Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive317

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 CozyandDozy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Burrobert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

CozyandDozy (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/American_politics_2#Discretionary_sanctions_(1932_cutoff) and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Biographies of Living Persons

Diffs

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

1. 24 February 2023 Repeated insertion of unreferenced and challenged content in Aaron Maté's bio. This is the first insertion.
2. 24 February 2023 My reverting of the first insertion.
3. 25 February 2023 Cozyand Dozy reinserted the text.
4. 25 February 2023 I started a talk page discussion in which CozyandDozy did not participate.
5. 5 March 2023 Insertion of the same disputed text into the body of the article.
6. 9 March 2023 The disputed text is removed by another editor because the "strong allegations not found in the given citation".
7. 16 March 2023 Cozyand Dozy reinserts the disputed text which they say was "apparently deleted by Mate meat puppets".
8. 06:48, 27 February 2023 and 19:28, 27 February 2023‎ Two reverts within 24 hours in a page with 1RR restrictions.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Arbitration decision CozyandDozy retired two years ago but recently returned to editing. Prior to their retirement, Arbitration decided that "If they return to editing, broad AP2 and BLP restrictions should be immediately imposed, referencing this report". The reason for the previous decision relates to inserting unreferenced material in a BLP and edit warring.

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 2 June 2020 (see the system log linked to above).
• There is a
  WP:1RR notice on Aaron Maté's talk page: [1]
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 1 January 2021.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning CozyandDozy

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 CozyandDozy

Hey.

The stuff I was sanctioned for (or about to be sanctioned for) a couple years ago was a real violation of policy: I kept adding accurate information that, while supported by a source, was not supported by an RS, to a BLP. I am not going to defend myself there.

Given that this was so long ago, I did not even remember the details of it until just now, when I read the original complaint by Gorillawarfare and refreshed my recollection.

I will say that two years later, I have grown up and would not so glibly violate WP policy as I had before. Whether this sanction should still be imposed two years later (after a two-year "exile" from the encyclopedia) is up to the administrators, I imagine.

This newest complaint is completely erroneous. All my edits on Mate are supported by reliable sources and various other editors at the page, two of which have reverted my edits back in since this report was made. The reporting editor is apparently biased in favor of Mate, and is using my two-year old policy violation as an excuse to try to get his way on the Mate page. CozyandDozy (talk) 16:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doubletiberius

Judging by the user's edit history on the Mate page, a reasonable person would doubt that their previous violations are not still indicative of their behavior, e.g, the edit summary of "re-adding well sourced material that was apparently deleted by Mate meat puppets" on the 16th, which is just one of 41 edits to the page from the same user within the last 23 days, with the first page edit from them happening on the 23rd of Feb. At initial glance none of their edits meet consensus, and they haven't used the talk page from what I can see. Doubletiberius (talk) 21:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cambial Yellowing

The phrase you do appear to have engaged in discussions in good faith on the talk page is an interesting response, given the facts: [2], [3], [4]. Pinging Tamzin as the initiating admin for the page sanctions. Cambial — foliar❧ 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

This appears to be a weaponized content dispute. The non-Admin comments here are from two deeply involved Russia-related BLP editors whose history speaks for itself and from a third editor that's a brand new SPA. The "unsourced BLP content" allegation does, of course need Admin review. But looking at the talk page, I see experienced editors in good standing who dispute this characterization of the defendant's edits and who take issue with Cambial's aggressive presence on this page. Perhaps Admin Mitchell, whose view seems reasonable and appropriate, will volunteer to keep a close eye on this matter after a logged warning is issued. SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning CozyandDozy

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

• @
  There are stricter rules about how we write about living people because of Wikipedia's visibility in search results and the impact that can have on people. However, you do appear to have engaged in discussions in good faith on the talk page. I'm inclined to close this request as premature but if you get into another edit war, it's very likely that you will face sanctions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I don't often disagree with HJ Mitchell, but in this instance I do. I believe that the prior warnings to CozyandDozy in the previous AE request served as sufficient notice that adding contentious material to a BLP without citing a reliable source is unacceptable, yet that behavior has continued upon their return to editing. So, I think that at the very least, a topic ban from biographies of living persons related to the American Politics 2 topic area is called for, and I would strongly consider a topic ban from AP2 altogether. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:47, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with your analysis, Seraphimblade, but not the scope. Quite frankly, I don't think Cozy should be left alone in any BLP at all until this lesson to follow

  WP:V is learned. Courcelles (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Courcelles, would you then suggest a topic ban from BLPs in general? My scope was "at least", so I'm not set against that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I would. Maybe the overall BLP restriction being time-limited to 6 months combined with an indefinite requirement to stay away from Aaron Maté in particular could work. Courcelles (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Mate wasn't the only problem, and I really don't like time-limited sanctions. If we're going to do one here regardless, I would restrict at least AP2 indefinitely, and BLPs generally for six months. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Good with me. And make it very clear that further unsourced edits to BLP's is likely to result in a sanction of a permanent nature. Courcelles (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just piping in to add a +1 to this, to speed up the whole process. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 UnpetitproleX

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Oriental Aristocrat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:04, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

UnpetitproleX (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/India-Pakistan

