Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or

discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement
.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration


Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia?

Initiated by 182Line (talk) at 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
  • Contacted WMF

Statement by 182Line

Was told to post this report here by the Wikimedia Foundation.

The Times raises many questions in How Wikipedia is being changed to downgrade Iranian human rights atrocities (paywalled), reprinted in The Australian.[7] Here is a concise version:

Brief Overview

There is a systematic removal of instances documenting human right crimes by Iranian officials on Wikipedia, accompanied by the addition of misleading information favoring the IRP (Islamic Republic Party) on the platform.

From 2015 to 2022, numerous user accounts involved in such edits faced blocks due to sock-puppetry and tendentious behavior. Despite this, a new wave of more sophisticated accounts has surfaced, actively collaborating to eliminate references to human rights violations committed by IRP officials and promote a narrative aligned with the IRP across the entire platform.

User:Ali Ahwazi

User:Ali Ahwazi consistently utilizes sources aligned with the IRP to disseminate government propaganda:

  • ..."considering the continuation of the Zionist regime's aggressions" citing irdiplomacy.ir[8][9]
  • ..."to counter the adventurous and terrorist actions of the United States in the region" citing pishkhan.com[10]
  • ..."The ultimate goal is to achieve complete freedom for Palestinian land from the sea to the river." citing farsnews.ir[11]

Many more additional edits mirror this pattern of promoting Iranian government projects using Iranian government press releases: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] etc.

User:Mhhossein

User:Mhhossein: In the Mahsa Amini protests Wikipedia article, Mhhossein adds:

  • "Pro-government demonstrations occurred across Iran in response to the week long protest over Amini's death. According to live state television broadcast, demonstrators chanted "Death to America" and "Death to Israel.""

However, the source cited for this content (this news piece) states:

  • "Pro-government rallies have taken place in several cities across Iran in an attempt to counter a week of mounting unrest triggered by the death of a woman in police custody."
  • "Marchers called for anti-government protesters to be executed, while the army signalled that it was prepared to crush dissent by telling Iranians that it would confront 'the enemies' behind the unrest. Demonstrators condemned the anti-government protesters as 'Israel's soldiers', live state television coverage showed. They also shouted 'Death to America' and 'Death to Israel', common slogans the country's clerical rulers use to try and stir up support for authorities, who claimed the demonstrations of support were spontaneous. “Offenders of the Qur’an must be executed,” the crowds chanted."

This editor is an admin at Wikimedia Commons and has leveraged his influence to eliminate images depicting protests against the Islamic Republic Party (IRP):

Etc.

Then adds pro-government rally photos and adds content from IRP press releases / removes any content critical of the IRP: [22][23] [24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

User:Ghazaalch and User:Iskandar323

User:Iskandar323
delete huge amounts of documented human rights crimes by IRP officials:

  • "According to the US State Department, the "death commissions" responsible for the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners started on 19 July (1988) and included the current head of the Iranian judiciary and current Minister of Justice."[31]
  • "The executions were carried out by several high-ranking members of Iran's current government. According to the US State Department, the "death commissions" responsible for the 1988 executions of Iranian political prisoners started on 19 July (1988) and included the current head of the Iranian judiciary and current Minister of Justice."[32]
  • "The Islamic Republic answered by "unleashing an unprecedented reign of terror", shooting demonstrators, including children."[33]
  • "In April 1992, Iranian authorities carried out an air raid against MEK bases in Iraq."[34]
  • "Those executed included women and children."[35]
  • "Most of the prisoners executed were serving prison terms on account of peaceful activities (distributing opposition newspapers and leaflets, taking part in demonstrations, or collecting donations for political oppositions) or holding outlawed political views. To eliminate potential political oppositions, the Islamic Republic started "coordinated extrajudicial killings" in Iran. Under International law, the killings were considered a "crime against humanity". The commissions including judicial, prosecution, intelligence and prison officials proceeded executions that were not approved by their own existing legislation, and sentenced prisoners to death despite any proven "internationally recognized criminal offence". The Prisoners were questioned if they were willing to give written repentance for their political activities and beliefs."[36]
  • "In December 2018, Albania expelled two Iranian diplomats due to alleged involvement in the bomb plot against the MEK (where Mayor Giuliani and other US government officials were also gathered) accusing the two of "violating their diplomatic status"."[37]
  • "In 2022, an Iranian official was sentenced to life imprisonment for his role in the execution of political prisoners."[38]
  • "The two men pleaded guilty in November 2019 to several charges including conspiracy and "acting as an undeclared agent of the Iranian government". The Justice Department said that one of the men arrived in the US to gather "intelligence information" about the MEK (as well as Israeli and Jewish entities)."[39]
  • "Sa'adati was tried and sentenced to serve ten years in prison. In June 1981 when conflicts escalated between the MEK and Khomeini's government, Sa'adati was retried and executed by the Islamic Republic of Iran."[40]
  • "bombings may have actually been planned by senior IRP leaders, to rid themselves of rivals within the IRP."[41]
  • "After June 1981, many MEK sympathizers and middle-level organizers were detained and executed. Others were sent to rehabilitation camps, while about eight to ten thousand were kept in prison for minor charges such as "possession of copies of clandestine the Mujahid newspaper and similar acts of defiance"."[42].
  • "The Iranian Ministry of Intelligence (MOIS) cracked down on MEK activity, carrying out what a US Federal Research Division, Library of Congress Report referred to as "psychological warfare"."[43]
  • "In April 1992, Iranian authorities carried out an air raid against MEK bases in Iraq. The Islamic Republic Party claimed that the attack had been in retaliation to the MEK targeting Iranian governmental and civilian targets. The MEK and Iraq denied the allegations, claiming that Iran had "invented this attack on its territory to cover up the bombardment of the Mojahedin bases on Iraqi territory."[44]
  • "According to Ervand Abrahamian, the MEK attacked the regime for "disrupting rallies and meetings, banning newspapers and burning down bookstores, rigging elections and closing down Universities; kidnapping imprisoning, and torturing political activists; reviving SAVAK and using the tribunals to terrorize their opponents, and engineering the American hostage crises to impose on the nation the 'medieval' concept of the velayat-e faqih""[45]
User:MarioGom
  • MarioGom is an SPI clerk that uses his clerk leverage to remove information which contradicts the narrative promoted by the Islamic Republic Party (IRP):[46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] (the majority of these edits are accompanied by misleading edit summaries)
  • MarioGom uses his clerk influence to derail reports against pro-IRP users: [57][58][59]
  • MarioGom uses his clerk influence to hound and request blocks for editors opposing these pro-IRP users (including the editors mentioned in the post above this one - Alex-h, Fad Ariff, MA Javadi etc.).

In essence, this is the pattern. While these mentioned editors are not an exhaustive list of those involved in the Wikipedia IRP censorship issue, they currently represent the primary contributors to these activities. 182Line (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@MarioGom: The core of the request is that the Wikipedia editors listed here (including yourself) have contributed to the systematic removal of human right crimes committed by Iranian government officials. 182Line (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ali Ahwazi

Statement by Mhhossein

Statement by Ghazaalch

Statement by Iskandar323

Statement by MarioGom

I have not been notified or pinged, but I acknowledge that I have seen this request. I had no time to read anything in the collapsible sections yet, but I will do it soon. MarioGom (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make sure I understood the request. The core of the request is the claim that I am an Iranian official [...] involved in the Wikipedia IRP censorship issue? MarioGom (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PROJSOCK
. I am going to proceed with my statement anyway, since I think it would make sense for ArbCom to consider case requests if they can stand on their own merits.
Three types of evidence are presented against me:
  • That I have used my "clerk leverage" in discussions. Yet I participated in these discussions as a regular editor, as virtually any edit I make outside SPI. There is a long string of diffs, which look just fine to me. The filer claims I used misleading edit summaries in most of them, but what I see is nothing misleading. On the contrary, most are really specific about rationales (e.g. [60]). Given the MEK article has been highly controversial, I tend to use fairly detailed edit summaries. If there was any specific issue with any of these edits, I’m fairly sure it was already discussed in the talk page.
  • That I use my "clerk influence" to derail reports against pro-IRP users. Three diffs are provided: 1) a !vote in a t-ban proposal at ANI [61], obviously done as a regular editor, and whose rationale I still stand by, 2) a comment in the same discussion [62], and 3) a comment in an SPI case [63] also offering some nuance that I still stand by.
  • That I hound and request blocks. What the filer calls hounding here is sockpuppet investigation, which I have regularly done in this area for a few years. Going into details would require way more text, but ArbCom is familiar with every investigation I have performed related to a trollfarm linked to the NCRI/MEK.
If ArbCom would like to hear individualized explanations about any of these diffs or claims, let me know, and I will need a word limit extension. MarioGom (talk) 19:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Usedtobecool

I remember seeing this report before but there is nothing listed on prior dispute resolution. Usedtobecool ☎️ 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it.[64] Usedtobecool ☎️ 18:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I have explicitly listed all the editors 182Line named in the headers of the collapsed sections above and given the notifications that they did not. I have had no prior involvement with this and have not yet read the details of the request. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The discussion linked by UsedToBeCool was posted by user:OutBuck as their first and (apart from a subsequent markup correct) only contribution to en.wp under that username. It was reverted a few minutes later by Bbb23 [65] without explanation in the edit summary but they immediately gave OutBuck an only warning for harassment (permalink). I have no doubts that 182Line and OutBuck are the same person, but a checkuser may wish to see if they have any other accounts. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Serial Number 54129: Especially post-Framgate if the WMF are approached with a complaint that can be handled on a local wiki they are going to tell the correspondent to use the appropriate processes on that wiki (which is what a large proportion of editors here want them to do) - whether one or more specific processes are listed I don't know. They certainly wouldn't instruct arbcom to take a case (I'm not even sure they could). A secure alt is not impossible here, but only one and it should be disclosed to the committee (if it had been then arbs would not be describing it as a throw-away account). Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here. Which ironically is something the WMF should be instructing would-be case filers I disagree - it is not reasonable to expect the WMF to educate every person who contacts them on the rules of individual projects. Especially if they do not disclose any usernames in their email. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Serial Number 54129

Sorry! I wasn;'t going to comment, but I assumed this would be reverted with cause (where's Bbb23 when you need him) as a joke. Or something. I mean: what's this Was told to post this report here by the Wikimedia Foundation? Really?! I mean, maybe, but really?! Do the WMF usually instruct local arbcoms to hear cases? Or more correctly, advise random editors to report it to local committees? And if they did, wouldn't they contact the committee if only to assure them that, yes, they did?

@

WP:SECURESOCK. And this. ——Serial Number 54129 19:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Thryduulf. Although, on the latter, point, if we're talking about someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here. Which ironically is something the WMF should be instructing would-be case filers, especially if they are interested in maintaining good post-FRAMGATE relations with said wiki. Which they may or may not be, of course. ——Serial Number 54129 20:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

@Robert McClenon: To clarify, no-one has suggested that this is an account from another language Wikipedia. ——Serial Number 54129 17:39, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon: That is precisely my point (ignoring your rather childish dig). The whole point is that this could be someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, but, for reasons of security or self-interest, chooses to set up an account to make a highly sensitive report so as not to link themselves on a home wiki. That is very much in keeping with the spirit of WP:SECURESOCK. Since I have to repeat myself: they may be reporting the activities of agents of a government known to be active on that home wiki. You think that's frivolous. But then you also appear to believe that looking at reliable sources is a waste of time prior to making a judgment. You also seem to have reached the conclusion that I agree with you on something. I should clarify, that has so rarely been the case in the past that is unlikely to be so now.

@Arbs, ignoring McClenon's unhelpful remark for a moment, I should make it clear that I don't personally have an opinion; I do not know whether this is the case or not. But this is one of those rare times (although increasingly less so, perhaps...) when Wikipedia intersects with real life, with potential concomitant RL consequences. I mean... Iran ——Serial Number 54129 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Iranian POV)

Arbitration has always been a last resort for the resolution of disputes that cannot be settled in any other way. The filing of

reliable source, The Times
(of London), apparently stating that there is being systematic removal of reports of human rights violations by the Iranian government. I have not read the details of the report because it is paywalled. There has not been an attempt to discuss the report. If there had been a serious attempt to discuss the report, an inquiry similar to the May 2023 case on distortion of coverage of the Jews in Poland in World War Two might be in order. There has not been such an attempt, and such a case is not in order. This filing is frivolous.

