templates to pages where the protection has been correctly logged, and may make any necessary changes in the technical implementation of this remedy in the future.

Making an edit in excess of this restriction, as determined at the time the edit is made, should be treated as if it were a topic ban violation. Admins should note that a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed.

They are topic banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces other than these four (except for their own userspace and user talkspace).

This sanction is not subject to the normal standards of evidence for disruptive editing; it simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive.

Any admin finding a user in violation of this restriction may, at their discretion, impose other contentious topic sanctions.

Please read the terms of the restriction in full, and keep the following points in mind:

The topic-ban portion of the restriction—which applies outside of the main, talk, draft, and draft talk namespaces, except in your userspace—applies immediately, and works like any other topic ban.

The percentage-based portion becomes relevant 30 days from now.

You can track your PIA editing with the tool n-ninety-five (source code), or manually by following the steps at Wikipedia:Using the balanced editing restriction § Tracking.
This action is appealable to the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA.

You have been sanctioned based on your recent conduct within the topic area, particularly in RMs. Note that the BER rules only require "a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, particularly where an editor has repeatedly engaged in conflict but is not being intentionally or egregiously disruptive".

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 the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read the banning policy to ensure you understand how topic bans work. 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.

Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by the Arbitration Committee that the appeal has been successful. You are free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 12:20, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is so horribly written. Can you rephrase some of the information written? I do not know what RMs, BER, or namespace mean. Rafe87 (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, RMs refer to requested moves. BER is the balanced editing restriction, the sanction I have imposed. Please see Wikipedia:Namespaces regarding namespaces. So:

If the page you are on is not an article, and does not start with "Talk:", "Draft:", or "Draft talk:", then you are topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict while editing that page.
If the page is an article, or does start with "Talk:", "Draft:", or "Draft talk:", then you may edit about the Arab–Israeli conflict, but such edits cannot make up more than 1/3 of your edits to those four namespaces in a rolling 30-day period. Which sounds complicated, but is tracked by an edit filter and tool. If we put your name into that tool right now, for instance, we see that 61.06% of your edits to those four namespaces in the past 30 days (127/208) have been to Arab–Israeli conflict pages.

-- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:41, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Urrutia moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Martin Urrutia 2. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources and page is not finished. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. CycloneYoris ^talk! 03:51, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martin Urrutia 2 (June 25)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Draft:Martin Urrutia. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Martin Urrutia 2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Dan arndt (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My draft is far larger than the one you suggest it be merged with, which only has one paragraph. Your suggestion makes zero sense. Plus, my draft is a direct translation from the Spanish entry, which is exceedingly detailed and a standard article. I do not accept your suggestion. The English article doesn't need more details than the Spanish original, since Martin Urrutia is much better known in the Spanish speaking world than anywhere else. Review it again, with attention being actually paid this time, or get someone else to do that for you. Rafe87 (talk) 02:57, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rafe87! Having an article draft 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! Dan arndt (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Martin Urrutia 2 (July 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Gommeh was:

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Martin Urrutia. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Instead of creating a draft, it would be better to edit the main article Martin Urrutia.

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 after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Martin Urrutia 2 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 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.

Gommeh 🎮 18:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BER violations; temporary topic ban

Hi, Rafe. It's now been about 2 months since the balanced editing restriction I imposed above. Starting 30 days after that was imposed, no more than 1⁄3 of your edits in the four qualifying namespaces were to be to pages that are extended confirmed protected under WP:CTOP/A-I or the talkpages of such pages. As of this writing, the N95 tool reports that you've made 64 edits in those namespaces in the past 30 days, and that 45 of those were to such extended confirmed protected pages or their talk pages. That is a total of 70.31%, over double the allowed percentage.

I'm going to assume good faith here that you either misunderstood the sanction or lost track of your edit percentage, but at the same time, the 1⁄3 limit does need to be enforced, so what I'm going to do is give you a full topic ban, set to end a month from your most recent BER-violating edit. That way, when the full ban ends, the tracker will have reset, and you can start fresh with a percentage of 0%. So:

You are topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, in all namespaces, until 21:47:03 on 13 September 2025. This may be appealed only to the Arbitration Committee, under the terms of this motion. Note that when this ban lapses, you will remain under your balanced editing restriction, including the partial topic ban from certain namespaces.

Please let me know if you have any questions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:36, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin As I said before, on your first visit to my Talk Page, the warning you wrote was so poorly written that I simply didn't understand what was actually being said. My impression was that the 1/3 requirement would apply for 30 days. Even now, I haven't understood what this period refers to. Because in the 30 days following the warning you issued, from mid-June to mid-July, my contributions here to the Palestinian topic were WELL below 1/3, as you can see for yourself. I tried hard to follow your rule. But now you're telling me I violated the warning. It's not fair. Am I forever under the 1/3 limit? Rafe87 (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rafe. I take the claim of having been misinformed very seriously. So I've looked back through our previous interaction, to determine whether I should reverse myself here.

What I see is that I linked you to the ArbCom procedure page (which I also quoted in full) and gave a templated explanation which in turn links to a fuller explanation page. When you said you did not understand, I gave a further custom-written explanation, and you did not respond further.

