User talk:Cinaroot/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

User talk page archives?

Hello, Cinaroot,

I see from your edit summaries that you are archiving your User talk page. That is a great habit, most long-time editors do that. Since you are archiving messages from your User talk page, could you have a box for your talk page archives listed on your User talk page?

It also helps if you make it searchable so that editors (and you) can easily find old messages that have been posted. If you want to see how to set this up, I have this system displayed on my own User talk page so you can just copy the template information from there. Thank you. Not blanking your User talk page is a sign that you plan on being around for a long time on the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I haven't quite figured out how to do it yet. I will definitely do it next time. Cinaroot (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Additional UNWRA photo?

Hi Cinaroot, I may have missed the opportunity to request photos, in which case no worries. However, if it's still possible could this image be requested? It depicts the damaged Helmi Saqr Sultan Mosque (based on aerial photos as the dome is quite distinct and the position of the single minaret and nearby buildings looks correct). It's on the outskirts of the Tel al-Sultan refugee camp in Rafah. The sign at the front mentions polio vaccinations so would be useful to illustrate 2024 Gaza Strip polio epidemic. Even if it's not possible to release the image, it may be helpful to suggest the name and sign mentioning polio vaccines are added to the description. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

hi yes we submitted them yesterday. But ill ad this to the google doc in case if they haven’t looked at already Cinaroot (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

And i have already picked a image for that polio article. And we are getting a good 100 photos. So it will be good.

Wikimedia team plans to ask even more after some time. Cinaroot (talk) 19:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Fingers crossed. Richard Nevell (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Hello Cinaroot, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 12:00, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for page move

Many thanks for the Ancient Aliens (TV series) page move! Considered doing it in the past and always talked myself out of it. Thosbsamsgom (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

June 2025

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Your bold move of Ancient Aliens has been reverted because an editor has found it to be controversial. Per Wikipedia:Requested moves, a move request must be placed on the article's talk page, and the request be open for discussion for seven days, "if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested". If you believe that this move is appropriate, please initiate such a discussion to form the appropriate consensus. Again, please note that moving a page with a longstanding title and/or a large number of incoming links is more likely to be considered controversial, and may be contested. Note that such consensus is particularly required before moving a title with incoming links in order to create a disambiguation page at that title. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Most TV series use a naming convention that includes the phrase "TV series." This makes them easy to identify at a glance without needing further reading ( via google etc.. ). However, I don't think it's worth debating the straightforward change you reversed. Cinaroot (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

The naming convention for TV series says otherwise, at the very top:

As is the general practice across Wikipedia, the article title for any topic related to television should simply be the most common word or phrase used to describe that topic. In particular, if the title of a television program is sufficiently unambiguous compared to any other topics or is considered to be the primary topic, then let that also be the title of the article; for example, The Prisoner or Guiding Light.

jlwoodwa (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Got it. We can keep it like that. I like these naming's better Suits (American TV series) Probably a personal preference Cinaroot (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

CTOPs

I'm leaving you this manual message as you claim to be aware of the WP:CTOP of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Your recent edits are showing a clear attempt to push a POV. I am especially concerned by your edit on the article Palestine (region), where you are pushing for Palestine to be recognized as a state. That is clearly POV pushing and, appropriately, another editor has already reverted you.

I am writing to you here to encourage you to be very cautious in this topic area. If you continue your POV pushing edits against a very large consensus and/or without seeking consensus first, it is highly likely someone will seek sanctions against you for your editing in this area. I don't like seeing editors sanctioned - I really don't. Hence why I'm reaching out to ask you nicely to please cool it and consider your edits more rather than going on a spree of making changes to many other articles to try and push your POV. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:24, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

i completely refute your accusation of POV pushing.

I made this edit because its confusing to say just Palestine in Palestine (region) ( there needs to be distinction - you cannot use the same word to refer to something else)

Another editor - improved my edit here ( obviously they agree )

I didn't think it was good - so i made edit here

Talk about the issue can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Palestine_(region)&oldid=1292848131#lede

You are welcome to take seek sanctions against me, but I have good reasons—I will defend myself. Cinaroot (talk) 04:41, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

@Remsense has disagreed with your claims of POV pushing here Cinaroot (talk) 04:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I just think there's nothing insidious going on here, both of you are clearly acting in good faith. Remsense ‥ 论 04:45, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Remsense is commenting on that one edit. I'm commenting on your behavior in this topic area as a whole. I've done you the favor of giving you a warning here that if you continue this clear POV pushing behavior across half a dozen or more articles in this topic area, I will be requesting sanctions under CTOP procedures. It's up to you whether you heed that warning or not. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm well aware of what POV pushing is. You are welcome to do whatever you think is right. I'll do what I think is right.

And just because it's different from yours, it doesn't mean it's POV pushing. Cinaroot (talk) 04:58, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

You reverted the edits on a "technicality" of not having an edit summary. That is edit warring. You should've gone to the talkpage when your edits were reverted and sought a consensus. Especially in a contentious topic. You then went to that editor's talk page and made baseless accusations against them just because you didn't like that they didn't use an edit summary. That's not appropriate behavior. The appropriate behavior was to go to the talkpage(s) and seek consensus to reinstate your edits. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:01, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm done with you. Cinaroot (talk) 05:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

To everyone else -> all of these are baseless accusation - See User talk:Closetside#Series of content removals without any edit summary. Tendentious editing

I initially didn't use tendentious editing in the title; it was changed later.