ArbCom should decline this case request, and remind the filer that premature filings are considered vexatious, but should be ready to consider an inquiry into distortion of Wikipedia coverage if there has been real inconclusive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Serial Number 54129 - No, on reading your aside comment three times, but you did write: Although, on the latter, point, if we're talking about someone whose home wiki is fa.wp, I wouldn't expect them to know the rules here., thus raising the possibility that we were dealing with such a user, so I checked the global history. So we agree that is a throwaway account used for a frivolous filing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Imho, this is effectively a CT and non ECR editors should not be able to pursue remedies here. if this is a real problem, and the indications thus far is that is at least exaggerated, then surely there are some ECR editors willing to make the case. Selfstudier (talk) 17:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Vanamonde

I lack the time to examine the specifics, but as an admin who used to do a fair bit of GS enforcement in this area, I am of the opinion that AE has been an under-utilized resource, and I recommend ARBCOM decline to look into this when none of these supposedly problematic edits were reported to AE. I don't think this rises to the level of needing arbitration at this moment. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Statement by Irtapil

moved from Serial Number 54129's section. Primefac (talk) 09:59, 14 March 2024 (UTC) @Serial Number 54129: what do you mean by "home wiki"? Irtapil (talk) 09:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Primefac: I think this is where my statement belongs if I have no previous involvement? Irtapil (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia?: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Promoting Iranian government POV in Wikipedia?: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • This case request seems to be from a throwaway account, which I'm not in favor of accepting a request from, exceeds the 500/1000 word maximum (and if we honor 500 words, exceeds the 50 diff limit), and did not notify. I had privately suggested this be removed procedurally, without prejudice to refiling once those are remedied (and since then Thryduulff has fixed the notifications) but since someone else objected to that I wanted to publicly note my concerns about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talkcontribs)
    SN: If only it were as simple as pro-Iran/anti-Iran. The Iranian politics case showed there are vested interests, with their own issues, on the anti-Iran front who are also manipulating Wikipedia content, against policies, for their own ends. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Re:WMF: I find it unlikely that the WMF endorsed this filing per se. Rather I find it more likely that a user contacted the Foundation and the Foundation said "this is a matter for the community and for ArbCom". WMF stuff comes to ArbCom through certain (private) channels and this is obviously not that. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not unsympathetic to the procedural issues to the case request. That said, I am mindful that we heard Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics in 2021, and we do have a broad ability to revisit proceedings as necessary. As far as quick perusal of the initial statement, Ali Ahwazi needs at a minimum a referral to AE considering the highlighted edits, which are recent. Mhhossein was a party to the previous case, and the highlighted edits are from 2017 and 2018. ArbCom has no jurisdiction over Commons. So, in short, while we're here, do we have any cause to continue? Otherwise I'm happy to see the case request removed on procedural grounds. Maxim (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Maxim that this can be procedurally removed as premature and/or deficient for the reasons they and Barkeep49 outline. firefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification and amendment


Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

Initiated by TenPoundHammer at 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

  • A limit may be placed on how many AFDs, PRODs, and CSDs I may place in a day or week (e.g. one a day, five a week, etc.)
  • I may maintain a list of content I plan to nominate for deletion with evidence that I have done
    WP:BEFORE
    (in the case of articles) or otherwise understand why the content should be deleted.
  • I am not to send material to AFD immediately after it has been de-prodded.
  • If another editor argues "keep", I must refrain from personally
    attacking
    them if I disagree with their opinion.
  • If an editor argues "keep" and presents sources, I must
    refrain from bullying them
    into adding sources into the article.
  • Optional: Anything not intended for a deletion outcome (de-prodding, renaming a category), obviously vandalism or hoax (G3), or clearly done as maintenance (G6, G7, U1, fixing an improperly formatted discussion) may be exempt from the limitation.
  • Optional: Another editor may volunteer to check my work and make sure if I am working within restrictions.
  • If I am deemed capable of working within the restrictions for a period of time (e.g., one month), restrictions may be lessened. However, if I exhibit behavior in violation of the restrictions, actions may be taken as needed (e.g., return to full topic-ban from deletion).

Per Thryduulf, I have chosen not to pursue complex restrictions further, but instead demonstrate that I understand why my behavior led to an XFD topic ban in the first place. I would like to present my understanding of my ban and appeal it accordingly. Thryduulf suggested my conduct since the topic ban is conducive to lifting it, and I would also like to show an understanding, and attempt to resolve, my past tendentiousness, recklessness, stubbornness, and other negative effects on the deletion process as a whole. My past behaviors included massive queues of nominations which flooded the queues, caused sloppy errors in fact checking and other practices of

attacks
on editors whose participation in said discussions I disagreed with, and so on. I would like to appeal to a partial or full reversal of this ban -- whichever is decided better for me -- to prove that I have learned what I did wrong since the topic ban was enacted.

(Comment: This template is severely borked and I don't know how to unfuck it. I've tried a million things. Can someone fix this please so it's readable?)

This is my first time doing something like this, so I don't know all the ins and outs. I was told it can be appealed so I am attempting in good faith to appeal it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenPoundHammer

I was asked by

WP:ATD
such as redirection, not thinking that maybe my attempts to redirect or merge content were being undone in good faith and not as some sort of vendetta against me. In general, these show a track record of being sloppy, knee-jerk, and aggressive, and trying way too hard to get my way in spite of what others think. And again, I can see how such actions have caused others to view me unfavorably even before the topic ban was issued.

I know this isn't the first time I've been here, and my deletion tactics have been problematic in the past. Ever since I was topic banned, the thought of "how could I have done that better?" was on my mind, and I'd been formulating theories on how I could have approached XFD better. It didn't help that I spent much of 2022 unemployed and I was not in a good mental state because of that. I feel that I am overall in a better state as an editor right now, as to my knowledge I have not had any conflicts with editors in the months since the topic ban. I also feel that I have formulated solutions to keep the previously mentioned problems at bay and take a more measured, less stressful approach to XFD. This is why one such proposal should the topic ban be rescinded was for me to keep a list of articles I intend to nominate, with proof of

WP:BEFORE
being done. I had attempted such a list before the topic ban, but it never got very far and I'm sure I was already too deep in the throes of my angry hasty approach. But now I've had plenty of time in which I feel I have sufficiently cooled down and can tackle a more systematic approach.

I did take some time to try and find sources for some TV articles I had questioned the notability of in the past. In just the course of a few minutes I was able to give Stump the Schwab a source, but found it difficult to find others and tagged it with {{notability}}. Ego Trip's The (White) Rapper Show I trimmed some plot summary out of and added a couple reliable sources which I feel are just enough to assert notability for the show. By comparison, Fast Food Mania did not seem to be a notable show, and I made a post here with my analysis of sourcing. This is the kind of behavior I wish to continue executing, so I can take a more measured approach with more time to present my findings or lack thereof before (if the topic ban is lifted) sending anything to XFD.

Since it was brought up on my talk page, I would like to know: is participating in
WP:DRV (which I honestly forgot even exists) a violation of the topic ban as it stands? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: If the result is to allow me to participate in XFDs but not initiate new ones, what would the conditions be to lift the topic ban entirely? I assume a second appeal after twelve months (the time established in the original topic ban), provided my behavior in the interim stays on point and no further problems arise? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would appreciate some clarity on manners such as de-prodding, WP:REFUND, etc. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: So at what point is this considered passed? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)

A complex list of things you can and can't do is unlikely to gain the favour of the committee - complex restrictions are hard for everybody to remember, complicated to work out whether specific behaviour is permitted or not, and generally easier to accidentally violate. Instead, something like narrowing the scope of the topic ban to allow participation in deletion discussions initiated by other editors but retaining the prohibition on you nominating pages for prod or XFD is more likely to gain favour. Any removal or relaxation though will only happen if you have demonstrated an understanding of why the topic ban was initially placed and your conduct since the ban makes it seem probable that your presence in deletion discussions will not be disruptive. I have not yet looked to see whether both are true. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: your current restriction prohibits you from taking part in "deletion-related discussions", that includes DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to Izno's suggestion, although it would need careful wording, e.g. it should mention explicitly whether they are allowed to discuss the deletion of drafts, and what happens regarding pages moved into or out of a namespace they cannot comment on (for simplicity I would suggest not allowing comments regarding redirects that either are in or which target namespaces they cannot comment on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: wrote I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. I don't think it's clear that the proposed wording does prohibit all of those. I would read topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. as:

  • Clearly prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions at XfD
    • Initiating or closing discussions at DRV
    • Initiating or closing discussions challenging deletion discussion closures at noticeboards
    • Initiating or closing proposals, RFCs and similar discussions about the deletion of pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
    • Adding proposals to delete to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
  • Clearly not prohibiting:
    • Participating in any of the above types of discussion
    • Participating in discussions about challenged closures
    • Responding to queries about deletion discussions or comments left in such discussions
  • Implicity prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions about (mass) draftification
    • Adding proposals to draftify to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
    • Blanking and redirecting
      pages or initiating or closing discussions proposing such
  • Being entirely unclear about:
    • Nominating pages for PROD or speedy deletion
    • Endorsing PRODs placed by others
    • Deprodding or challenging speedy deletions initiated by others
    • Asking for clarification regarding the closure of a deletion discussion
    • Supporting or opposing proposals regarding the deletion or draftification of pages or types of page
    • Asking for deleted pages to be REFUNDed to draft or userspace

Accordingly I would suggest the topic ban be worded more clearly, perhaps something like: TPH is topic banned from:

  • Nominating or proposing pages for deletion or speedy deletion
  • Endorsing or declining proposed or speedy deletion nominations
  • Challenging the closure of a deletion discussion (at DRV or elsewhere)
  • Closing any deletion-related discussion
  • Initiating or closing proposals to delete, speedy delete or draftify (types or classes of) pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)

They explicitly may:

  • Participate in deletion and deletion review discussions.
  • Challenge proposed or speedy deletion nominations by posting on the talk page.
  • Seek clarification regarding the closure of deletion discussions.
  • Request pages be REFUNDed to draft or userspace.

Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The proposed restriction specifies the topic as only initiating or closing deletion discussions which is a lot narrower in my reading than it is in your apparent reading - e.g. PROD and CSD are not "discussions". The current restriction explicitly states "broadly construed" the proposed one does not, it is therefore reasonable to assume that its absence is intentional and significant. Certainly I cannot see any reasonable way to regard participating in deletion review discussions as prohibited by the proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree the word "topic" is irrelevant to my comment because whether TPH is "banned" or "topic banned" from initiating or closing deletion discussions makes no difference to what they are and are not permitted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

It would be reasonable to restore TPH to participation in existing XfDs opened by others, and this will give the community time to see how that interaction goes. That is, a good few months of collegial comments, working towards consensus, finding sourcing or describing its absence, honoring ATDs, and the like would go a long way to demonstrating that TPH is moving past the binary battles of the old school AfDs we both remember. I'm most concerned that AfD participation is too low to sustain good discussions on more open AfDs at a time, and this would prevent that as a problem. I have seen TPH's desire to improve the encyclopedia, despite our being on the opposite sides of a lot of discussions over the years, and I would be pleased to find the dip in participation quality called out in the case was an anomaly in a long-term editor's carer. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I remain of the opinion that the ban from all XFD was overly broad. The FOF for TPH referenced article deletion exclusively. Another alternative stepping stone besides banning from nominations and lifting otherwise would be to retain the ban in these areas (AFD, CSD in main space, RFD in main space, CFD for main space categories?, PROD) while removing it from the other forums. IznoPublic (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

If you do decide to lift this restriction, I'd encourage you to leave a provision allowing an uninvolved administrator to reïmpose it should it become necessary down the road. The appeal is pretty good, but the appeal in 2019 was also pretty good, so while I hope it won't happen, I think it's important to have a failsafe in case things go south again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cunard

I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer a few days ago about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer not to blank and redirect articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between 11 March 2023 and 16 March 2023, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television so am focusing on the redirects of television series articles. I reviewed the first three television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected: My Tiny Terror, Steampunk'd, and Window Warriors. I found sources for these articles and reverted the redirects. I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later. It took me several hours to find sources and expand just three of the 14 television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected.
TenPoundHammer is resuming the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact. TenPoundHammer is continuing to redirect articles despite my 3 March 2024 request to stop the redirects.
I ask that the topic ban be amended to prohibit proposing articles for deletion and to also prohibit
blanking and redirecting pages. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'd prefer to avoid voting for customized, user-specific sanctions – there's either a topic ban or there isn't. Also, no formal sanction should ever be needed to require adherence to the policies against
    personal attacks, harassment or similar behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, TenPoundHammer, and sorry for the slow response. I'm fine with reducing the scope of your topic ban, as for example proposed in the first motion below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ArbCom#Members,* we'd currently need 7 support votes for the motion to pass. There are 5 so far.
    (*This can be more complicated when an arbitrator is generally inactive but decides to join the discussion here, in which case they're "active on the motion" and counted as active here. Irrelevant in the current situation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I am open to the idea of amending the TBAN so that it is a topic ban on initiating deletion discussions rather than a topic ban on deletion discussions as a whole. However, @TenPoundHammer: could you elaborate on how you would approach such deletions discussions differently than in the past? - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not immediately opposed to amending the topic ban following TenPoundHammer's reply above. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My !vote is to modify the TBAN. I think a TBAN of initiating deletion-related discussions (that is, nominating articles for PROD, XfD, etc.) and closing deletion discussions is appropriate, but I am willing to lift their ban on participating in deletion discussions. I would also add the stipulation that any admin can reimpose the TBAN for all deletion discussions if they find that TenPoundHammer has returned to the bludgeoning and harassment conduct that led to the TBAN. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720: I am suggesting that an individual admin could only reinstate for the first 12-18 months. So if no one does in that time, it would have to be reinstated by the committee or community rather than as an individual admin action. If reinstated it would then be indefinite. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to a modification along the lines of what Z1720 suggests (also not opposed to Izno's scope) though I would want the ability for an individual admin to reinstate for 12-18 months given the conduct issues from the case during discussions and the previous failure when a TBAN was removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH: it's probably better for someone who will be on the committee next year to tell you, but I would want at least 12 months of problem free editing and truthfully longer because of what happened previously when a topic banned was repealed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appeal shows the appropriate level of self-reflection and understanding of the problems. I think this is a classic case of a good editor with a blind spot in a particular area. I'm quite happy to consider lifting or loosening the restriction. I'd be happy with either allowing TPH to participate but not initiate, or with lifting completely with a caveat like EW's that means it can be re-imposed with minimal bureaucratic overhead. I could also see my way to supporting something a bit more nuanced if those two options don't gain traction. Not that I doubt TPH's sincerity, but this seems to be a big blind spot and complaints about TPH and AfD stretch back many years (I seem to recall seeing complaints back when I was first starting out 15 years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with modifying the TBAN to permit participating in XfDs (but not starting or closing), with an uninvolved admin being able to reimpose the full tban within the first 12 months. Maxim (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified

TenPoundHammer's topic ban (Remedy 9.1) is modified to read TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. An uninvolved administrator may reimpose a full topic ban on deletion discussions (broadly construed) within the first twelve months.

