Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:48, 6 May 2023

Welcome!

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

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

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Misplaced Pages page covers the same topics.

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

Get help at the Teahouse

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

Volunteer at the Task Center

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

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

Fast of Behav moved to draftspace

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

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

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

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

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

License tagging for File:Rabbi Pinchas Mordechai Teitz.jpg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

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

Thank you for edits

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

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

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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

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

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

The 'small minority' bias

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

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

Inappropriate canvassing

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

Violation

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

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

first revert

And...

second revert

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

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

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

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

Notification

Introduction to contentious topics

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

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

comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;

follow editorial and behavioural best practice;

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

refrain from gaming the system.

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

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

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

Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion

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

Uncited but ...

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

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

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

Notice

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

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clarification request closed

Hello Dovidroth,

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

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

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

Disambiguation link notification for April 30

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

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

Blocked

This account has been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of יניב הורון (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) that was created to violate Misplaced Pages policy. Note that using multiple accounts is allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not, and that all edits made while evading a block or ban may be reverted or deleted. If this account is not a sockpuppet, and you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

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

Accept reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, here's where I come down:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Dovidroth: Echoing NRP: If any reverts of your edits are found to not fall under BANREVERT (e.g. an edit you made that had no connection to Yaniv, in the eventuality where you are unblocked), that's an administrative matter I can sort out with Nableezy—who is, like I said, a reasonable guy, and I trust will do the right thing in that eventuality (either self-reverting or correcting his reverts to use some different rationale). This is all independent of the question of any sanctions; it's what I expect in any case where a BANREVERT is later found inapplicable. So, that's something Nableezy and I can sort out; if you do want to get unblocked, you should be looking forward, not backward. Now, I do tend to agree with NRP that, if this is how you're looking at the proposed sanction—immediately trying to return to the disputes that contributed to your block—that a more black-and-white sanction would be better. It's really not much of a burden; I've restored banned users' edits maybe... 10 times in my last 40,000 edits, something like that?You could also just take a TBAN from ARBPIA. That might be for the best in the long run. Frankly, just looking at your edits from the perspective of a content editor (and the author of, I think, the only Good Article on a Jewish prayer), you seem to be much more in your element when editing about Jewish topics than ARBPIA topics. Just a thought.So, like NRP said, this is a pretty good offer you're getting. You—I think just by luck?—reached out to one of a pretty small handful of admins who will hear out an "actual innocence" defense to sockpuppetry, and happened to get me the week that I returned to admin work after several months' absence. And, like I said, this is only something I'd be interested in pursuing if you're affirmatively on-board with the idea. I'm not going to drag you kicking and screaming into your own unblock.On that note, @NinjaRobotPirate, I was serious when I said that, having been adminshopped here, I have no intention of doing anything that isn't by mutual agreement. Maybe I'm misreading tone, but you seem unhappy with the idea of an unblock, and if your partial endorsement here is reluctant, then my involvement will be only a recommendation to whichever admin draws this page out of CAT:UNBLOCK. If there's one thing I do not want to be as an admin, it's that admin who shows up on a blocked established user's talkpage to give them special treatment. I don't think that's what I'm doing, but if it seems that way, I won't be pressing any buttons. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 18:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

@Nableezy: When I became an SPI clerk, I expressed a reluctance to calling people liars. That got a chuckle out of one or two colleagues, but I've with very few exceptions stood by that. So I'm not going to get into whether I believe Dovidroth's response or not (and I don't like creating situations where someone would have a perverse incentive to falsely confess), and rather will just stand by what I said before: There is adequate evidence that they have failed to exercise independent judgment in restoring banned users' edits within the PIA topic area. In CTOP areas, admins sometimes have to make decisions based on a preponderance of the evidence in terms of what appears to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia, and I think this is one of those times. So I want you to know I have seriously considered your objection to an unblock with restrictions, but stand by it being the best way forward here. Dovidroth is of course welcome to appeal as described below.As a final bit of housekeeping, since I'm unblocking with a finding that negates BANREVERT, as discussed before could you please either self-revert or dummy-edit re-justify all BANREVERTs that didn't originate from Dovidroth restoring Yaniv content? -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction

The following sanction now applies to you:

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

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

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

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you.  -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 19:47, 6 May 2023 (UTC)