I apologized to Closetside prematurely calling it as tendentious editing - but Berchanhimez is still attacking me for that on my talk Cinaroot (talk) 05:09, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Closing comment : Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 117#h-WP:WIKIVOICE and article names-20250531065800 Cinaroot (talk) 02:10, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't use AI on talkpages

I am sympathetic to your arguments, but you should condense it and rewrite in a way that a human would because using AI isn't considered good talk page conduct. It may lead to action against you at noticeboards, which would be unfortunate for the cause that you are supporting. See Wikipedia:AITALK. Thanks, 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 Easternsahara 🇪🇭🇵🇸🇸🇩 21:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback about the reply . But it’s completely okay to refine replies using AI. Most of them are my thoughts refined by AI. I will do a better job to keep it short. I don’t think it’s prohibited to use AI on Wikipedia. If it is, it should be stuck down. Wikipedia:AITALK states that replies fully generated by AI should be collapsed. Refinement is allowed. Cinaroot (talk) 22:14, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

@Easternsahara i optimized my reply. Cinaroot (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Requested move 26 September 2025

Please do not add comments to closed discussions. However, I have re-opened the discussion. GiantSnowman 11:06, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Can you clarify. Which closed discussions did i add comment to ? Cinaroot (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

oh Sr1 3076 is a new editor with less than 500 edits and is not allowed to participate. thats why it was removed. Cinaroot (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing

I've modified your appeal for comments at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Palestinian_genocide_accusation to remove the motivation that fell afoul of WP:INAPPNOTE's instructions to avoid including campaigning in notifications of discussions. Please be more mindful of canvassing guidelines going forward. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew about notifying select users. But i didn't knew about biased messaging Cinaroot (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Please not that i was transparent about the post and notified editors in the discussion immediately Cinaroot (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Rosguill Thinking about it more - I think it’s common to discuss issues related to NPOV at the NPOV noticeboard. I think the mistake I made is requesting participation + messaging. where messaging can come of as biased. would you agree. Original reply for reference Cinaroot (talk) 18:12, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I'd agree with that. Opening a discussion thread at NPOV and explaining your reasoning would have been appropriate; what wasn't appropriate was calling for participation in another thread (and particularly, for a move request, which is a formal centralized discussion including a !vote component) and putting forward a motivation that is essentially just your side of the dispute. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:25, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Stop edit warring RakowskiC (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

@RakowskiC you are the one who is edit warring. You are new here. Please respect revert of experienced editors. An admin also have reverted you. Cinaroot (talk) 03:18, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

You reverted my edit. You are edit warring. You are biased and have no integrity. RakowskiC (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

User blocked for disruptive edits https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RakowskiC&diff=prev&oldid=1318809530 Cinaroot (talk) 03:43, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Triggerhippie4 (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Admin has said - no administrative actions to be taken :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Cinaroot_reverts_on_Israel_lead_section_against_consensus

@Triggerhippie4 Next time use talk - instead of going to admin dashboard Cinaroot (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thanks for your suggestion about Zohran Mamdani at ITN. Feel free to get in touch if you need technical help with the nomination. I also found your user page instructive and have copied your method of displaying editorial impact which looks quite handy. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:35, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Blurb

Hey!

I added the blurb you just removed. It's neutral. He's a Socialist candidate and has run openly as that. The news coverage is due to him being a socialist candidate. Do not believe it was neccessary to remove it. Especially, when "the first muslim" is still listed, which can be argued the same way.

Do not believe it was neccessary to remove it. Others can include blurbs, not just the nominator. If you could undo your edit, that'd be great. Unless you have other reasons to remove it. Basetornado (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

He is democratic socialist - not a Socialist - there is a difference. Feel free to add democratic socialist Cinaroot (talk) 06:47, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

There may be a difference, it's still how it's been reported. Happy to add it. Basetornado (talk) 06:52, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

But Zohran calls himself a democratic socialist - some media omits it for sensational purposes Cinaroot (talk) 06:54, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Lots of media reports as democratic socialist - so we must use that Cinaroot (talk) 06:55, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

@Basetornado i would not use `candidate` in the Blurb Cinaroot (talk) 06:56, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Happy for you to rewrite it. It was more just removing it entirely that I had an issue with. It's the reason it's notable. It should be listed somewhere. Basetornado (talk) 07:07, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Drafting open letter

For full disclosure, I used a template to leave this message.