Support
  1. Feel free to wordsmith. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "topic" removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is fine. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as written. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. (As I'd prefer to avoid supporting user-specific/custom restrictions and TenPoundHammer has understandably asked for how this discussion continues, I'll formally add an oppose vote here so my non-support is properly counted and we have 6 arbitrators who have already voted.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
Generally supportive, but as written I don't think the motion includes PROD, which I strongly believe it should. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one. Ultimately I support largely lifting all restrictions but with the ability of an uninvovled admin to re-impose them. If there are issues with TPH's deletion-related conduct in the future we can look at them then. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the matters it hears. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are broadly construed by default, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. Note: As this is a topic ban, I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that neither CSD nor PROD are deletion discussions, and I'd say that assuming they're included in the original remedy is a bit far-fetched. Regarding "topic" and "broadly construed", the motion is currently demonstrably not clear enough about what is included and what is not. I'll strikethrough "topic" in the motion as it's either irrelevant or confusing or comes with unintended implications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine adding "broadly construed" as it was in the original motion and does allow for less pigeonholing. I would also agree with those above who indicate that the original does not mention CSD or PROD so this one probably should not either. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, now that "topic" is gone and my interpretation of the proposed ban is narrow, I personally would recommend against adding "broadly construed". To decide this, perhaps an example would be needed of behavior that is meant to be (additionally) prohibited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: GamerGate

A rough consensus has been reached that "broadly construed" already includes the proposed extension. For example, Sweet Baby Inc. is covered by the existing scope. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Aquillion at 01:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
GamerGate arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Motion:_Remedy_transfer_to_Gender_and_sexuality_shell_case_(February_2021)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request


Information about amendment request
  • Restoring the GamerGate CTOP (previously discretionary sanctions), separately from the Gender and Sexuality CTOP.


Statement by Aquillion

In 2021, the GamerGate discretionary sanctions (now CTOP) were transferred to a gender-and-sexuality shell case. The intent at the time, I believe, was just to rename it for clarity, not to meaningfully shift what the DS covered; GamerGate itself was declared a gender-related dispute or controversy to avoid this. And it covered most of what was under Gamergate, but it seems to have left a few things uncovered - disruption related to, or stemming from, Gamergate but not to gender and sexuality directly; and disruption on articles that were major focuses of GamerGate's ire without themselves being gender or sexuality. These articles have recently shown disruption similar to what led to the original Gamergate ArbCom case.

Some examples: Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory (see here explaining the connection; it was a major focus of Gamergate back in 2014, and the since-deleted article we had at the time was a focus for essentially the same groups of editors; see also discussion of it here) has seen a bunch of recent disruption, with multiple editors being topic-banned from it as a result.

More recently, and more importantly, Sweet Baby Inc. has been a major focus of disruption over a controversy from the same general group of people, with the people involved directly calling it "GamerGate 2" ([66][67]); a glance at the history there will show that the article is already suffering from heavy edit-warring. It has been semi-protected for two days, but I think it's clear that that alone won't be enough. See also discussion here.

I suggest amending the GamerGate DS case to explicitly restore its CTOP independently from the gender-and-sexuality one. --Aquillion (talk) 01:48, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

I had not seen this request for clarification when I added the CTOP notifications to Sweet Baby Inc.; however I think it's pretty straightforward that it applies here. The WP:GENSEX remedy that says "all edits about, and all pages related to, any gender-related dispute or controversy and associated people" and that "For the avoidance of doubt, GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute or controversy for the purposes of this remedy". That second part is not saying that the article is a gender-related dispute; it's saying that the underlying subject matter of GamerGate itself, is a gender-related dispute for the purposes of this remedy. Since the scope of Controversial Topics are to be "broadly construed" and per the explanatory essay on WP:BROADLY stating that ""Broadly construed" is also used when designating a topic area as a contentious topic. In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether particular content is covered by the scope of a contentious topic (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does it seems pretty straightforward to me that anything related to the GamerGate controversy is covered under the GENSEX CT, as it inherently involves a dispute that is gender-related.

Now, could this all be easily resolved if the Committee issues a clarification? Sure, either more generally as to the scope or specifically with regard to the above article. Do I think that's strictly necessary? No, as I think the existing text already covers this pretty unequivocally. But since clarification wouldn't hurt, go for it I guess. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 08:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th (GamerGate)

I can see both sides of the argument here. Aquillion makes good points that it can be confusing if non-gender related disruption stemming from GamerGate is covered by GENSEX. Swatjester makes a good point that the broadly construed language covers that, and implies that it does. Unfortunately that confusion does provide a potential narrow avenue for disruptive wikilawyering.

As someone who winds up issuing a lot of CT alerts in this content area, it does feel a bit weird to me that I have to add a clarifier after the alert that GamerGate is considered a gender-related dispute, which I feel is necessary to pre-empt any "why are you alerting me for GENSEX?" type of discussions. And I could see some value in there being a GamerGate shell case just to make it explicitly clear that yes, this is considered a CTOP.

But at the same time, GamerGate has been relatively quiet until recently. Yes there's still on-going harassment of some of their former targets (there's a reason why

Sweet Baby Inc stuff could, as demonstrated by the sourcing from Aquillion, represent the start of GamerGate 2, and certainly I've seen a lot of sentiment about that on social media. If this does represent the opening salvo of GG2.0, we likely will start seeing more active and widespread disruption that has some overlaps with the current anti-trans and anti-LGBT+ disruption we see more generally in GENSEX, but also has a number of distinct elements in and of itself that aren't gender or sexuality related, even broadly construed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

GamerGate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: Gender and sexuality

Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Gender and sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:ARBGENDER#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February 2021)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • WP:ARBGENDER#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February 2021)
  • Add
    WP:ARBECR
    as an optional restriction that can be applied on a per-article basis.


Statement by Sideswipe9th

The GENSEX content area currently contains some of the most contentious articles on enwiki. There is an anti-LGBT+

POV pushing and advocating for content changes that go against multiple policies and guidelines. On 12 March 2024, several high follower Twitter accounts began tweeting their displeasure about the article's content, with one canvassing Twitter users to the article talk page (evidence can be emailed to the committee if required). ARBECR would be extremely helpful for this talk page and article, in the same way that it is helpful for combatting disruption on Talk:Israel–Hamas war.

The selective nature of this proposal could put a higher burden on new and patrolling editors than the content area wide version. However this is also something that already affects those editors, where ARBECR is applied to an article whose CT/A-I content is secondary to the primary topic of the article.

To sum up, I think we're pretty far from requiring ARBECR across the entire GENSEX content area. However I think it would be useful for ARBECR to be available as a per-article page restriction as part of the standard set of restrictions available to uninvolved admins in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

To Barkeep: ARBECR confers one additional restriction that standard article protection does not; non-extended-confirmed editors are only allowed to make non-disruptive edit requests (
WP:ARBECR#A1). Since I opened this request, 12 revisions on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. were RD2ed, and the talk page has now been semi-protected for a week (page log). While ARBECR would not prevent talk page BLP violations, it would significantly reduce the potential for them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
To Barkeep: To clarify, are you suggesting an article talk page only variant of ARBECR#A1, with non-EC editors only being permitted to make edit requests on the talk page, while still allowing non-EC editors to participate in discussions about the article at other venues? Would the article also still be extended-confirmed protected? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: When you're saying admin should ECR talk pages, are you meaning admins should
WP:ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
To Barkeep: No worries. In that case, please see mine and Aquillion's points about ECPing talk pages being prohibited by
WP:ATPROT. Extending ARBECR on a per-article basis however can be done without breaching ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
To Barkeep: I suspect extending ARBECR on a per-article basis would be an overall less controversial move to the wider community, than establishing a new ArbCom/CTOP exemption of ATPROT via ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: On evidence for disruption at other noticeboards, an IP editor just made a comment at a RSN discussion on a source publication they wanted added to the Sweet Baby Inc article. That comment has the same type of bad faith accusations and threats for administrative action that were being made on the article talk page prior to it being semi-protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clerks, I'm currently at 715/1000 words. Could I request an additional 250-500 words for back and forth with the committee if it's required? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Primefac: I don't think we're at the tipping point for the entire content area, but we are for specific articles and their talk pages within it. This is why I'm asking for it on a per-article basis, rather than topic wide. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Nil Einne: I would envisage it the same way you have. If Elliot Page was ECRed, it would apply to any venue that specific article is discussed (eg AfD, BLPN, NPOVN, etc). It would not cascade to sub-articles like List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page or any other article/page where Page is mentioned as part of the content. Those other pages would need to have their own ECR protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

In the time that I've been reguarly reviewing the admin noticeboards, RFPP has seen regular requests to protect BLP articles about trans or non-binary people who prefer that standard pronouns not be used. Invariably these do not come out of disputes over the subject's birthplace or nationality—they are, as Sideswipe documents, deliberate misgenderings and deadnamings. Since these biographical issues are unique to this topic area, I have protected them (and tagged the article talk pages) under GENSEX rather than BLP. I have of late taken to RevDel'ing these edits as we would do with edits that use slurs or defamatory language to describe people, and I would also suggest to ArbCom that it encourage this as well.

Sometimes these have spilled over into articles only incidentally related to GENSEX issues, like Cheshire home invasion murders (one perpetrator, convicted of rape in the case, has subsequently transitioned in prison) and more recently Music of Minecraft (one of the two composers is trans) along with the aforementioned Sweet Baby article. I doubt these will be the only ones.

When I protect articles, I generally prefer to start with semi for the shortest duration possible. And that is how I have generally tried to protect these articles. It's good to

assume good faith
on the community's part, that once the little break is over, everyone will be grown up.

But with these articles, enough of them have worked their way up to indef semi or ECP, or been put there by admins less willing to give the community the benefit of the doubt than I am (and looking back at the AE logs, I too have reached the point of long-term and indefinite protection like I recently made to Hannah Gadsby and India Willoughby. Even I will admit that it seems like a mere formality with many of these articles to not start with longer-term protection, because almost every time we get there eventually anyway.

Look at 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships ... we thought last year that since the event was long over we could unprotect it. Instead we had to put two years worth of semi.

I would defy anyone, actually, to find an example of a relatively decent-length article about a trans or non-standard-pronoun person that we've had for some time which hasn't had to be protected like this. Looking at

last year's log for this topic area, I see articles whose protections will expire sometime soon and will likely have to be reprotected (some of which, like Maia arson crimew and Bridget (Guilty Gear), already have been so far this year). Go back another year
, and you'll see the pattern continuing.

I really believe it's time that we include at least misgendering and deadnaming as behavior covered by ARBECR. Maybe it doesn't have to be imposed as soon as the article's created like we have been doing with PIA (at least for articles in that area closely related to the current conflict), but we can definitely give admins the OK to impose it at the first sign of that disruption. It will definitely cut down on admin work down the line, and it seems like it already has been the default posture of some of the reviewing admins for some time now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

I have no objection to any of these proposals although I definitely agree with User:Sideswipe9th that it's better if we allow admins to apply ARBECR as needed rather than apply it to the entire topic area.

BTW,

WP:BEANS but I think the risk is low. Georgina Beyer passed away just over a year ago, but this was well after a lot of the craziness and unless I'm missing something apart from a 7 day semi protection [68] about 2 weeks after her death due to some misgendering, the article seems to have survived relatively without problem despite this lack of protection and being of decent size [69]
. (I mean there early problem reoccured but was resolved via blocking. The problem AFAICT seems to be mostly from editors insisting on removing female and calling her male in edit summaries, although I think at least most of these have stayed away from inserting male into the article.) I think it helped that she was significantly out of the public eye in recent years although I also think her pioneering role is still fairly well recognised within NZ.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(There's another example I can't discuss here for various reasons but could email if anyone is interested which while it is ECP protected, which I don't object to, looking at the circumstances I don't think it really fits into the pattern either.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: and arbs: think we need clarity how per-article ARBECR applies to other pages. For topic level, as I understand ARBECR, it applies everywhere. So editors cannot bring up such issues at BLP/N or other noticeboard nor can they participate in AFDs etc as they can only make edit requests. I feel when disruption moves to another article admins can deal with it as required so isn't an issue but trickier for noticeboards. IMO if article-level ARBECR is applied it should apply not just to the article talk page but to all pages when discussing changes or concerns over that article like with standard ARBECR. Importantly, as I understand it, this technically allows any EC editor to close or revert any discussion by non-EC editors. However it doesn't apply to other articles so ARBECR on Elliot Page would not apply to List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page (but an admin can apply it to both). And it's fine for editors to mention something of relevance at Elliot Page in discussion about the list but suggestions for changing Elliot Page would generally be off-topic on the list talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

  • I don't think really anything more is needed here than something like the community said about the Armenia-Azerbaijan general sanctions, where the liberal use of ECP to combat disruption was explicitly encouraged. As someone who had his name all over the AELOG over the last year about this case, I think de facto we already are using protection pretty liberally to stop bigotry, but an explicit instruction to do so would still be good guidance. Courcelles (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regarding the advantages ARBECR offers traditional protection - it is of course extremely rare for a talk page to be protected, per

WP:ASPERSIONS, general complaints about Wikipedia as a whole, and requests that were obviously not compatible with policy, repeated in every single section to the point of disrupting all other discussion there. ARBECR would let admins place slightly looser but more persistent restrictions on talk pages that would still allow new and unregistered users to make edit requests while limiting the scope of disruption; I don't think that extended-protecting a talk page, by comparison, is a viable long-term solution even if policy allowed it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@
WP:CTOPs, though? I'm not opposed to just "they're already allowed to do it and they probably only need to do it occasionally" - I definitely don't think we need it for the entire topic area, just a few pages that have been the target of persistent off-wiki canvassing that has spilled over onto talk - but I'm not sure admins realize they can (has it ever been done?) So it might require a clarification. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by The Wordsmith