The sanction notice begins The following sanction now applies to you: You are indefinitely subject to a balanced editing restriction regarding the Arab–Israeli conflict.
The ArbCom procedure page begins with In a given 30-day period and later says a restricted user effectively cannot violate the terms of this and above clauses until at least 30 days after the sanction has been imposed
The templated explanation says The percentage-based portion becomes relevant 30 days from now.
The explanation page^{permalink from time of sanction} says in any given 30-day period, has instructions that include counting back 30 days from whenever one is checking, and twice says the restriction cannot be violated until 30 days in.
In my custom-written explanation, I wrote such edits cannot make up more than 1/3 of your edits to those four namespaces in a rolling 30-day period

As a result, while I'm prepared to believe that you didn't intend to violate the restriction, I don't think it could be said that you weren't on-notice of what the restriction is. Still, that's why I've imposed what I view as an equitable sanction here, one that removes you from the topic area for the 28 days that it will take for your percentage to drop back to 0%, rather than a harsher sanction like a block or indefinite topic ban. Still, if you feel I have erred procedurally here, you do have the right of appeal to ArbCom under a community review standard. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 16:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin Can I ask you something: who first contacted you about me? You don't seem active on topics related to the Gaza genocide, so this whole situation smells a little quaint to me. I don't believe anything I've done warrants an indefinite ban or limitations. This all reeks a little off to me. Rafe87 (talk) 17:07, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one came to me. As one of the more active ARBPIA admins in the ARBPIA topic area, I try to keep an eye on developments. Looking back through my browser history: Daniel Case protected the article Alaa Al Najjar on 12 June and logged that at WP:AELOG/2025/PIA. I clicked on it to see the context of the protection, clicked onward to the article now titled Killing of al-Najjar children, saw an RM, clicked through to that mostly to see if any ECR enforcement would be needed, and saw that you were trying to disrupt the RM. I reverted you and warned you. A few days later I checked back in (as I often do after warning a user), saw this standoffish comment (later withdrawn, but not at the time), and then looked further at your edits and saw a history of temperature-raising participation, most notably moving the article Rafah aid distribution incidents during an active RM. I saw you had a high percentage of PIA editing, and given ArbCom's guidance that a BER simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area, I judged that to be an appropriate intervention.

I've occasionally checked in on BER compliance by the few users subject to them, but hadn't with you in a bit (clearly). Yesterday, I saw this WT:ACN section come through on my watchlist, took a glance at the article in question, saw your name in the history, wondered if you were in compliance with the BER, and ran your name through N95. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 17:49, 16 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration appeal declined

Your appeal to the Arbitration Committee has been declined, and is archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 133 § Amendment request: Rafe87 BER. Per Arbitration Committee procedure, your balanced editing restriction may not be appealed again until at least 6 months from now. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 05:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned for repeated violations of your balanced editing restriction.

This topic ban 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. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, 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 at Wikipedia:Contentious topics § Appeals and amendments. 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 above is unclear to you. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were given a temporary topic ban a bit more than a month ago because of violations of your balanced editing restriction. A day after the topic ban expired this week, you went back to Hamas baby beheading hoax and 2025 Nasser Hospital strikes; several of those edits were made above the 1⁄3 threshold. Like last time, I'm happy to AGF that the restriction is just confusing; but if the restriction isn't clear enough to be complied with voluntarily, it has to be enforced with a broader one, so I am imposing a full topic ban. Note that the balanced editing restriction is still in force, should this ban be successfully appealed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I was confident that my edits would be reviewed monthly, as they had been the other times. I had no reason to suspect that the review would be done daily. Couldn't there have been a warning before this the ban was issued all at once? I went a month without touching on the topic at hand because I was clearly trying hard to comply with the rules. I wouldn't have violated it a mere day after the ban expired if I'd known the rule included daily or weekly reviews instead of monthly. Please reconsider, because I'm feeling like the moderators are constantly breathing down my neck, waiting to punish me for rule violations I didn't know existed. And I can't appeal to arbitration for the next five months, I only have you now. The number of edits I made to these pages wasn't high either; I can make up for them today. I hadn't done so before, by the way, because I hoped to have something real to say on another topic, rather than making trivial additions just to stay within the 1/3 limit. Please, some compassion and understanding. Rafe87 (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 30-day period your edits are assessed in is rolling; that means at any given time, if 1/3 or more of your edits in the last 30 days are conflict-related, any edits to the conflict are considered violations. I'm not sure how you could have gotten the idea that it's a monthly review.