Hey cinaroot. I saw your comment on Talk:Gaza genocide. Would you be interested in helping draft an open letter on this topic, akin to Wikipedia:2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation? That didn't get us anywhere, but this might. I've opened a userpage over at User:Wound theology/Draft open letter for this. wound theology◈ 02:00, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

If you want to write a letter - you should start an article on wikipedia name space and invite people

currently you are linking to a user page. nothing we can do there

@Wound theology Cinaroot (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Talk:Israel#RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians

Hi Cinaroot, I noticed that the recent request for comment you started at Talk:Israel § RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians has an RfC statement that does not comply with the "neutral and brief" requirement. Specifically, the sentence "Similar wording should be applied consistently to this article" expresses a view instead of asking other editors for their view. Could you please rephrase the sentence to something along the lines of "Should similar wording be applied to this article?" to make the RfC statement neutral? After making the change, you can post a reply in the RfC to clearly express your view, if you would like to do so. — Newslinger talk 09:39, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

np. updated. Cinaroot (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. — Newslinger talk 18:05, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing

In this edit, you tagged only "people you like" (to use your phrasing), meaning people on the same side of the conflict as you, even if they disagreed with you in this specific RM. This seems to be WP:CANVASS. If you are already tagging people, you need tag everybody who participated in the discussion. That you did not tag any pro-Israel editors seems to be particularly problematic and possibly WP:INAPPNOTE. Nehushtani (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello - that is not a rfc or formal discussion. It will not result in any change to the article title. Its just an informal discussion.

Canvassing don't apply. I tagged 2 main editors who opposed and 2 main editors who supported previous page move request.

I can tag whoever i want. Cinaroot (talk) 08:16, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

I respect all of the editors who i tagged - i think they are very neutral when it comes to the conflict. thats why i like them Cinaroot (talk) 08:26, 6 November 2025 (UTC)

Zohran Mamdani, political positions section

Hiya, I had added a link to the mention of ceasefire (in Gaza genocide) before you trimmed down the section and it looks like it has not been added back since that section was trimmed. I don't have enough edits in my history to be an EC editor and didn't want to go against what you said about only EC editors editing that section. Would you mind adding the link back? as I'm assuming it was left out by mistake. or if it was deliberately not added back I'm wondering why that edit was not reverted when I first added the link. thanks! Ratxbogbody (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

added Cinaroot (talk) 10:54, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Canvassing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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—in order to influence Talk:Palestinian genocide accusation#Title - Palestinian genocide accusation. 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. FOR: Selectively tagging users who "you like" from a previous discussion, rather than all from the discussion. ← Metallurgist (talk) 23:27, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Again, another editor posted about this. Please read the canvassing article. It says

"In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus."

Now i opened that informal discussion to discuss next steps on how to change article title. Since its a CTOP, a RFC or Formal page move request is required. My informal discussion will not result in any change to the aricle.

I already mentioned - i tagged 2 editors who opposed and 2 editors who supported previous formal discussion. Did you really expect me to tag 56 people ? Canvassing rules only apply if im trying to compromise WP:CON process.

If you disagree - go ahead and tag an admin here to take a look. Thanks Cinaroot (talk) 23:42, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Better to tag no one then. And yes it would have been better to tag everyone. Thats why I didnt get around to doing it. I wont tag an admin as its just a warning. ← Metallurgist (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Test

Test Cinaroot (talk) 02:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

AfD

I appreciate you closing the AfD given my withdrawal (I was thinking about asking an administrator to close it), but from my understanding speedy keep is not an option once an editor expresses support for deletion (which one editor did). The proper closure would have been a WP:SNOW keep, as there isn't any other way that the AfD would have gone. Katzrockso (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

It can be closed because you withdrew the nomination. Cinaroot (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh i think i made a mistake Cinaroot (talk) 05:24, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

ill change it to SNOW Cinaroot (talk) 05:25, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really care if it stayed as speedy since that's just bureaucratic stuff (WP:NOTBURO), just wanted you to know for the future. Katzrockso (talk) 05:53, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally that AfD looked like nothing more than an WP:UPHILLBATTLE and far from SNOW given it was only open for 5 hours (with 7 keep !votes vs 1 delete). I recommend avoiding closing such discussions in future, especially as speedy/snow, as that was undoubtedly a WP:BADNAC as both a CTOP and a controversial close. CNC (talk) 13:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

I closed it because OP withdrew it. We can re-open it if you like Cinaroot (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Don't reopen it on my account, I voted keep after all and NOTBURO does indeed apply here per Katzrockso. If someone else requests it then best to revert though. Only in future please avoid these types of closes if that sounds reasonable. As someone also involved in Gaza war/genocide topics, it's best to avoid closing any of these types of discussions in order to avoid accusations of WP:INVOLVED. For example I know you weren't involved in that specific article, but when it's a child topic of the parent that you have disputes with other editors over (as do I from time to time), then it's difficult to believe you'd be WP:DETSUIT for a close per "The ideal closer for a discussion is one who honestly doesn’t care what the outcome is". For reference sake, I don't close any RMs/RfCs/merges that involve the Gaza war or genocide, it's just not worth the effort of having to justify how I am able to remain neutral over a similar topic, when I'm not as detached from the discussion as I should be for closing. CNC (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes - you are right. I came to vote. Since it was withdrawn by OP - I thought I would close it to save time. I typically don't close it - here I didn't think I have COI because of OP's withdrawal. Cinaroot (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The problem is WP:SKCRIT as it didn't qualify given "no new delete rationale appears in the deletion discussion". Once a !delete vote arrives, the withdrawal of the AfD becomes irrelevant (not actionable). Hope that helps clarify. Otherwise if you feel the desire to !vote on something, it's best to avoid closing. CNC (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