As has been discussed,

WP:ARBECR as the default would have too much collateral damage. Applying 500/30 to individual articles and other pages is already available as part of the standard set, so I don't think there is any change that needs to be made here. If the current protection expires and disruption resumes, admins can impose more long-term protection. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]


Statement by Swatjester

I am generally in favor of giving more tools to administrators trying to address disruption on contentious topics. So I'm aligned with the proposal. In terms of what the language looks like, personally, I agree with Sideswipe in that I'd like to see it as an expansion to the already-authorized list of standard restrictions. This has the benefit of 1) not requiring any change in process to implement, and 2) achieves the "as-needed basis" element without hindering any administrator's ability to escalate straight to it it, if they believe that's necessary. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SWinxy

RE: Primefac. Yes, there would be a negative impact by preemptively locking GENSEX articles under ECP. Small but helpful edits by non-extended confirmed users (and all IPs) at Death of Tyra Hunter would have been prevented from positive changes. This article also has never received protection in the two decades it has been there. But I don't know the extent of the negative implications that a preemptive protection would bring, and how to weigh that against the harm of the status quo. But I do know it would be some hinderance in the pursuit to collaborative encyclopedia building. I prefer having it be the norm that things can go straight to indef ECP if determined necessary. SWinxy (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I would like to ask the opposite question: would there be a significant and/or negative impact if we restricted all pages in this topic area to extended-confirmed editors? As a corollary, if I come across a page with Pending Changes enabled but every IP edit has been reverted, I will often switch it to semiprotection. If PC seems to be keeping out the worst of it but there are productive edits, I generally leave things be. This request seems to be indicating we have a tipping point of a similar nature.
    In other words, are we at this point with the entire topic area, broadly construed, where it is more practical to just prohibit everything, or would we lose out on enough not-bad contributions that we might turn folk away from the area entirely? Primefac (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • re:PF As we just established in the last clarification, this is a large topic area and one whose scope is not always immediately obvious. Both of these would be concerns for me to making ECR default and the evidence we have so far of disruption is not sufficient to overcome those concerns. As for the original request, page protection is already part of the standard set and per the request is being used by admins. I'm not sure how that differs from adding ECR to the standard set for the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I asked the question. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th, @Nil Einne I understand the need to ECR the talk page but any time we do ECR in wider ways we get lots of requests for clarifications. So "You can't discuss this article at a noticeboard but can discuss a related article" is bound to create more of these requests and so I'm still back to "let admins use the authority they already have" or making clear, perhaps just through clarification here or perhaps through motion, that talk page ECR is definitely appropriate in this topic area before trying some kind of more sweeping solution. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sideswipe: I'm suggesting "admin should ECR talk pages when they have been disrupted". Is there evidence of noticeboard disruption from non-ECR editors? If so I don't think that evidence has been presented yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sideswipe: Yes I'm admittedly using ECP and ECR interchangeably and I shouldn't. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conceptually it's important to remember that Contentious Topic procedures are a delegated grant of ArbCom's authority, in this case to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This is why we ArbCom can act in ways that are an
    exemption to consensus. For instance there is a consensus, codified through policy, that says when an editor may be blocked. Contentious topic overrules that consensus and provides other criteria. There is a consensus against protecting article talk pages. As shown with ECR, ArbCom can overrule that consensus and provide other criteria. So WP:ATPROT doesn't strike me as some special barrier. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The exception already exists. Nothing new is being established. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion good news is that this very discussion can lead to that clarification. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

Initiated by Robert McClenon at 23:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACossde&diff=1214440521&oldid=1212446773

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APetextrodon&diff=1214440584&oldid=1212279589

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOz346&diff=1214440640&oldid=1210896395

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUtoD&diff=1214440697&oldid=1214316349


Information about amendment request
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation
  • Add Sri Lanka to list of countries within scope of contentious topic.


Statement by Robert McClenon

Sri Lanka has a common cultural history with India, and a common political history with India including British rule in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century and resistance to British rule.

Disputes over Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Civil War are common

I have just failed a dispute at

DRN over an atrocity that was a prelude to the Sri Lankan Civil War
:


Declined Arbitration Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1159486635#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (10 June 2023)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1158663393#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces (5 June 2023)

Archived Disputes at

WP:ANI

Archived Disputes at

WP:DRN

Explanation and Clarification

I thank

Request for Arbitration, but it seems less difficult to expand the area of the existing designation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by Cossde

Statement by Petextrodon

Statement by Oz346

Due to the failure of this discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom

I have opened up a RFC. I believe that RFC have a much higher chance of solving these disputes, due to the input of multiple voices, and will be probably be less time consuming for all involved. Oz346 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UtoD

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329

SMcCandlish

SMcCandlish is reminded to remain civil in MOS discussions, that they remain under sanction, and that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning SMcCandlish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBATC
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 13:15, 22 February 2024 But thanks for making it clear that your goal is to try to abuse process to censor someone who disagreed with you on some trivial style matter. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
  2. 13:15, 22 February 2024 Jessintime simply try to reflexively censor every word of that and Jessintime has done nothing but attempt to suppress, only abused WP:AN process to make false accusations and try to get an admin corps to help them "win" a content dispute they refuse to substantively engage in resolving. said in a reply to another editor, about Jessintime.
  3. 13:15, 22 February 2024 you sure display a complete disregard for process when it suits your partisan preferences said as a reply to Hey man im josh
  4. 21:54, 22 February 2024 Hipocrisy doesn't suit you. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
  5. 03:10, 23 February 2024 But various people love to drag out any argument if style, titles, MoS, AT, or RM are involved in any way, for some damned reason. general comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS and AT.
  6. 03:34, 23 February 2024 That said, "questioning the MoS" is tellingly battlegroundy wording. said as a reply to Hey man im josh.
  7. 03:34, 23 February 2024 Imagine people engaging in these sorts of defy-until-I-die antics, complete with blatant canvassing at firehose levels, sourcing denial and falsification, a putsch to try to prevent the community being able to examine the underlying question via RfC genera comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. WP:MOS
    .
If
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
)
  • Under active sanction in the topic area, see above
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There's some pretty textbook violations of

WP:AGF here, both at individual editors (Hey man im josh and Jessintime), as well as identifiable groups of editors (those who edit the MOS and get into disputes). Not sure what sanctions are appropriate here, but at minimum I'd suggest SMcCandlish strike these comments and apologise to the named editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Also, this isn't the only recent examples of SMcCandlish assuming bad faith in discussions relating to parts of the MOS.
  1. At 00:33, 13 January 2024 he said We have two extremely entrenched camps demanding the deadnames either be entirely suppressed, or that they always be included if sourceable. Neither camp is going to shut up and go away, and will do everything in their power to wikilawyer their way to
    victory. in the current RfC on MOS:GENDERID
  2. At 10:39, 24 July 2023 he said a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway in a discussion about neopronouns in MOS:GENDERID. Multiple editors asked him to strike the comments as derisive about fellow editors, he refused to do so.
  3. At 23:38, 24 July 2023 he said I'm not responsible for how other people bend over backwards to misinterpret things and then to cast people they disagree with on something as ideological "enemies". I will not be browbeaten into self-censoring on a matter like this. which one editor described as a full-throttle descent into assumptions of bad faith. Which he then responded with a personal attack I'm just concerned about more than one editor doing it in more than one direction, while you're only apparently concerned with a single editor doing it in a direction that doesn't agree with your position.
I'm concerned that SMcCandlish's ongoing contributions to MOS related discussions simply brings more heat than light. The repeated accusations and implications of bad faith about other editors do not help when discussing guidelines that crossover between two CTOP areas (GENSEX and CT/MOS). Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re Johnuniq: SMcCandlish's conduct in that discussion is emblematic of a much broader long term issue of incivility and accusations of bad faith from him, sometimes directed at individual editors and sometimes directed at identifiable groups. He has been under active sanction for this issue, in this specific CTOP area, for the last decade. Sooner or later, something has to give. Either he needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions, or he needs to not participate in them. I would prefer the former, as his institutional knowledge and insight into the guidelines can be helpful. For me, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm loathe to get into a back and forth with the person I'm filing a request about, however. SMcCandlish you said Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV is an observation lots of us make, all the time. ... there is no fault in saying so. Ordinarily you are correct, people make remarks on POV pushers and wikilayers all the time, however for since
WP:MOS. Other people might be able to say it, you are certainly allowed to think it, but you cannot by the plain reading of the sanction actually say it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
BilledMammal Regardless of whether it should or should not be split off into its own guideline, or be merged into another one, for the moment it is part of the MOS. Unless and until it is moved elsewhere, discussions about the wording of it are in scope of ARBATC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a few more diffs that demonstrate the same issue from other discussions, unrelated to the one at AN:
  • 08:05, 8 January 2024 you clearly should not be editing material on WP about historical subjects because you fundamentally misunderstand how to do encyclopedic writing in that topic area. and Randomly firehosing a stream of mutually exclusive "reasons" in a Gish gallop manner to try wear out the opposition is not going to work. directed towards Andrew Lancaster
  • 09:38, 8 January 2024 You do not appear to have a firm grasp on the subject and seem to be just opininating for the sake of opinionating, based on incorrect assumptions directed towards Andrew Lancaster
  • 07:38, 2 December 2023 specifically because activists will use it to editwar against inclusion of them anywhere on the basis that it "is not required" said a discussion about the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary people, about an identifiable group of editors.
  • 02:06, 3 August 2023 a separate page on this would be highly likely to develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION. about editors who have an interest in shaping and enforcing MOS:GENDERID.
The first two are direct comments about an individual editor, the last two are about identifiable groups of editors. All are assuming bad faith about their respective targets, and the first two are bordering on incivility and personal attacks. I also want to re-emphasise, the current discussion at AN is just the straw that broke the camel's back, and emblematic of a broader problem stretching for years across the whole MOS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the admins who are suggesting postponing this until the conclusion of the AN thread, respectfully that thread is about a different issue. While I have provided diffs from it, they are there to illustrate a deeper, longstanding behavioural problem, that SMcCandlish has been under active sanction for for the last decade. The diffs I have provided are there to demonstrate instances where SMcCandlish has violated the terms of the sanction he is under. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If SMcCandlish continues following with what he's said on my talk page, about re-evaluating and changing his approach so that this type of misunderstanding stops happening, I would be content with a reminder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning SMcCandlish

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by SMcCandlish

Background: I'd made observations at an essay I wrote. Jessintime reverted it all with grandstanding, subjective rationale of "inappropriate", with evidenceless bad-faith-assumptive accusation of GAMING. I un-reverted (with curt comment). Instead of normal discussion, Jessintime went to AN with same accusation: "attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above".

WP:GAMING is specifically defined as bad-faith activity. Jessintime's partisan in said review
.

I was unnecessarily testy to Jessintime, my tone poor and flippant. I should've been the one to open talk-page discussion, though BRD's a rather conventionalized essay, not required. At AN, I offered to userspace the essay. Also suggested people're welcome to MfD it to that end (just not misuse AN as "pseudo-MfD"). Repeatedly welcomed editors to raise issues in talk toward wording changes. Any such solution is fine. Tempest in a teapot. It's not AN/AE material, just routine, temporary content-dispute. Apologized to Jessintime for flippancy and venty response at AN (common there, but nevertheless more heat than light) [70]. Did major tone edit to the entire essay; should address Jessintime's concern.

[SMcCandlish] needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions: Fair enough. I can veer from brusque to wordy, argue forcefully. But there's assumption I'm "angry". Not sure what to do about that, what approach/discourse adjustments to make. Made many over the years, so I am open to such advice. There must be a better way to go about it than I have been, since I've clearly upset some people.

Colin's

first law of holes
advice is right; no one'll be impressed by me acting butthurt about a finger being pointed or a concern raised. Not angry about anything, just weary. Having a momentary "everyone just STFU about style stuff and go do something else!" reaction, instead of taking a breath, reapproaching from a chill position, wasn't the cool head Colin advises.

Sideswipe9th's initial diffs:

  1. It's process-abusive to try to turn AN into psudo-MfD, especially when involved in a content dispute (RfC, subject of close review) with author of esssay HMIJ would suppress (more content dispute). Especially unproductive, since discussion at essay and productive content revision are happening – proper process, working like normal.
  2. All correct; Jessintime did no discussion, AGF,
    WP:IDONTLIKEIT
    , evidenceless accusation.
  3. HMIJ (among others) "questioned the legitimacy of" the RfC. (Theory: community barred from addressing article-titles questions except via RM, a view the close rejected). Yet HMIJ wanted to bypass MfD process to get desired result. There's a marked difference here (aside from opposition-silencing): The VPPOL RfC opened (per
    WP:CONSENUS#By_soliciting_outside_opinions) after RM/MR consensus failure then new dispute flareup. Contrast: no attempt by Jessintime to discuss, just rushed to AN, them HMIJ dogpiled to misuse AN to suppress entire essay, not just material Jessintime criticized. (Seemed vindictive, excessive.) AN is late- not first-stage DR. WP:Process is important
    not only when it suits personal interest.
  4. "Hypocrisy" isn't the sweetest word, but not verboten. Replaced it anyway, as unnessarily testy.
  5. Correct observation; community has a bad habit of tolerating, even encouraging, protracted style battlegrounding; drain on editorial productivity and goodwill. Not aspersion-casting, just noting it happens, for unclear reasons (though
    there are hypotheses
    ). None of this was about HMIJ. It's about a wiki-social issue.
  6. Post-RfC actions nothwithstanding, I was observing strong partisanship during RfC – dubious "questioning the MoS" and "legitimacy" of community even being able to have the RfC, then providing pro-capitals sourcing (start here), which didn't stand up to examination. Criticizing "questioning the MoS" as battlegroundy tone seemed reasonable given this history. And the whole comment is wry (HIMJ: "my reply was a bit tongue in cheek"; okay for HMIJ but not me?). Still, I don't like being misinterpreted and don't want to misinterpret; moderated that material.
  7. Unnecessary adjectives, but demonstrated factual at RfC page: Canvassing diffed. Incorrect claims about sources disproven by multiple editors. Top 1/3 of page is the canvassed parties trying to derail RfC.