I think it's best to leave this topic ban in place for now because I'm anticipating that in the near-ish future (hopefully a month, but no promises), there will be better technical infrastructure for this restriction and it'll be easier for you to stay on the straight and narrow. In the meantime, I think it would be better for you to not edit in the area so that we can avoid a mix-up like this happening for a third time. Your balanced editing restriction can't be appealed, but this topic ban can be appealed as normal for CTOP restrictions. (And, if at some point this topic ban is removed, note that making trivial edits to comply with the limit could be considered gaming the system. You should try to actually focus on other areas.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a good track record with appeals; the behind-the-scenes operation of this website has always seemed labyrinthine and byzantine to me, and every time I have to deal with it, even on my own initiative, like last time, I feel tremendously unmotivated to follow the progress of the process or even participating in the website in any way. If you're telling me that the reviews I'm subject to are done immediately, then I won't commit that infraction again. I wouldn't have violated the sanction the day after a temporary ban I had been complying with for a month expired, if I'd known I was committing that infraction. Please, be magnanimous towards me lol; I won't do anything to embarrass you if you and you won't regret it. Rafe87 (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron Sorry, I forgot to tag you. Please see reply above. 🙏 Rafe87 (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Skipping past I won't do anything to embarrass you if you and you won't regret it, which – ??? – can you explain to me, in your own words, how the balanced editing restriction works? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:40, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron Please be a little more charitable to those of us who make an effort to contribute to this space without English being their native language. Writing paragraph after paragraph in the space of a few hours eventually takes a toll on the brain, and some sentences end up coming out imperfect. Especially when it's a stressful topic, such as being banned from the one subject that drew me the most to contribute here. The "???" is hurtful and unnecessary. What I'm trying to say is that I'll do my best to stay within the rules, just as I have in the past. I had no reason to suspect that my edits were being reviewed daily, because I'd never received a warning in that time frame. Do you believe I'd consciously set about to break a rule imposed on me the day after I'd just completed a period successfully following it? Rafe87 (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really just asking if you can explain what the rules of your balanced editing restriction are, so that I know whether you're able to comply with it going forward. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron Do you eventually intend showing me charity and withdraw your ban? Because, otherwise, I don't see the point in jumping through these hoops and gratuitously suffer your unapologetic mockery while I humble myself trying to reason. I faithfully stayed away from Palestine Project articles for a whole month because I clearly understood the rules that had been laid out to me beforehand. And now I think I understand that I'm under watch every hour of the day on Wikipedia, apparently. Again, do you believe I'd consciously set about breaking a rule imposed on me the day after I'd just completed a one month period successfully following it? Rafe87 (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe, I think you are seeing a trick question where there is none. You have twice violated your BER, and twice said that it was because you misunderstood how the BER works. There is no sense in an admin lifting your TBAN if it returns you to being under a sanction that you do not understand. Otherwise we will just wind up here a third time. This, I assume, is why theleekycauldron is asking you to explain how the BER works, not to mock you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 18:20, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin I followed the rules for a full month without receiving additional sanctions. This shows that I understood what was being imposed on me, even though the original rules were already quite complicated in themselves. And now I know that I was under daily review the entire time (something that, by the way, could have been explained to me before the final ban, because I hadn't been reviewed under that basis previously). Unless there's some other rule I'm missing that one of you could clarify now, I can say that I do understand all the rules now, and that additional sanctions won't be necessary. The fact is, I've always respected the rules you imposed on me as I was able to understand them. When I thought the balanced editing imposition would last for a month, I respected it for a month. When you imposed a full 28-day suspension on me simply because I didn't understand that the balanced editing restriction is permanent, I followed that decision and stayed away for 29 days. And now that it is being explained to me that I am under evaluation on a daily and ongoing basis, why suspect that I will not respect that decision now that I understand it when my past conduct makes it clear that I do in fact follow rules that I understand?

I am (or rather was, since I'm now banned forever) under an indefinite restriction, according to which a maximum of one-third of my edits could be made to pages linked to the Israel-Palestine conflict pages. Evaluations were made on a rolling basis, meaning continually, taking into account all my edits through in the previous 30-day period. I understand that now. Will my understanding this be translated into generosity on the part of the mods, or am I just being made to jump through hoops even though there's no intention to let me back ever again?

(By the way, if you as mods are open to suggestions, I'd replace "rolling 30-day period" with some other phrasing that makes the evaluation period, hourly or daily, clearer, because the meaning of "rolling" is bound to be vague at least for many non-native English speakers, of which English Wikipedia has many. At a minimum, examples can be given of how the assessment is applied. I originally understood "rolling 30-day period" to mean monthly, and now I'm under a forever total ban for not understanding the fairly abstruse meaning of that phrase. Or, instead of rolling evaluation, make it daily.) Rafe87 (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are we supposed to know whether you understand the rules if you won't say what your understanding of the rules is? The previous two times you also thought you understood the rules. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:44, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I was too subtle, but I did lay out my understanding of the rules more than once in the post above, particularly in the second paragraph. Is there anything I got incorrect? Rafe87 (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Stanislawski moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Dan Stanislawski. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability and require WP:RS, WP:IS, refer to WP:REFB for instructions on formatting references correctly. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. QEnigma 论 00:11, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sporus (Neros Husband) article internal discrepancy

There are different death years in the article, stating 69 AD in the beginning and in the death date section, but 68 in the spouses section in the same table. I don't know which would be more accurate and neither is annotated/sourced so I'm making a post here. 2603:6080:9F00:18B:9D00:648F:7883:D3D7 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]