The Irony

Israel was founded partly as a refuge for a people who suffered genocide and systemic persecution. The irony is that today, Israel faces accusations of committing acts that violate international humanitarian law such as targeting civilians or restricting essential aid while claiming to uphold democratic and moral values. ~2025-32857-71 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

ArbCom 2025 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. 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 2025 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) 00:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Archon

I suggest disengaging. I don't foresee anything useful coming from further discussion right now. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Cinaroot (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

UNRWA photo

Hi Cinaroot. Who were you in contact with at UNRWA that you were able to obtain permissions for use of certain of their photographs? Would you consider contacting them to ask for permission to use this photo which is up for deletion?

Thanks, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes - I can try. We asked them for more photos a month ago - they haven’t released anything. So I want to set proper expectations. Cinaroot (talk) 02:33, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Your technical move request

Hello Cinaroot, your recent request at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests has been removed because it remained inactive for seventy-two hours after being contested. If you would like to proceed with your original request, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Controversial.

This notification was delivered by TenshiBot. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the top of your current page (your user talk page) TenshiBot (talk) 00:00, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Zohran Mamdani picture

Hi, we don’t use square photos of people on Wikipedia. Also, you’ve said the reason for changing the image is that it’s “better quality” when your source is the same and there is no difference in quality. “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” Miyagi165 (talk) 01:51, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

The one you uploaded looks blurry Cinaroot (talk) 01:59, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

Israel RfC

Your leading statement in Talk:Israel#RfC: Whether to state that Israel has committed genocide against Palestinians says After two months of discussion - consensus was reached to phrase the opening in Wikipedia’s voice that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinians. See Gaza genocide. This is slightly misleading, if only by a technicality; per another user, the close of the linked RFC did *not* make the determination stated, the close only stated that the first four words of Gaza genocide should be "The Gaza genocide is" and left anything more to further discussion.

Please correct this by mentioning that the current state of the lead at Gaza genocide is due to other discussion and consensus that occurred later on. I ask that you please do this yourself as I will not directly edit your comments. Thank you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 02:49, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Beland noted on the talk page that your statement is not entirely accurate. That’s not exactly true; see my comments elsewhere.

Rfc itself is about framing gaza genocide in WP:VOICE. That is clear.

You may also wish to review the Gaza genocide article lead — it currently reflects WP:VOICE, and editors reached that consensus after the RfC through normal editorial discussion and revisions.Cinaroot (talk) 03:00, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

I acknowledge that my initial statement was incorrect. Can you mention the normal editorial discussion and revisions in your RfC statement though? That's all I'm asking. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@SuperPianoMan9167 I’m not sure how it is relevant to the discussion that I mention the Gaza genocide lead ( in wp:voice ) is written through normal editorial discussion and revisions. What is important is that it is written in Wikipedia’s voice, and that the consensus on Gaza genocide rfc resulted in stating genocide in Wikipedia’s voice. Cinaroot (talk) 09:09, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Also, I apologize if I made any comments that could be considered as insinuations. I admit that I am wrong and that the RfC is indeed about WP:VOICE, even if I disagree with its result. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2025 (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 Cinaroot. Thank you.Nehushtani (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

1RR violation

Hello. You violated 1RR twice on Gaza genocide, with first revert, second revert and third revert. Please immediately self-revert the second and third edits. Thanks. Nehushtani (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2025 (UTC)

First is not a revert. Its an edit. Second and third are on different days. Third was reverted by another editor as well. Issue seem to be settled here Talk:Gaza_genocide#Result_of_the_previous_RfC No need for revert. Cinaroot (talk) 03:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Removing materials is by definition a revert, as you did at the end of the first one. First one was at 03:24, 22 November 2025, second one was at 07:19, 22 November 2025 (4 hours later), third one was 02:00, 23 November 2025 (within 24 hours of both the first and the second). It does not seem to be resolved on the talk page discussion. This is a clear-cut 1RR violation, and saying that anyone can revert you does not justify violating 1RR. Please self revert. Nehushtani (talk) 06:58, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

1RR works in 24-hour periods, not calendar days, so you did violate it. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:48, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nehushtani@QuicoleJR The third revert did violate 1RR — I apologize for that. However, an important question to consider is whether my actions were disruptive. For example, the second revert was only an image change. The image I used has been the lead image of the article since 2023 or so, and it was only replaced when multiple pictures were introduced. Instead of simply changing the image back, I used a revert so the editor would see the reason behind the revert.