Later diffs from Sideswipe9th (in lengthy content dispute with me elsewhere):

  1. Observing PoV pushing exists and likely to continue on both sides of an issue is an observation everyone makes. We
    WP:WIKILAWYER
    exists). No fault in saying so.
  2. Correct observation; trans/enby community, broadly, committed to defying imposed categorization/labeling of others' identities. If some particular neopronouns became something of a doctrinaire set, then many would avoid them because they became assumptive labels. Someone didn't like the word "delight", and accused of being derisive, when it was lighthearted approval of resistance. Also was't "about fellow editors". If say "Lots of Scots (and diaspora) don't like being called 'Scotch'", that's not "about editors"; some may turn out to fall into that category, but that'll be entirely incidental.
  3. Saying how something appears to me isn't a claim about reality of someone's viewpoint, motivations. Yes, I object to blind assumption that if there could possibly be a negative interpretation, that the intended or objective meaning must be that negative. By its nature, it leans bad-faith-assumptive. (Don't think it's consciously intended. Probably also some subculture clash.)

On more HMIJ comments: Yes, I bludgeoned as did several on both sides. Not an ideal discussion. I'll endeavor to do better. But mixing "bludgeon" into "bad faith" sentence makes for a claim that posting too often is bad-faith (i.e., HMIJ ABFs while accusing me of ABFing). Elephant in HMIJ's (and Sideswipe9th's) room: consistently mislabeling criticism of actions/statements as ABF. It's not. It's disagreement with action/statement. Not judgment as a person, expression of defaulting to distrust, etc. AN[I] consists of little but such inter-editor kvetching. "[C]ompletely irrelevant discussions": nope, deeply intertwined in a causal chain. The irrelevant ones were things like Sideswipe9th diffing me using a word she doesn't like months ago in unrelated subject. No room to address HMIJ's closing invective; its punitive heat didn't assuage the "silence opponent in content disagreement" feel.

Peace is better. Update: Being sensitive to negative interpretations, false accusations, I tone-revised the statements HMIJ objected to [71]; can go further or strike something if needed. I may defend my rationale for writing something, and it not being ABF, but have no interest in retaining material felt hurtful. HMIJ, please do read the above, try to understand my perspective as I have yours. E.g., why I found some of your statements alarming or antagonistic (not just toward me but to consensus formation/process, which matters more).

Sideswipe9th's hypothesis, that "Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV" = ABF, isn't sustainable. ABF about an editor (or group thereof) isn't equivalent to observing bare fact that PoV pushers exist and will (by definition) push PoVs. Observation and assumption aren't synonyms. Discussed in detail in usertalk.

The Wordsmith: "AGF/ABF" don't get to mean whatever someone chooses. Definition at

personal attack
. Repeatedly asserting something one objects to is ABF assumes, insists on, a motivation antithetical to the community, yet is evidence-free and a pretense at mindreading.

Update, after extensive HMIJ and Sideswipe9th usertalk discussion (as Drmies advised), Sideswipe9th posted (quoting me at start):

The gist of my point at your own talk page is that your insistence that such observations by me are "assuming bad faith" is off-base; they come nowhere near the definition of that. Sure, but as I've said just a few moments ago on my own talk page, this sort of misinterpretation of your observations as being one of bad faith seem to keep happening to you, from all manner of unconnected editors. Perhaps there is a reason for that?

Reason[s] are under discussion, reflection. The AE opener appears to have accepted that while I wasn't as civil as I needed to be (some of that in rather old diffs), it wasn't bad-faith assumption.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  09:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (revised a bunch of times to address incoming comments and developments, but keep under 1500 words without an extension)[reply]

Statement by Colin

I think the opening diffs of this complaint are unfair in that they don't supply context for the hostile remarks. The context is that SMcCandlish got his ass dragged to ANI by Jessintime and explicitly accused of "an attempt to

game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". The disputed addition
to the so-called "Manual of Style extended FAQ" is indeed highly problematic, inflammatory and verging on rant (e.g. "If you are going around looking for potential exceptions to push against any MoS rule, please find something more productive to do."), but dealing with that by going straight to ANI would I think understandably have got any editor angry and hostile in their response.

The context is necessary as comments about other editors are made all the time at AN/I. While some comments may indeed be uncivil and nasty and so on, making a comment about another editor and one's perceptions about their behaviour is expected there (as seen by Jessintime's accusation of SMcCandlish gaming the system). Hostile negative comments about another editor are absolutely typical in the case where the community is about to sanction that editor at ANI. So context is needed.

Reading many of the hostile remarks, I'm struck by the phrase "When you are in a hole, stop digging". That, if SMcCandlish is still angry, then perhaps best to leave things with "I concede my tone in response was poor", etc, and leave others to examine the behaviour of all users in that ANI discussion.

Augmenting a so called MOS FAQ with rants about other editors behaviour, which one has only just witnessed and vocally publicly disapproved of, was not wise IMO. SMcCandlish has written useful essays and has first class knowledge of how MoS works. But a cool head is needed to write a good essay. The general feeling of that ANI dispute was that the MOS FAQ has too much personal moan and note enough of a succinct frequently-asked-questions-with-pithy-answers help page. Can this be better avoided in future? One thought would be that any page that appears to be a general advice (like a MoS FAQ essay would be viewed as) should be up-front collaboratively written. That SMcCandlish find a partner to write it, who would maybe help spot when it is getting too personal-viewpointy and too angry? -- Colin°Talk 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jessintime

I would like to clarify my statement at AN in regards to "gaming." My belief upon seeing the edit summary used "New section based on various talk-page discussions (user talk, RfCs, RM disputes, etc.)" [72] and the actual content added (which almost everyone at AN has since taken issue with) was that SMcCandlish was effectively attempting to amend a purported part of the MOS amid an article title dispute currently being reviewed at AN. This seemed to run afoul of

WP:POINTY to nominate it myself given my prior revert. Jessintime (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by Hey man im josh

Just taking a moment to note that I'm writing something up to respond with. I know it's unlikely this gets closed before then, but I have an unreasonable fear it will be, so I'm just putting this placeholder here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble fitting my reply in under 500 words. Is there any chance an admin could approve me for more than 500? I'll keep working on cutting this down in the mean time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, 5 of the 7 diffs are directed at me… guess I’m involved whether I like it or not. Responding to SMcCandlish’s reply about the diffs:

  • Diff 1 – You’ve skirted around the actual diff and made a statement about the general AN, not about the fact that you made a pointed bad faith accusatory comment directed at me. What I don’t understand, and what makes this that much more inappropriate, is that we’re not in any content dispute! Your unsubstantiated statement about me remains unstricken.
  • Diff 3 – Your reply is a bad faith accusation on top of a previous bad faith accusation. I did not try to derail a conversation. I questioned the legitimacy of the venue for the discussion, the exact same thing you’re doing in your reply, and I accepted the outcome of the RfC.
  • Diff 4 – I was, generally, not participating in the RfC thread referenced, so this reply felt inappropriate given that, ironically, you were trying to argue against that venue for the discussion, similar to what I did at the RfC. I admit that my reply was a bit tongue in cheek.
  • Diff 5 – Again, you fail to recognize what you’re writing as bad faith, including accusing me of trying to go after you. I find it strange that you accuse others of having a battleground mentality when you’ve benefited grateful from the community’s tolerance towards your frequent bludgeoning of discussions. I had never felt the need to take a Wikibreak until I dealt with that MOS discussion in which you responded to every single person who did not agree with you. That discussion drained me more than anything else on Wiki ever has. Not because of the outcome, but because it felt ridiculous that there were 3 people who wrote 50+ comments each who drowned out any possibility of constructive discussion.
  • Diff 6 – Also correct, especially as to that editor's protracted pro-capitalization activities in the topic in question. – Continued bad faith and unsubstantiated accusations. You’re dragging up completely irrelevant discussions and deflecting from the matter at hand in this response. I want to dispel your misguided notion that you continue to repeat. I moved nearly 400 pages to downcase “Draft” to draft”, I proposed all of the appropriate categories for renaming, and I’m working on an AWB configuration to deal with the 40,000+ pages that need to have draft downcased now. I have NOT made any type of argument or attempt to or overturn the close and I’ve been pushing hard for people to move on. I also told you roughly the same thing yesterday. Despite this, you continue to cast aspersions in my direction. Wordsmith (here) and Cbl62 (here) have both praised my post-close behaviour in enacting the changes.
  • Diff 7 – An irrelevant to discussion to bring up, but people had valid concerns. I myself have said I had a false belief that the RfC was not going to be binding and that I personally feel a weight of responsibility for it how it turned out because I parroted this belief.

What I’m seeing in this AE is further doubling down by SMC. There are very clear pattern of long-term issues in how they approach discussions and handle their temper, and I fear that without a formal warning or punishment this type of behavior will only continue until addressed. I understand these methods may have “won” discussions but they're not healthy. It's literally a meme that people would rather deal with Israel–Palestine discussions as opposed to MOS, and I think SMC’s conduct in said discussions is a key reason why people are not involved in that area. They’re a large part of it and their behaviour needs to be addressed in some way, otherwise we’re sending a message that this type of behaviour is allowed. They clearly care about Wikipedia, but the damage they’re doing may have gotten to the point that it’s outweighing the positives. We need them to take some time to To be clear, I do not want SMC blocked indefinitely. It's clear they care about the quality of Wikipedia but the way they go about things has been causing harm for a while. The funny thing is it's not even them being wrong, they’re usually right, it's the approach, badgering, and instant bad faith assumptions I've witnessed constantly over the last couple months. They need to be told the way they conduct themselves is not appropriate, spend some time self reflecting on how their behaviour and words come across, and then hopefully come back as a productive editor.

Also, it'd be appreciated if they could strike several of their comments directed at me and acknowledge how their behaviour has come across. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: I did say that a month ago. In response, SMC repeated that it was appropriate. I disagreed until the close, when Wordsmith determined it was. I wrongly parroted the belief it wasn't and I believe that negatively affected participation, which I regret. My POV isn't the same as it was back then because I've spent a lot of time chatting with a few other admins who helped me to see things differently. That's why my comment said we should focus on the validity and content of the discussion, with a tongue in cheek twist. I figure it's better to let a closer determine whether it's appropriate instead of replying with that to everybody, derailing the conversation. Never the less, a tongue in cheek response against someone who views you as an adversary is not a good way to be productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting a word extension so that I may continue to respond tomorrow when I get time to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BilledMammal

I just wanted to comment to first point out that whether

MOS:DEADNAME
is really part of the MOS or is instead mislabeled is a matter of a debate; Sideswipe, for example, has argued that it should be seen as, and given the weight of, BLP policy. I would be very hesitant to group alleged misbehavior related to that policy with alleged misbehavior related to the MOS.

I have little opinion on the broader topic, but I do want to comment on Hipocrisy doesn't suit you. Editors switching their position based solely on their POV is an issue, and it is appropriate to call it out in an appropriate forum when it is obvious. In this case, SMcCandlish made that response to the comment RFCs are also not the standard place for move discussions, but sometimes the validity and content of a discussion outweighs the venue it's at, exactly one month after Hey man im josh said A rm discussion needs to take place and nothing in this discussion is binding in any sense - arguing that an RfC is not suitable to move an a page to the extent that it is not and cannot be binding.

It was appropriate, and not an assumption of bad faith, for SMcCandlish to call out the double standards, although they could have been less blunt about it. 22:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I have just two narrow comments because I haven't taken a deep dive to learn the overall situation. On is on accusations of violating wp:AGF. WP:AGF is (rightly so) just a guideline and not a policy because is more of a general principle, and thus is broad and vague enough to be interpret-able to say that some common, logical and correct behaviors are wrong. Second, the complaint really doesn't make any case, it just relies on extracted out-of-context quotes to establish the complaint, which they don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drmies

SMcCandlish, Hey Man, Sidewsipe--you all are among some of the most helpful and positive editors here. Please try to find a way to work this out. Acroterion and I would host you in our NYC parlor with coffee and pastries, but we have commitments elsewhere--please think of how much you all have meant to this project, and how much it has meant to you, and talk it over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Apaugasma

I did not know about the AE restriction prohibiting SMcCandlish from making bad faith assumptions in MOS-related discussions, but exactly this happened to me back in September.

After previously having raised a concern in a MOS discussion that my approach to sources might be cherry-picking, SMcCandlish posted notifications to VPP and NPOVN which flatly stated involves [...]

WP:CHERRYPICKING. I asked on their talk page to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications (full discussion). Despite the fact that on the MOS talk page I had already come up with a new approach to sources that explicitly addressed the cherry-picking concerns, SMcCandlish declined to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications, commenting If someone individually chooses to identify with the term CHERRYPICKING and be offended by mention of that rule, that probably says much more about what they've been writing than about what I wrote.[73] The discussion only went downhill from there, with remarks like you are not the only person making "do it because sources I like do it" arguments,[74] and I don't think you understand what "cherry-picking" even means.[75]

Meanwhile on the MOS talk page, SMcCandlish misinterpreted a Workshop proposal I made and concluded from this that This "workshop" subsection is simply an excuse to ignore all the concerns raised in the main section of this discussion.[76] When I pointed out that they had misread the proposal with an explicit invitation to discuss at my talk,[77] they doubled down insisting they did not misread, and repeated once more that I was just Digging up examples that specifically support your viewpoint.[78] The type of misinterpretation here (assuming I want the MOS to recommend writing about Muhammad as "holy", while of course the text under discussion is about restricting such expressions) speaks a lot to the underlying ABF issues.