The third edit is heavily disputed — multiple editors have reverted it, and it is currently being discussed on the talk page. I do not believe it is appropriate to revert it solely to comply with 1RR, as that would only create further disruption. Cinaroot (talk) 06:08, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

The third edit involved adding contested material. As per WP:ONUS, the contested material should not be included until there a consensus. So I think you need to revert both because of the 1RR violation and ONUS. This is the third and last time I will ask you. If you do not revert, I will have no choice but to take it to AE. Nehushtani (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Nehushtani I did not add that sentence — it has been part of the lead for a long time. Another editor removed it while misrepresenting the outcome of the previous discussion. I reverted that removal, and the revert was appropriate. This has already been addressed at Talk:Gaza_genocide#Result_of_the_previous_RfC.

Even @M.Bitton reverted it here

If an administrator instructs me to remove it, I will. If you feel escalation is necessary, you are free to bring the issue to AE. I don't think i was disruptive. I did violate 1RR accidentally. Cinaroot (talk) 16:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Tagging @Originalcola Editor, edit whom I reverted. Do you feel a revert is appropriate at this time? Cinaroot (talk) 16:30, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think your revert was appropriate. I asked you to self-revert when I raised the issue on the talk page. I also did not, at least purposefully, misrepresent the outcome of that discussion, and I also informed you about your violation of the longstanding 1 revert rule in place on that article prior to the warning that Nehushtani made. I am not entirely sure if you need to self-revert the third revert right, but you should have followed 1RR to begin with and self-reverted your second and third reverts at the time. It's also just not ok to say that other editors can just revert your edits if they disagree when you are making multiple reverts on a controversial topic with 1RR in place, and I think that is an inherently disruptive practice. It doesn't matter if you think it's disruptive or not, it's a rule that you broke. Originalcola (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Originalcola second and third edits are 18 hours 41 minutes minutes apart.

So it not my intention to violate 1RR - since multiple editors have reverted it - i don't see a point in reverting it just for the sake of 1RR. Cinaroot (talk) 23:14, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Because it's a rule in place that editors have to follow if they want to edit on a contentious topic article? Originalcola (talk) 01:20, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

While we should follow these rules, it’s equally important to understand why those rules exist. Policies shouldn’t be applied through an overly rigid or literal interpretation without considering the underlying principles. In this case, the purpose is to prevent disruption, not to create more of it.

I did revert you for a good reason, but I also made it clear that you were welcome to revert back if you disagreed. I had no intention of taking the issue to AE, even if your edit technically fell under 1RR. We should be working together to improve Wikipedia, not wasting time on avoidable disputes. Cinaroot (talk) 02:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

@Originalcola anyway i will revert it - if you ask me to do it just to settle this.

previously you said Ideally I'd like you to self-revert, but if you don't see this that's fine. Cinaroot (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Is this considered as a revert first edit

I simply moved some content to a new section and removed one paragraph.

If routine editing is categorized as reverting, then many ordinary edits would also be counted as reverts. For example, on the article Rare Beauty, I removed several pieces of promotional content one by one — to me, that was normal editing, not reverting. If those actions are classified as reverts, then I would technically have violated 3RR multiple times, which clearly wasn’t the intent. Cinaroot (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I will also note that - first edit is not in dispute. No one has reverted it. It still exist on the article. Cinaroot (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

@Cinaroot - My contention that the first edit was a revert was because you deleted 2 paragraphs in the "Denial" section. Nehushtani (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I deleted the denial section and moved its content to a new section. As part of it, I deleted 3 sentences. The goal there was to create a new section instead of the denial section. Its a edit - not a revert imo Cinaroot (talk) 17:40, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the help template you should either use that or post to AN. It also says that AN is only for when the matter is urgent or you need multiple admins - if it's just one admin and non-urgent then use the template.

You might want to delete the AN post (or the template) before anyone replies, so you're not accused of Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP - I'm not saying that you are, just that it might not be a good look. Blue Sonnet (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

Reverting is either, in whole or in part, undoing or negating one or more edits, with each edit being a revert. Looking at your edit history on the Gaza Genocide article, you've actually violated 1RR multiple times on this article. Originalcola (talk) 22:22, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all of these have been reverted, but I can see that you did not restore or move the content in these edits; these aren't all just normal edits.

,

,

,

,

,

Originalcola (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

This is frankly ridiculous. Those are edits - not reverts. Some of them are removed per talk discussions. If you start classifying - removing couple of words as reverts - then i can say the same for all editors who edits on wikipedia. Cinaroot (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I looked at any set of edits you had made that had removed content in a 24 hours setting and forgot to remove those that were regular editing. That was incredibly sloppy on my part, I'm sorry. I've marked which ones I did not mean. Originalcola (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Those are 5,6,13,14,15 and 16. Originalcola (talk) 01:17, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Anyway, these edits are not subject of this discussion - I will not allow you to mischaracterize my edits as reverts without understanding the contexts or accuse me of violating 1RR in these edits. Cinaroot (talk) 23:18, 28 November 2025 (UTC)

I mean I acknowledge I didn't remove normal edits which meant I did mischaracterize normal edits, but if you remove a sentence in an edit that you didn't add yourself or remove photos from an article that's a revert. Originalcola (talk) 01:34, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

That's literally undoing part of or all of the edit of someone else. Originalcola (talk) 01:37, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

7 8 9 are removed as part of talk discussions. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gaza_genocide/Archive_20#Are_protest_images_relevant_here?