Next, when I criticized a different, ngrams-based type of evidence SMcCandlish had presented for their position, they replied I suspect you did not actually look at the ngrams at all, and have just blindly assumed they are searches for "Muhammad" [79] After some further attempts at explaining why the evidence doesn't work, they replied that my explanations are mere meaningless hand-waving and that everyone here understands that. I strongly suspect that you do as well, since the alternative is that simply have no understanding at all of what aggregate data is and how basic statistics works.[80] I explicitly asked SMcCandlish to take a break, which seems to have worked, but I'm sure that if they had not assumed some kind of intentional obfuscation (or ignorance) on my part they would have much sooner understood what I was trying to say.

Since this incident I have removed all MOS pages from my watch list, because I simply do not want be confronted with such behavior. In general I have decided to spend a lot less time on WP, and this incident has been a catalyst in that decision. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: "shut this down"? I may be misunderstanding, but this really feels dismissive of the issues I raised, as if they were merely piling-on in some free-for-all. I would have raised this in its own report if I had known about the restriction (i.e. that it's not just me, that the ABF is a long-term issue). I get that AE can be a bit of a drag, but at least some comment on what happened here would be welcome. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ) 15:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku

Following edit tool stats indicated prominent influence of User:SMcCandlish

1)

WP:VPP tops in number of edits 958 (14.9%); tops in added text 752,054 (19.6%) Ref tool

2)

WP:MOS Tops in Edit; Tops in number of Edit 1,005 (24.3%) In added text 3rd position 97,646 (13.5%) Ref tool

3) WT:MOS Tops in number of edits 5,276 (36.9%); Tops in added text 4,790,959 (53.4%) Ref tool

I have had some small experience of conversing with the User (but not recent one). Since then I prefer to learn from the experienced users. If experienced influential users show good faith towards other well meaning users and show a little more accommodation can be more helpful in achieving the Wikipedia's goals. Bookku (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

Interesting that this thread is still open even as SMcCandlish has been assuming bad faith at my user page. (User talk:Elinruby#And on and on and on).

TL;DR I pinged him in an ANI thread looking for confirmation of an Arbcom request he filed. The ANI involved a mistaken new user who found out they were mistaken and retracted the whole thing. SMcCandlish posted some discussion to my talk page about the need for civility. I responded at some length to his mistaken assumptions about the thread and pointing out that he had made the same Arbcom request also based on an assumption of bad faith (about someone else) but that I had supported it anyway because the e-e CT needs more sourcing restrictions in my opinion.

He doubled down a couple of hours ago, still apparently without reading the thread, and said I wasn't going to dig into it, and my only purpose here was to recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach. At the risk of repeating myself, the entire complaint that this comment is about was retracted once the new editor learned that contentious topic alerts and 3RR notifications do not constitute personal attacks.

I have no opinion about the MoS dispute except that I fervently wish editors would pick something and move on.

that is all Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk: I would just like to point out that the behaviour I discuss above has happened since The Wordsmith and Seraphimblade suggested a reminder, which indicates to me that an informal reminder may not be effective. It stopped once I posted here but the next time it occurs the target may not have an open AE thread to post to. Unless of course you all don't think that lecturing an editor on civility after they were dragged to an ANI thread that explicitly found no evidence of such a problem is not an assumption of bad faith in a CT area. If that is the case, huh, I think I disagree but I bow to your judgement. I realize that he is considered a valuable editor in the MoS topic area, and this is not MoS, but nonetheless. While I approve of his Arbcom request, it was made on the basis of imaginary anti-Semitism and created a situation where editors in the topic area of the Lithuanian Holocaust are forced to explain that no really, the topic really does fall under the Anti-Semitism in Poland Arbcom decision, so apart from the editor who felt a need to change his name, there is a long-lasting problem that was created along with the motion. (Does this Arbcom motion make me sound crazy?)
I am not suggesting we burn him at the stake. My suggestion would be a logged warning, to help him remember. Elinruby (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I please have a short word extension to agree with Apaugasma? I will be succinct. I am right at 50O words right now. And don't see much to cut. Courcelles' response raises some questions that I would like to speak to. 'While this case was open: SMcCandlish has been blundering around making accusations in a Holocaust topic, and his previous unfounded accusations of bad faith in the topic were within the past three months. Hardly the stuff of misty legend. Perhaps we need some diffs rather than a post that summarizes another post that summarizes two ANI and one misquoted AE proceedings. Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not advocating an EE sanction but it's an additional reason to have taken more care. I still suggest a logged warning, and oppose dismissing a decade of behaviour. It has also occurred outside MoS, so I ask that we not add a "in the MoS topic area" scope.

Talk page summary

SM:"Focus on content (in the article, and in claims in the talk page) not on the editor who wrote it."19:50, 3 March

Everyone involved says he misunderstood
  • me: "Massive kudos... to Star Mississippi and P-Makoto for actually clicking the freaking links ... required notifications and ...we are supposed to use academic sources, why are you reverting?"
  • Closing admin: "I read the complaint (and the revised one) x 3 and I still have no idea what they perceived your wrong action to be"
  • ANI OP: "Elinruby is basically right! I was too defensive"
  • SM: "recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach" 08:44, 4 March

Noticeboard background: an AE complaint of "removal or concealment of the history of Lithuanian collaboration" ended in a warning for getting angry at the accusation. ("inappropriate remarks"). A later ANI complaint omits the outcome and says the editor "returned to his practices".

  • At 09:35, 6 December 2023 SMcCandlish says "We put a stop to whitewashing and related disruption about the Nazis in one country, so the PoV pushers have simply jumped ship to a neighboring country instead."  
  • Many refutations later at 04:30, 16 December 2023 he says "disruption has simply moved one country over but is essentially the same Nazi-whitewashing issue."

Not a listener.Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 12:04 March 11 Still making remarks about editors, thinks issue is that others lack a sense of humor. (I am uninvolved.) Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I've only just become aware this request was open, so apologies for the late response but based on the evidence presented, especially by Apaugasma and Elinruby (and evidence I would have presented if I'd known about this earlier) that this is an ongoing problem that has not stopped since this AE thread was opened I do not thing a simple reminder is sufficient. It is plausible that they forgot about their restriction at first (although nobody should require a reminder to not assume bad faith, especially when doing so has been called out by multiple people in multiple discussions), but it is not plausible they forgot it again since it was brought here. In my view a logged warning is the minimum appropriate level of sanction. A block would be excessive, but adding something enforceable to the restriction would not be - perhaps allowing uninvolved administrators to ban them from any discussion which they assume bad faith and/or mischaracterise the arguments of others (in any manner which is not clearly a genuine misunderstanding)? Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should not be allowed to just idle out without a formal closure. Do uninvolved admins want more diffs or is there enough to demonstrate the pattern of behaviour? Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SMcCandlish

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Isn't
    WP:BIKESHED issue but things would have to be quite extreme before opening a request here while an admin noticeboard discussion was ongoing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I agree with Sideswipe9th — this is a false equivalency. El_C 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that SMcCandlish has acknowledged his poor reaction and that the ANI discussion is ongoing, I'm not sure action is needed here. However, SMcCandlish is at roughly 2100 words in his statement. @SMcCandlish: Please trim your statement to under 1500 words. Considering how much of the text is discussing Hey man im josh, an extension for him to 1000 is granted. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting here that Sideswipe9th has requested and been granted a 500 word extension to respond to recent updates.[81] In the future, please try to keep all requests on this page for the sake of transparency. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Hey man im josh: 500 word extension granted, but I'll say that we're careening towards absurdity with these word counts for what doesn't seem like a very complex issue. Let's all try to keep it brief from this point. I also agree with Seraphimblade that we probably don't need this parallel discussion unless the ANI thread goes pear shaped. However, I'm concerned by the implications of the 2013 editing restriction that seems to still be active. The WordsmithTalk to me 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't love the same thing being discussed at the same time in multiple venues. I would favor closing this since there was already an ongoing AN discussion, and then if someone thinks there's something still unresolved after the AN thread is closed to discuss here, we can do that afterwards. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seraphimblade's suggestion seems reasonable to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be fine putting this request on hold until the ANI thread resolves. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm assuming you mean the AN thread? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, that's the thread. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've now had a few days, and the AN thread has died down.
    SMCCandlish has acknowledged his conduct issue. Do we still need this open? It seems like the editing restriction is still active, so there could be a violation here. It was long ago and I can accept on good faith that it was forgotten, so I don't think anything stricter than a reminder is warranted here. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I think that serves as well as anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be OK closing this with a reminder about that restriction. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur. Someone please shut this down unless an uninvolved admin comes by soon arguing differently. (I might do it later this afternoon if no one else does.) Courcelles (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we may need a little more time. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the new diffs presented, I would have been supportive of upgrading the reminder to a logged warning. However, the discussion at
    WP:MOS, where these edits would seem out of scope. I'm not seeing enough here to warrant a sanction or logged warning for Eastern Europe. Adding a sentence to the "reminder" that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia should be enough there. @Elinruby: 300 word extension granted, since it doesn't seem like you've had one already. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    That seems fair to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen

Appeal declined. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see

WP:UNINVOLVED
).

Appealing user
Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
This concerns an indefinite site block as an AE action by Galobtter at [82]. Another matter at AE was called a "related action" [83].
Administrator imposing the sanction
Galobtter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
Galobtter indicated awareness here

Statement by Sennalen

The block violated WP:Blocking policy.

  • Blocking for any amount of time was not a neccessary measure to prevent disruption.
  • An indefinite site block was punitive and grossly disproportionate.

Some well-meaning but misplaced concerns were raised about the

WP:CLEANSTART policy. It is not required to notify anyone when making a clean start. The policy page's advice about not editing in controversial topics pertained to avoiding past misdeeds, which was not a circumstance that pertained to me. Bradv
confirmed that I was not under any prior sanctions and that I have a legitimate reason not to disclose my former account name.

Disruption was alleged in multiple CTOPs, but all of the actions attributed to me either did not take place or do not constitute disruptions according to Wikipedia policy. There is no cause to believe I will cause disruption at a later time.

In the course of that filing, Tamzin alleged I had "pushed racist pseudoscience" in March 2023 at [84]. That's me being an outside respondent to an RfC in a CTOP I had no involvement in before or since. I reject any connection between race and IQ. There was nothing either racist or pseudoscientific in my responses. I argued for following best sources and Wikipedia policies. There has been no explanation of what I'm supposed to be answering for, or how I might supposedly be disruptive regarding it in the future.
  • I brought an AE request about editors who had refused to discuss their content deletions about Covid-19. It was a plea for help on my part. I tried to be clear that there were off-ramps that could be followed back to discussion and compromise, if others were willing. It was an appropriate and constructive use of the venue.
The matter stemmed from an article I created.[85] The new article was built around high-quality peer-reviewed journals and
WP:MEDRS adherence that was superior to any related article.[a] It was in concordance with the community/scientific consensus[86]
that COVID-19 is "likely of zoonotic origin". Creating articles with good sourcing and neutral point of view is the purpose of the encyclopedia. The only way this can appear disruptive is by uncritically accepting unfounded aspersions about my motivations.
My motives for creating the article were questioned. The exact moment I decided to write it[87] was in a discussion about claims that were out of scope for the lab leak page and too technical for the general Origin page. There was no
WP:DETAIL
page for those kinds of theories, so I made one.
Whether it should be merged into another page is a content question on which reasonable minds can differ, but it was not created to advance a point of view. Sticking to sources saying the pandemic origin is unknown[b] in no way reflects an agenda to promote any particular theory. In any case, there was no Wikipedia consensus that that the lab leak theory is pseudoscience either,[88] so administrative actions should not act as if there were such a consensus.
In deference to admins' time, in the future I will avoid making a new AE request while still a party to an active one.
  • Some of my edits about Herbert Marcuse and Western Marxism were also criticized. I could have done some things better with those edits,[89] which I am happy to discuss further in appropriate venues. What matters for now is that it concerned cold good-faith edits unrelated to any CTOP. The very reason the block was so disproportionate appears to be that it was otherwise not procedurally possible to punish me for those edits as an AE action.[90] That seems like an abuse of process above and beyond the fact it was a non-preventative block.

To recap, with reference to the criteria at

WP:BLOCKP
:

  1. There was no imminent or continuing damage to Wikipedia.
  2. There was no present disruptive behavior to deter.
  3. My editing was productive, congenial, and within community norms.

I did believe in April 2023 that a lab leak was the best explanation. Expressing that belief violated no rule at the time, and it still doesn't. I later changed my mind while examining the evidence. I also said in those diffs that we would have to wait and see what reliable publishers did with the evidence before Wikipedia could be updated. A few months later, I wrote an article reflecting what reliable sources did with it. That happens to include a paragraph in the article's opinion corner about the "Proximal Origin" controversy, which is
WP:GNG on its own. The only reason to think I did anything in bad faith is to assume that I did. Sennalen (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: The point of the appeal is I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that anyone understands how my edits were disruptive. I'm willing to work on it, but at least one admin has to meet me halfway and point to something that was actually a disruption, and not just a motivation they imagined I had. Sennalen (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Compare the list of references in the new article[1] to those at [[2]]
  2. ^ The origin of SARS-CoV-2, as well as its mode of introduction into the human population, are unknown at present.[3] SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of COVID-19, emerged in December 2019. Its origins remain uncertain. [4] The initial outbreak of human cases of the virus was connected to the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market in Wuhan, and while related viruses have been found in horseshoe bats and pangolins, their divergence represents decades of evolution leaving the direct origin of the pandemic unknown. [5] Despite the zoonotic signatures observed in the SARS-CoV-2 genome, it remains unclear how this virus was transmitted from animals to human populations. [6] Others available on request. ("Likely" is not the same as known.)

Statement by Galobtter

I give a couple examples of the evidence for the block re the cultural marxism and covid issues here. I also want to point out that Sennalen believes that Covid stems from a bioengineered lab leak ([91], [92]), which probably explains why like I said she used a news source to undercut a scientific source that said otherwise.