Again not reverts.

10 is not a revert. Its an edit and meant to be improvement since destroying Hamas - its also implies overthrowing its governance.

There is 44 hours between 11 and 12 Cinaroot (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Concentration of grievances

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Given our interactions in the past week or so, I feel a need to concentrate some of my grievances with you, and ask you to do some reflection.

1. Your failure to reply to my substantive rebuttals, questions and suggestions here, here, here, and here.
2. Calling in an editor to the discussion who seemed to systematically go after me and not touch you.
3. Personally attacking me as a biased editor writing out of an agenda, while you are clearly the one more intent on serving a specific purpose rather than addressing facts, as laid out here. (This also wasn't a great look for you.)
4. Butchering a well-written and well-sourced section I wrote, as laid out here, while claiming to make it "more concise and encyclopedic".
5. Reverting me and accusing me of "disruptive editing" while claiming that a very shoddy piece of unencyclopedic, unsourced writing (that I added sources to and modified) needs to be preserved until I get "consensus" (while you are the only one fighting against my reasonable suggestions, and refusing to engage when I rebut your points), as laid out here.

Honestly, this is the first time I've encountered such hostility and unprofessionalism since I started editing on Wikipedia, and I would expect better from someone who seems to have as much experience here as you do. I hope that you can do some reflection and see that you have not been conducting yourself in a reasonable manner on this matter.

Let me know if you think I am off-base, out of line, or whatever. But I feel like I've been pretty patient and did a lot of assuming good faith before I reached this stage. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Im not calling any editors specific. I don't even know that editor. I tagged a recent editor who touched the same text as you. They are senior editor. I replied to some of your main points. Other editors can also reply. You have been told in talk to get consensus. If an edit is disputed - you cannot keep adding it. Its your responsibility to get consensus. Sorry if those comment came across as a personal attack. I meant the edit is biased - not you as a biased editor. Everyone has bias. Even me. Thats not necessarily a bad thing imo. I fixed the mistakes in 4. we can discuss it on talk. Cinaroot (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I did not keep adding the same edit. I kept adding different (well-sourced) edits which you did not like. Whenever you reverted something (or asked me to revert) and disputed it, I mostly let that stand and tried to have a discussion in the talk page. Unfortunately, my feeling currently is that you, despite being the only person to oppose my changes, are not really engaging intellectually where it is not convenient to you. I hope that now you will try to do so. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:54, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

I recommend creating different discussions for each specific change you want in the lead. It’s difficult to follow in that thread - because it’s somewhat big. Cinaroot (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

I added separate replies for different issues you had with my suggested lead. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Regarding point 5, your editing on multiple articles has been disruptive, and it also violated WP:SYNTH. While my own improvements to your edit contained some mistakes, they were sourced and represented an improvement over the changes you introduced. If you disagree - again talk on article talk page

Please not that it would take days or even weeks to get consensus. You just need to be patient. You cannot keep adding disputed changes to article. I’m not obligated to reply immediately. I have other things to do. But i can revert changes to article that do not have consensus. Cinaroot (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

To add to this - this edit i reverted - source does not say "state-owned" - as previously mentioned - there is difference between state owned and state funded

It also says in the source Despite its funding from the state, Al Jazeera has been envisaged since its inception as an “autonomous” network with editorial independence.

Also this edit - changing being influenced by -> promoting - is not very neutral even if its supported by your low-tier academic journal Cinaroot (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

Source literally says:

"Al-Jazeera may claim independence, but the network has only relative independence; it is not government controlled, but is nonetheless government owned. To what extent state funding affects the independence and editorial decision-making of the network remains a pressing issue."

Maybe before essentially accusing me of lying, you should try to read (I even noted the specific pages, with people here rarely bother doing), or at least ctrl+f. And to preempt your usual gaslighting, I said "in accordance with source", you said "source does not say". Unless you think that the difference between "state-owned" and "government owned" justifies your statement. This is at best a WP:COMPETENCE issue, and I feel like at every turn you're just throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping something sticks or I get tired, whereas I'm actually going to find sources, checking that they're acceptable, researching, etc. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

And show me one "higher-tier" source which specifically says "being influenced by" over "promoting". That would really help your argument for supposed neutrality, and help me feel like we're actually having a wikipedian discussion instead of me bringing sources and you saying "nah I don't think so".