For the race and intelligence topic area, Generalrelative gives a good summary of the issues at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 180#Essay on fringe guidelines. For clarity the Eyferth study RfC mentioned there is at here and is about this content which is very much about race and intelligence, despite what Sennalen says at that discussion. Galobtter (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

I was one of the named editors in Sennalen's AE filing which boomeranged into their block. One only needs to look at the various unblock request(s) to get an idea of what would likely follow in the case of an unblock: arguments at length rooted in a premise of "I am right and everybody else is wrong". This would be a big time sink for the community and a negative for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA (Sennalen)

The link wasn't directly included, so here is the AE where Sennalen was sanctioned. I commented as someone uninvolved back then, and the overall discussion among editors was not whether or not to sanction them, but rather how wide the scope needed to be due to disruption in multiple topics. I'm still not seeing any recognition of the problems with their behavior in

WP:NOTHERE when many topic-bans would be needed to try to allow them to edit at this point. KoA (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]


Statement by XMcan

My question is procedural: How does someone transition abruptly from being a senior editor, essentially a hero with no prior blocks, to a perceived villain warranting a complete editing ban? Has this user done one thing that was so egregiously disruptive as to earn this measure, or is this deemed a “straw that broke the camel's back” type of situation? If it's the latter, why haven't there been any prior warnings, pblocks, or tbans, as is typical in other cases?

The best way for the appellant to demonstrate that they are not disruptive is to let them edit something unrelated to the problematic areas. I vote to change the siteban to a tban, or tbans if necessary. XMcan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC). Edited 12:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sennalen

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Sennalen

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I don't see that anything has really been learned here. If there were to be an unblock, I think it would need to come with a complete topic ban from editing any fringe topics, but this editor does not seem capable of recognizing what is a fringe topic, so I do not see that working well either. I therefore would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that they understand how their edits were disruptive, which doesn't bode well for the disruption not continuing if unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think it is possible to craft a topic ban wide enough to stop the disruption yet provide any useful and enjoyable place to edit. Decline. Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salmoonlight

cast aspersions when making such accusations.
Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Salmoonlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 03:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Salmoonlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions


Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Multiple

Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident
, but have neither replied to the request nor done so, despite having continued editing including on the articles talk page.

At

Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident
, they violated 1RR with edits to different content:

  1. 14:46, 2 March 2024 (Reverted this, among others)
  2. 00:14, 3 March 2024 (Reverted this)

At Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, they violated 1RR and 3RR while edit warring with Alpoin117 over the same content.

  1. 05:01, 28 February 2024
  2. 04:53, 28 February 2024
  3. 04:19, 28 February 2024
  4. 03:34, 28 February 2024
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:22, 24 December 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
As I said on your talk page 00:14, 3 March 2024 is what needed to be reverted. 11:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@LegalSmeagolian: Alpoin’s contributions don’t appear to be obvious vandalism; they appear to be edit warring with Salmoonlight, with Alpion thinking the content's irrelevant, and Salmoonlight disagreeing.
1RR is a bright line rule; violations should be promptly self-reverted, and if they are not it is necessary to report them. Accusing editors who do so if gaming the system disrupts rule enforcement in this contentious topic, and is possibly
WP:BATTLEGROUND
behavior - LegalSmeagolian has done this twice now, and I ask that reviewing admins consider warning them against continuing to do so. 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems every time I make a report - MakeandToss, Irtapil, here - editors accuse me of bad faith and gaming on the basis of a mistake I made years ago. If it is appropriate to report non-self-reverted 1RR violations then I ask that admins consider warning Nableezy and LegalSmeagolian against continuing to make such accusations, to deter frivolous accusations in the future. Alternatively, if it is inappropriate to make such reports, I ask that the admins consider warning me for frivolous reports. 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Salmoonlight: See LegalSmeagolian’s first comment. 01:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sameboat: Can you link the ban that Alpoin was violating when they made those edits? 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then that exception does not apply; the ban was put in place after the edits and thus they weren't a violation. Further, edit warring doesn't justify edit warring back; the correct response is to report the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: As I said in the first paragraph of this request I did ask them to self revert. As for the 5 days stale edit-war, I don’t think five days (four when the request was made) is particularly stale, and regardless of staleness I think it’s appropriate and useful to demonstrate if there is a pattern of behaviour. 02:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Makeandtoss: When I said MakeandToss, Irtapil, here, I wasn't saying that you had previously accused me of bad faith and gaming; I was giving examples of AE reports (Makeandtoss, Irtapil, here) where editors had done so in order to demonstrate a pattern. I was not intending to directly refer to you and I apologize if my comment appeared to be doing so.
With that said, even if I was directly referring to you I don't believe the statement would have been factually incorrect; in Makeandtoss you said It is crystal clear now that instead of engaging on the articles' talk pages to solve disagreement and reach consensus, they have chosen instead of spend countless hours trying to find fault in other editors to get them banned. At the time, you were told that such allegations were immaterial and not convincing. 09:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
If it’s helpful, my rule of thumb is that if an edit is by an established editor, then it’s not vandalism - exceptions are so rare as to not be worth considering. 16:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
03:42, 3 March 2024

Discussion concerning Salmoonlight

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Salmoonlight

The Alpoin117 reverts are irrelevant as Alpoin was being purposefully disruptive and vandalizing articles. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also it was not necessary to take this to AE. ANI would have worked completely fine. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted myself now. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BilledMammal, I strongly feel that all of these attempts to eliminate editors using AE will backfire on you. It is a clear abuse of the system. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously?? How were those edits not vandalism?? Salmoonlight (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alpoin117 insulted me too. They're banned. Their sockpuppet is banned. It's against policy to restore edits by vandals/sockpuppets. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I have reverted all of my edits on
Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident. You are still trying to get me sanctioned based on a vandal who was being purposefully inflammatory. Salmoonlight (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't understand how what Alpoin117 was doing wasn't obviously vandalism. They themselves violated 1RR multiple times over. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this many editors are accusing you of gaming then maybe it's true. Just a thought. Salmoonlight (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal What mistake? Salmoonlight (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit war did not occur solely between me and Alpoin117. As for them being disruptive, Cullen328 and Ad Orientem can attest to that. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LegalSmeagolian

I'd highlight this is an additional case of BilledMammal trying to use AE to

WP:GAME a victory in I-P content disputes - this is evidenced by BilledMammal including reverts of Alpoin117's, which were obvious instances of vandalism
and not subject to the 1RR. Inclusion of these diffs is groundless and vexatious. BilledMammal has been warned to not use AE in this way yet has done so twice this week. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:NOTHERE. Alpoin117 continued to violate 1RR, used a sockpuppet, and edited disruptively. His edits were correctly reverted, with multiple editors patrolling the page to prevent vandalism. Where else should I raise these concerns if not here? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Alpoin117 was under a 1 year editing restriction, to not to participate in deletion discussions or engage in editing for a period of one year - at least that is how I am reading @Ad Orientem's unblock conditions. I could absolutely be wrong on my interpretation of those conditions.
My concerns regarding the nature of the filing of this request stem from BM's previous filings here in the same topic area against Sameboat and Selfstudier, which resulted in no action being taken. This, coupled with BilledMammals request in the Sameboat discussion asking "Would it be appropriate to restore the status quo (AKA BilledMammal's status quo) while the RfC proceeds?" (which Seraphim correctly answered that this was not the forum to resolve a content dispute) is what makes me nervous, although I commend BilledMammal for his response to Seraphim. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Salmoonlight civility please. And @ScottishFinnishRadish: my reading (and I am not an admin so take this with a grain of salt) of the previous unblock conditions were from deletion discussions and editing generally. So essentially a mainspace ban. But to your point then why call it a TBAN. But then what is "deletion related" editing outside of deletion discussions? I guess my point is one could read it in a different way and I think some leniency should be given, but again, grain of salt. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I request the uninvolved administrators look at

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I've said my piece. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

@Firefangledfeathers: Read the quote again - malicious removal OR changing such content beyond all recognition - Alpoin changed the content beyond all such recognition, which is exactly what occured by their addition "misleading polarizing" language. Many users highlighted this change in the articles talk page. I would argue their behavior was malicious based on their further interactions with other users, including personal attacks, using a sockpuppet to get around a ban, etc. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sameboat (about Salmoonlight)

Newsweek
may not be the best source to support the statement which cites it, the statement itself is rather harmless and didn't justify the removal by Alpoin117.

Apart from sockpuppetry, Alpoin117 was clearly not here to make constructive contribution by adding this defamatory statement about Bushnell without citing any reliable source.[93] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Alpoin117 was blocked on 28 Feb 2024 for "Personal attacks on another editor in violation of previous unblock conditions, POV pushing, edit warring" (read the user's contributions page) when the only article they edited was self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. There was a discussion on ANI on 28 Feb exactly about disruptive edits by Alpoin117 regarding the self-immolation article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: 3RRNO is not only about sockpuppetry but "banned users in violation of a ban" who violated their "previous unblock conditions" for edits on the self-immolation article. I am not going to argue about Alpoin117 with you anymore. It's getting unfruitful. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: As long as Salmoonlight vows to never violate 1RR again, they would not face any form of topic ban this time. Am I right? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LegalSmeagolian: If all the admins don't see the "misleading polarizing" edit by Alpoin problematic at all, there is no hope to convince them. I think it's time to let it go. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Just for clarification: Violation of OR or NPOV does not necessarily constitute vandalism. Is that right? 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Charges of gaming against BM depend on a finding that Alpoin117's edits were either vandalistic or in violation of a ban. Neither is true. I am much less worried that BM might be gaming than that the other participants might continue to edit in ARBPIA with a mistaken sense of what counts as vandalism or ban evasion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LegalSmeagolian, your quote from the vandalism policy is great, but I'd also bold the malicious. It seems like the only thing stopping Salmoonlight from being TBANned would be a recognition that their interpretation of the 1RR exceptions was off, so your furthering their misunderstanding is not helping them. I am now worried about your own understanding of what vandalism is, and I urge you to reconsider it before continuing to edit in sensitive topic areas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sameboat, no, and I'm not the right person to ask anyway. You can see in the Result section exactly what the uninvolve admins hope to see from Sal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SB, that's 100% right. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LS, "malicious" applies to all vandalism, since vandalism is defined as "deliberate" attempts to harm the project. I suppose you could read "malicious" in that part as just referring to removal (I don't). A117's changes did not alter the content "beyond all recognition". I'm hopeful you'll come away with a better understanding of the policy, and I'd be happy to talk more at my user talk page or yours, since you're well over the word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to everything Aquillion said. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

The edit war with Alpoin would have been better handled by coming here to report that user, as their edits were both 1RR violations and unquestionably tendentious, as in this one making a personal judgment, ditto for this one, and that they were edit-warring against multiple users and had blown past the 1RR. Alpoin117 reverted five users six times there, but the portrayal of that edit war here is Salmoonlight vs Alpoin117, and that just isnt true. Should Salmoonlight have reverted as many times as they had? No, of course not, but the complete picture doesnt really support the idea that Salmoonlight should be sanctioned for it. And going back to a 5 days stale edit-war does indeed strike me as one of those things people who are trying to remove the competition do. The other violation has already been self-reverted, something I thought it was standard practice to ask for before coming here, that is if somebody is not just trying to remove the competition. nableezy - 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SFR, I said at the start that there was a 1RR violation, but the second tacked on part is the battlegrounding you apparently feel so strong about. BilledMammal is indeed attempting to dispense with the opposition, you can see that in his report of Sameboat in which they claimed changing "Free Palestine! Free Palestine!" to "Free Palestine!" is a revert worthy of reporting, or in that same report claiming a new edit is somehow a revert. They do it again here in tacking on a yes stale 5 day old edit-war to a revert report about a NPOV tag, which yes should just be handled on a user talk page. Yes, BM posted on the user's talk page, but they did not wait for any response before escalating to a report here. This is the second report on this page by BM that is, in my view, not meriting an AE report. You all are taking a since self-reverted 1RR violation and a revert war that nobody saw as meriting any attention at all for several days as reason to indef topic ban an editor. Sorry, but this is returning to a game of counting, and you are not looking at the wider context here. But I can file a report about BM's game playing instead of commenting here if that would not make you think it was battlegrounding instead of raising the poor substantiation in the reports currently on this page. nableezy - 00:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Ill say that yes this is not vandalism but it is a garbage edit and one that should be reverted. You are missing the forest for the trees here, and somebody reporting reversions of garbage edits as cause for a ban is what is battleground behavior. nableezy - 00:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, despite the claim above that I merit a warning for bringing up supposed mistakes from years past, I did not bring any such thing up here. I brought it up in the above complaint because that one was of the quality that merited the initial warning. But that’s fine, I’ll just make reports of the same quality as this against BM instead of asking that you all take a more discerning view of the ones he is filing. nableezy - 09:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I am commenting here at this time only because I was pinged by Salmoonlight. Yes, I blocked Alpoin117 and my reasoning can be found at User talk:Alpoin117. Any editor could have found that quite easily. That does not at all imply that I think that Salmoonlight is blameless. I have some concerns about this editor's behavior but I have not yet investigated closely enough to say anything definitive at this time. So, I may (or may not) comment in the future. I am working on many other things. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Ad Orientem)

I can confirm that I was the original blocking admin for Alpoin117. The block was broadly speaking for disruptive editing, which in this instance also included personal attacks on other editors. Subsequently I unblocked them subject to conditions laid out on their talk page which included a one year TBan from any involvement in AfD discussions and related editing. I also explicitly warned them that they would be on a very short rope with regards to any future disruptive behavior including NPA. They affirmed their understanding and acceptance of those conditions. Unfortunately they failed to keep their end of the agreement. I was pinged to an ANI discussion, but Cullen328 got there first and reblocked them indefinitely. I took a look at the issues and fully endorsed Cullen's block. I am not familiar with the broader issues being discussed here and so respectfully decline to comment further at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Makeandtoss

This is the fourth or seventh (I lost count) attempt by BilledMammal to get users they don't agree with banned in less than two months, usually based on implausible claims of 1RR violations. I don't think it's a sign of constructive WP editing to spend more time trying to get users banned than constructively contributing to WP articles as their user contributions log reveals.