Oh, except for that one time you contributed sources, which were 40% Al Jazeera, 20% 24 years old, 20% supporting state-ownership, and 20% supporting state-ownership/control. Which you then of course ignored. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

Getting reverted can feel hostile, but it usually isn’t meant that way—it’s just part of the editing process. I know it can be frustrating, especially on heated topics where conflicts are more common. I want to be clear that I have no hostility toward you as an editor. Cinaroot (talk) 20:35, 11 December 2025 (UTC)

You are the one saying time after time that I'm operating out of an agenda, trying to influence, editing in a biased way, etc, while repeatedly refusing to look at facts in the face. This gaslighting of "can feel hostile" is just gaslighting, sorry bud. I've been reverted before in a way that was well-supported, kind, and assumed good faith. I've thanked those people warmly. You are reverting in a way which is unsupported and assumes bad faith. That's hostile. Either own it or deal with it. User:غوّاص العلم (Ghawwas) (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

December 2025

To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 2 weeks. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

Sennecaster (Chat) 18:48, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify a sanction placed by another administrator without: (1) the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or (2) prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

{{unblock|reason= I am submitting this appeal to request reconsideration of the scope of the sanction. The 1RR restriction applies only to specific articles or topic areas where it has been explicitly imposed, and violations of it should be addressed with narrowly tailored remedies rather than a site-wide block. I believe a two-week site-wide block is [[WP:NOPUNISH|punitive]]. my first 1RR violation happened on Hamas article, and my only other 1RR violation occurred approximately 16 months later on Gaza genocide. The recent violation was accidental, and I indicated my willingness to self-revert, yet AE case was filed. I self-reverted once the admin made a determination that my first edit was a partial revert. A block should be limited to the Gaza genocide or Arab–Israeli contentious topic area for me. Happy holidays. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:800;"> [[User:Cinaroot|Cinaroot]] </span>  [[User talk:Cinaroot|💬]] 08:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)}} Cinaroot  💬 08:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

If you would like, I can copy this request to AE. However, I think it would be in your best interest to rewrite it. Let me know if you would like me to move forward with sharing this request. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:15, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Can you explain which part i need to rewrite it? Cinaroot  💬 09:29, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@Significa liberdade edited. Ty plz proceed with sharing Cinaroot  💬 10:23, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I hope you don't mind me jumping in, but I think you should review the AE decision - especially this comment.

This was the least punitive of the three options available and I can see that the arbiters spent a while discussing the lowest possible sanction they could give you.

I really think drawing further attention to yourself is a bad idea & you would be best off taking the hit and sitting out this pretty short block.

Timed blocks like this are only a short time-out, meant for you to consider what happened and understand how to avoid it happening again - jumping straight into challenging that decision could easily give the wrong impression.

It also means the arbiters would have to reconsider their decision to give you the most lenient of the three available options, so there's a distinct possibility it could be increased - do you really want to take that risk for the sake of a couple of weeks away from Wikipedia during the holidays?

Ultimately, whilst I'd love for you to reconsider, the final decision is up to you. Blue Sonnet (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

Cinnaroot, let me know if you'd still like me to copy over, given Blue Sonnet's comment. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Blue-Sonnet Thanks for your thoughts. I’ll withdraw the appeal just to save everyone’s time — not because I’m afraid they’ll increase my block, since that would be punitive.

My issue is that one of the admins wanted to impose an indefinite ban for a PIA based on this 1RR violation. I don’t think that’s right, and I definitely don’t want that happening to other editors. Cinaroot  💬 02:56, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to do that - you can delete the appeal and this whole section if you want (e.g. blank your Talk and start afresh), it's only declined appeals that you can't remove. Blue Sonnet (talk) 03:00, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

reply to Fences and windows and casting aspersions

@Fences and windows I just saw this. You accused me of antisemitic bias and casted aspersions that i'm downplaying antisemitism . Iv explained my rationale here. There is no need to overload opening statement when lede already mention it as antisemitic. At the time lede has following numerous world leaders and news outlets described it as antisemitic. Also such an opening statement is not consistent with other similar articles. Other editors agree and it is now removed from opening statement.

I would appreciate it if you could reconsider your remarks and post in the admin dashboard - so it does not imply antisemitic bias on my part. cc @Bradv Cinaroot  💬 10:02, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Also, is it appropriate to say attack is antisemitic in WP:VOICE - when there is no actual evidence or when it’s so early in the investigation ? Is news outlets describing it as antisemitic enough for WP:VOICE Cinaroot  💬 10:26, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Your only contribution to that talk page was to downplay the description of the attack as antisemitic, in three separate comments. I think that was worth raising and I already corrected my statement to clarify that you didn't want it removed. You're still continuing here, which doesn't reduce concerns about your possible agenda. Fences&Windows 20:52, 21 December 2025 (UTC)

@Fences and windows Whatever - not worth my energy to argue on that. Cinaroot  💬 10:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Hello Cinaroot: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Iljhgtn (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Iljhgtn (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

@Iljhgtn thanks - hope you enjoyed your holidays. Cinaroot  💬 10:39, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Cinaroot!

Happy New Year!

Cinaroot,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 03:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 03:46, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Happy New Year. - i don't think we met before. Cinaroot  💬 10:40, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

January 2026

Your recent editing history at Al Jazeera Media Network shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing a page's content back to how you believe it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree with your changes. Please stop editing the page and use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. Wikipedia provides a page explaining how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can request help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution such as a third opinion. In some cases, you may wish to request page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule— if things indicate that you intend to continue reverting content on the page. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

That editor is obsessively editing the article - made 100s of comments and edits in short period of time. you are welcome to weigh in - but this has to stop. Cinaroot  💬 14:39, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:10, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

I mentioned you when filing that report on ghawas, so I think I need to include this notice for you as well.