@BilledMammal: This is the first time I comment on a report you file that does not concern me, so I request you to retract or clarify your factually incorrect claim about: "It seems every time I make a report - MakeandToss, Irtapil, here - editors came and accuse me of bad faith and gaming on the basis of a mistake I made years ago." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BilledMammal: Thanks for clarifying that you weren't referring to myself. Even if you were, it would still be indeed factually incorrect to claim that I have done so every time, as you have filed more reports that I did not comment on since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thanks for responding. I carefully chose my words saying: "usually based on implausible claims", which is my personal opinion; I did not say vexatious. BilledMammal has clarified above that they were not referring to myself. Every editor has the right to express their concerns, which was done in a civil manner and without insulting anyone. Nevertheless, your question is a good reminder to maintain assuming good faith. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Misunderstanding the boundaries between "disruptive edit", "policy-violating edit" and "vandalism" is a very common problem even for more experienced editors. It seems to me that a topic-ban would be excessive. Zerotalk 05:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

The accusations of trying to "remove the competition" strike me as themselves dangerous. The fact is, in a controversial topic area, the people who notice and take the time to report misconduct are going to be those in dispute with a user - most people who edit controversial topics have at least some opinion on them; and few people closely examine the edits of those they agree with. If a report is valid (and clearly there was at least a 1RR violation here), any disputes the reporter had with the reportee don't matter; they're not required to be

WP:UNINVOLVED, obviously. Otherwise there would be a chilling effect on people's willingness to report genuine problems, which would make enforcing AE restrictions extremely difficult. Likewise, "lots of people misunderstand what obvious vandalism is" can't possibly be a justification for 1RR / 3RR violations or those restrictions would have no meaning. Anyone who genuinely, truly believes that Alpoin117's edits were obvious vandalism should not be editing controversial topic areas at all; the idea that anyone could go "I feel that that edit maliciously violates NPOV, therefore it is vandalism and the 1RR/3RR doesn't apply" is obviously unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]


Statement by (username)

Result concerning Salmoonlight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

KronosAlight

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPS
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [94] 10 March 2024—violating
    WP:PSCI
  2. [95] and [96] 11 March 2024—
    WP:NPOV
    .
  3. [97] 10 March 2024—accusing me you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV
  4. [98] 10 March 2024—accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [99] 10 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by KronosAlight

I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing.

As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof.

There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work.

Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity.

He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV.

I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case.

The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.

  • I'm not endorsing the theory – I think it's basically science fiction, a mad mixture of Ancient Astronaut Theory and Young Earth Creationism. But you need more than just one paper which has received little coverage and, last time I checked, basically no citations of its own, in order to justify the claim that it has been "refuted", which is a conclusive and final claim, not a provisional one.
    If the citation of a single academic paper (and I of course do not doubt that the paper itself was subject to entirely valid crutiny via a rigorous peer-review process) is "more than enough" to declare a niche scientific theory "debunked", then I do wonder what the minimal Wikipedia requirements might be to make such a claim. What’s the ‘low bar’, compared to this ‘high bar’?
    That isn't how the scientific process works, which necessarily involves back-and-forth disputes in which multiple researchers and schools of thought claim to have 'debunked' the other, nor is it how Wikipedia adjudicates the truth or falsity of the claims to pseudoscientificity, which has a higher threshold of proof.
    You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. KronosAlight (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding

WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by Nycarchitecture212

KronosAlight I'm sorry that you've also had a negative interaction with this individual. A few days ago, he attempted the same thing with me. When I messaged him on the article's talk page expressing my concerns, he didn't engage with them at all. He rigidly adheres to one academic narrative regarding biblical scholarship and condescends to anyone with a maximalist interpretation. Personally, I've decided to cease interactions with him. Regrettably, based on my experiences, he appears to be a contentious editor who doesn't engage in discussions and debates in good faith. He frequently reverts edits without delving into the details on talk pages and endeavors to impose his narrow point of view, exploiting Wikipedia policies to suppress discourse and shape articles from a singular perspective rather than incorporating multiple academic viewpoints. While I'm not certain about Wikipedia conventions in such situations or the specific rules he may be violating, it seems implausible that his conduct is permissible. I do think the wording was a little choppy, but your request for him to bring more sourcing is valid and the right way to move the conversation forward.

He also reverted my edits of an anti-Jewish trope about pigs and blood that was poorly sourced and unrelated to the article. The trope of Jews and pigs and blood is best well known in Judensau (German for "Jew-sow") a derogatory and dehumanizing image of Jews that appeared around the 13th century. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis. Jews, who were typically portrayed as having obscene contact with unclean animals such as pigs or owls or representing a devil, appeared on cathedral or church ceilings, pillars, utensils, etchings, etc.

He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perputrating pseudohistory and was ranting about this again a few days ago which got his post struck. One of the consequences of that is he is subtly pushing a

Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient Israel characters (mythical or not) solely as Yahewists. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. I hope that a level-headed administrator will thoroughly investigate these matters. Such action would send a clear message about the true culture of Wikipedia. - Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

This statement could be considered controversial or offensive, as it directly criticizes the perspectives of certain religious groups, labeling them as promoters of "cult pseudohistory." The use of the term "void currency" suggests that the views of Orthodox Jews on early Judaism are completely disregarded in mainstream academia, which is a broad and potentially misleading generalization. Similarly, equating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the fall of Jerusalem with pseudohistory could be seen as dismissive or disrespectful.

The phrase "I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" indicates a strong bias against certain interpretations of history, which could be interpreted as antagonistic towards groups associated with those interpretations.

While the speaker may intend to express a commitment to historical accuracy, the language used can be seen as targeting specific religious groups, which might be perceived as anti-Jewish or anti-religious sentiment. It’s important to critique specific historical claims or methodologies without broadly dismissing or demeaning the perspectives of entire communities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I might otherwise see this as a content dispute, but I'm quite concerned by the type of attitude displayed even at this very request: You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. If you know about more sources for the claim, and think it needs more, you ought to be adding them, not removing the claim even though you apparently know it's verified. That's textbook
    tendentious editing, and if that's how this KronosAlight intends to handle situations like this, I rather wonder if they should be editing in this area (or indeed, any area) at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    As to Nycarchitecture212, you seem to have rather grossly mischaracterized the statements you are supposedly quoting. That's not appropriate either. I think there needs to be at least logged warnings issued here, if not more, but would like some additional input if anyone has any. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there should be at least a logged warning. The editing is so pointy that I wouldn't object to a topic ban, though I lean slightly towards a logged warning in this case as there hasn't been a pattern of this behavior presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nycarchitecture212, as to how to "refine your approach", as you stated, you might start by not characterizing someone's statement that they "have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" as "[having] an ax to grind with Jews". Either you are implying that Jews in general are engaged in fundamentalist pseudohistory, or you are totally mischaracterizing the statement to make it look inflammatory and unacceptable when it was not. Whichever one of those it is, that's completely inappropriate. And if you can't recognize it as such, I have my doubts as to whether you should continue editing in this topic area at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I can, given that, see how you got there without it being as bad, but let's not see something like that again. As to resolution, I would go forward with the logged warning, and hope that will suffice to settle things down. If not and we're back here again, we can decide what more to do at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarek19800

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Jarek19800

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jarek19800 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Contentious_topic_designation
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. WP:BATTLEGROUND
    mentality vis-a-vis Polish media
  2. 8 March edit warring and claiming support from the talk page discussion, when the state of Talk:Mikhail_Kalinin does not support it
  3. 6 March Personal attacks against The Kip (albeit before being warned of CTOPS)
If
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 6 March.


Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • In addition to the above diffs displaying tendentious editing behavior, in general, Jarek19800's conduct in
    WP:RGW and battleground mentality. If I weren't involved in that discussion, or else I would have likely imposed sanctions myself. A block is likely most appropriate here, as their sole edit outside the Eastern Europe topic is a transphobic comment at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. signed, Rosguill talk 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Jarek19800

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Jarek19800

I finally understand with my students the idea of this section.In 500 words than: this kind of action shall never happen on someone who 1. has only 10 or similar edits 2. most of edits were in Talks section which is defined for open discussion 3. all my edits were always(apart one explained below) with note and logic 4. no vulgarity or vandalism. All edits were on 2 following topics:a. Mikhail Kalinin-one of top five communist leaders(agreed and evidenced) one of five who signed order for Katyn massacre with 20000 victims (agreed and evidenced). One of editors reedited it from header on base it is not fundamentally important as Kalinin was figurehead (not agreed and against a logic).b:oko press with label far left. this was not documented but the same(not documented far right)was on blocked for editing Visegrad 24. Action successful far-right deleted on Visegrad 24. Standard recovered; In case of Talks section unless clear vandalism shall not be mentioned at all. Just remark for other editor: how one sentence request for official fact can violate 3 policies of Wikipedia??? Another editor on Talks section first "invited" me to open discussion on reliability of oko press as a source and quickly joined the action here. I can see from above that free speech which is based on facts and logic is unpleasant to some people but encyclopedia concept is in my opinion not for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarek19800 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WeatherWriter

Just had a comment relevant to this. This may be a case of a CTOPS COI. Visegrád 24 was recently protected due to double CTOPS (PIA and Russia-Ukraine), but the reason for this was brought up at AN, due to the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posting on Twitter (March 2) to have editors "fix" the article from propaganda. On March 3, Jarek19800, as well as maybe a dozen newer accounts on March 2-4, became heavily involved in the article and its content with mass editing (see article history on 2 March prior to protection) and talk page discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

In a hurry at the moment so my full statement will come later, but just wanted to note I support a topic ban at the very least if not an indef. The Kip 22:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, my first AE case. Jarek’s conduct over the last week has been misguided at best and disruptive at worst:

In short, Jarek has shown at best a lack of understanding and at worst a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy on numerous occasions, in addition to casting plenty of aspersions about those opposed to him. Barring a massive behavioral shift (which his statement doesn’t indicate), I don’t see him becoming a constructive contributor to either the topic area or Wikipedia as a whole, and I’m supportive of either a TBAN or indef. The Kip 07:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:@Firefangledfeathers, point of clarification - is the 500-word limit based off the response in Wikitext (which currently clocks my statement in at 500 exactly), or in normal/visual text (which has it just under 400)? I'm unfortunately not quite experienced with AE. The Kip 06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why the claim violated all three:
  • reliable source
    . Claiming in the lead that Kalinin held responsibility for the massacre somewhat implies he held sole/major responsibility, which your source (the execution order) doesn't verify; it lists him as one of six signatories, while RSes consider Stalin and Beria responsible.
  • Reasserting this using that source is
    WP:OR
    ; your own opinion/synthesis of information can't back a claim.
  • Furthermore, it's
    undue weight
    to add this to the lead when it doesn't appear to be a mainstream view among RSes.
I've explained this multiple times now. The Kip 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jarek19800

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Clerking

Zilch-nada

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Zilch-nada

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Zilch-nada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
If
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[107]

Discussion concerning Zilch-nada

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Zilch-nada

(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)

As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.

I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.

Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".

Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion.
  • Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments.
Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Zilch-nada's
WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple
WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that have had already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

Statement by Beccaynr

On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [108], [109], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the

WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [111] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism
.

Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [112]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [113], and

no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction
.

I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at

WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
]

There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [114]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zilch-nada

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Fizzbuzz306

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Fizzbuzz306

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Fizzbuzz306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
Diffs
of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 07:51, 12 March 2024, 08:27, 12 March 2024, 08:34, 12 March 2024 Engaging in an edit war against Rhain removing the high quality source Game Developer from Sweet Baby Inc.
  2. 08:45, 12 March 2024 In an edit summary, describes Rhain as "patronizing" them when pointing out that Game Developer is considered a reliable source, before banning Rhain from their talk page.
  3. 03:06, 17 March 2024 Personal attack against Aquillion: Your opinion does not trump consensus. Your edit history demonstrates a very clear bias and your opinions on this matter are not relevant.
  4. 03:23, 17 March 2024 Casting aspersions about multiple editors I realize several editors on this page want to tell a certain narrative but these sources are clearly lying.
  5. 03:29, 17 March 2024 Casting aspersions about multiple editors ignoring NPOV The reason for that is certain editors here have forgotten [[WP::NPOV]] and only accept sources if they tell the narrative those editors want them to tell.
  6. 04:13, 17 March 2024 Describing a list of sources I provided as a gish gallop.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any


If
WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics
)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In short, this seems to be a continuation of the type of comment from multiple IP and non-autoconfirmed editors that lead to Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. being temporarily semi-protected. Unfounded accusations that longstanding experienced editors are biased and should not be editing the article, that multiple editors are ignoring NPOV, that reliable sources are not reliable and should be discarded. I suggest a topic ban from GENSEX/GamerGate at minimum, if not a block. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Short answer no. When I requested a TBAN I was frustrated by the continuing misconduct that lead to the talk page being semi-protected, and I was also coloured by the CU block for sockpuppetry that was lifted a couple of hours later. Upon reflection, as the current disruption has been limited to Sweet Baby Inc. I think a page block from the article and its talk page would be more appropriate here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Fizzbuzz306

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Fizzbuzz306

In order to defend against this I will need to be informed of the *specific* policy I have broken. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Fizzbuzz306

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @
    WP:DE as starting points. As a fairly new editor please consider carefully what you say on this noticeboard. The standards expected of editors in these topic areas more higher and more rigorously enforced that in less contentious areas and that is especially the case here. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]