About your comments

Just a bit of friendly advice. Comments like You are the reason i had to open that rfc are not ideal because they focus on the contributor and not the content. Please be a bit more careful when commenting. Thank you. SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 20:11, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Sure, I should be more polished. But its not an accusation or insult. Just pointing out that they were adamant that I open an RfC to include Israel’s genocide in WP:VOICE. They took me to the admin dashboard and lost. Now they are going against consensus, acting as if that RfC never happened.

Conv : Talk:Israel#Clearly going against consensus Cinaroot  💬 20:20, 6 January 2026 (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 Cinaroot. Thank you. Nehushtani (talk) 09:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

frivolous complaints complaint filed by Nehushtani - they have been advised to focus less on me and WP:HOUND

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Cinaroot Cinaroot  💬 03:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Another 1RR violation

Hello. Less than week after returning from a block for a 1RR violation, you have done it again.

1. First revert 06:33, 6 January 2026 (revert of this).
2. Second revert 20:35, 6 January 2026 (revert of this).

Please self revert.

Tagging @Newslinger who was involved in the last case. Nehushtani (talk) 09:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

When M.Bitton made the revert here it introduced two links to occupied to Israeli-occupied territories

In earlier revert by Triggerhippie4 - they stated "redundant occupation link already given above"

Im simply trying to fix that.

You understand Triggerhippie4 also violated 1RR where they reverted this, when they have reverted me earlier here

Why aren't you going to their talk page and grilling them?

I am trying to improve Wikipedia, not weaponize its rules.

@Newslinger this is Wikipedia:HOUND - iv informed them about this on their talk page here. They are targeting me. Please help Cinaroot  💬 03:01, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

I've responded at WP:AE § Cinaroot. — Newslinger talk 15:26, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

@Newslinger Should I file a complaint against them? There appears to be a pattern of them filing complaints against editors on AE and ANI. Around 95% Most of their edits are simply adding archive links to dead links. I believe they are targeting editors they perceive as pro-Palestinian (their own words). Its suspicious how they got their Extended confirmed status Cinaroot  💬 03:33, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

No, it would not be advisable to file a new complaint against Nehushtani solely because Nehushtani filed complaints against you and other editors. AE and ANI are both capable of applying sanctions against the filer of any report when there is consensus to do so. Please note that Nehushtani was advised in the AE discussion to focus less on you, and likewise, I recommend that you focus on improving article content instead of reporting Nehushtani.

While I said that your hounding accusation against Nehushtani was not unreasonable in the context of the latest AE request, your comment here ("I believe they are targeting editors they perceive as pro-Palestinian (their own words)") is not adequately supported by evidence in your comment, and is therefore considered an aspersion. Please either provide a link to where Nehushtani said that or redact that claim from your comment, and then consider ending the conduct dispute here. — Newslinger talk 04:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Ok - i wont file it - if you say so. Please see if below evidence is sufficient. if not i will redact my claim.

See this they said - That you did not tag any pro-Israel editors seems to be particularly problematic and possibly

Because i tagged Cdjp1 - they consider them as a pro-Palestinian (by implication). They filed a case adjacent Cdjp1 recently.

They filed case against WillowCity - who is also someone i tagged in canvassing allegation against me.

In this edit they accused Smallangryplanet of always taking the pro-Palestinian side

They filed case against @Iskandar323 here Iskandar323 particiapte in project Palestine.

They filed AE case agaisnt إيان - for alleged edit warring for adding anti-Palestinian chants to Jerusalem Day among other things

They filed 2 cases against me - i'm also editor who interested in Palestine - per my talk page Cinaroot  💬 05:04, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that not everyone neatly fits the "pro-Israel" or "pro-Palestinian" label; see False dilemma. Now that you have provided some support for your comment to fulfill the requirement, it would be best to leave it here and move on to another topic. Thank you. — Newslinger talk 05:15, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

that’s fine, i'll move on— because I respect you. But please keep in mind what I was saying- when they file yet another case against someone. Thanks. Cinaroot  💬 05:20, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

more advice

I get feeling pissed off at another editor. I saw you editting user's talk page

its better to walk away, Wikipedia:SILENCEISGOLDEN, Ghawwas's behavior and the behavior of those who defend him speaks for themselves, and you deserve to not let this take up any more mental space than it already has.

if he remains blocked so be it, and if he is unblocked, so be it. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:40, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Request to Revert Your Recent Edit

Please undo your edit here. The article operates under a rule that "Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" (see Talk:Gaza genocide). The edit reinstated a prior edit that had been undone. Accordingly, consensus is required on the talk page before the fifth paragraph of the lead is subsumed into the fourth paragraph. Thank you. Coining (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Iv undone it. 🐈Cinaroot  💬 16:27, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

For the record - i don't care if it's in 4th or 5th para. Initially i put as 5th para here Then someone merged it again. You unmerged it. Whats the consensus on talk ? 🐈Cinaroot  💬 16:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. Since this comment, you've seen the ongoing discussion on the talk page. I don't think a consensus has been reached yet. Coining (talk) 22:11, 31 January 2026 (UTC)