Diffs

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

1. 20:54, 25 March 2023 1st revert of two edits
2. 14:52, 26 March 2023 2nd revert of four edits
3. Date Explanation
4. Date Explanation

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Date Explanation
2. Date Explanation

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 3 March 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The Insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir article is under 1RR restriction which the user being reported has clearly violated. Both the reverts that UnpetitproleX made were of multiple edits in one go therefore they must be sanctioned to the fullest extent having already received the DS alert recently.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

AE Notice

Discussion concerning UnpetitproleX

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 UnpetitproleX

The editor is aiming reinstatement of removed (by someone else) contentious content (added originally by someone else). In my edit summary I explain why there is a misrepresentation of the sources; however they re-inserted the same sources in their edit. Their edits are contentious and I suggested here that they seek

• Comment Since UnpetitproleX has self reverted, I'm going to close this. @Oriental Aristocrat: mistakes happen and it is better to first inform the offending editor about a 1RR violation than to immediately bring it to a noticeboard. Less drama, more collegiality.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:39, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErraticDrumlin

I feel harassed by another editor. They deleting all my contributions.

They have named me personally irl a couple of times. When barkeep49 said that there was no blp issues with my version, they reverted the article anyway. They won't consider my views, and

keep dominating when  I try to discuss my concerns with any  other people, so I can't get a fair hearing. I haven't mentioned them. I deleted my question in the teahouse bc they followed me there to control, I just wanted advice. I hadn't named them, I just wanted advice. They've stopped the chance of anyone fairly considering my talk page requests. They dominated one, so someone told me how to request edits, and I did and they put see above, and started being over familiar, and mocking, 

and nasty, even mocking my command of English, and grammar.

I feel harassed and bullied by them. They were looking at my contributions on other pages.

I feel upset that they suggested who I may be irl and then said sorry but they named again to draw more attention and make me feel harassed.

suggested who I am irl, deleted my entries even though others there had no problem for a month before. and now stop me from engaging fairly with others.

I feel frightened by their oppression and obsession with this. I really am scared irl.they're being  nasty and over familiar.why would a random stranger try to name me irl?and be watching my moves, and dominate every turn I take, and be so determined to assume control of this narrative. Going through everything to try to humiliate me. I deleted their contributions on another page and that was wrongful, but they've been looking at all my contributions, and are very over familiar. The biggest issue is the irl issue, and mocking my use of language, which is racist imo Please can you look into this.I really feel very upset by their behaviour. Beautiful Rosie (talk) 12:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use

Capitals00 (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

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 Valjean

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Maddy from Celeste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:30, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Valjean (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:GENSEX

Diffs

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

1. WP:BLPTALK
   .
2. WP:NOTFORUM
   .
3. WP:BATTLEFIELD
   and telling me not to be so offended, after I asked him to not use offensive terminology, like using fully transitioned for having had bottom surgery.
4. Special:Diff/1146398416 – Am I now going to be assaulted again for using the wrong terminology?
5. Special:Diff/1146408449 – In response to me complaining about the above, accusing me of trying to own the topic area, intimidation, and bullying.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Alerted of contentious topics: Special:Diff/1145948614.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I wish it didn't come to this, but I feel Valjean is responding inappropriately to criticism over the way he talks about trans people, which I think violates expected standards of behaviour at

Suggesting LGBT people have a COI on LGBT topics is simply preposterous. Aside from that, I'm actually not sure where Valjean thinks I've assumed bad faith. I certainly haven't intended to do so, and I think my comments do not make such assumptions. It is not an assumption of bad faith to say that something is offensive. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this doesn't need to end with anything more than a warning if Valjean acknowledges the problem and intends to be more careful in the future. I would not prefer any interaction ban with myself on either end here, as I believe Valjean is acting in good faith, and being able to talk about these things is important.

I think it's common for editors to use improper terminology on trans issues and the acceptable reaction is to take note, read relevant policy, and remove the text if necessary, not double down and antagonize other editors. – This I feel is the most important thing here. It's okay to not know something, and to make mistakes, but responding with hostility is not right. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 06:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Agreed. For my part, this can ble closed now. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1146411707

Discussion concerning Valjean

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 Valjean

A bit of good faith and actually listening to my comments, their context, and my sincere attempts to thread the needle and run through this minefield would really help. Instead, I have been treated by my accuser like some transphobic offender, and that I am not. As a progressive, I am fully in favor of the LGBTQ and trans communities and all laws that protect their rights. I am an older guy trying to learn the best ways to communicate on the talk page, and am certainly imperfect at it, but I'm learning. My learning attempts are being treated as hostility and deliberate attempts to offend the transgender community. That lack of good faith toward me and my imperfections is not appreciated.

If the only people allowed to discuss this topic are the minuscule portion of the population and editors who are absolutely perfect in every aspect of this topic, then people like my accuser here will indeed own the topic. This would create a walled garden where only LGBTQ and transgender persons and activists would be allowed to edit, even with their COI (I am NOT saying they shouldn't be allowed to discuss and edit those topics!). Bringing this to AE is overkill.

To the best of my ability, I have tried to explain myself when an issue was brought to my attention. I am not impervious to complaints and have corrected my terminology when alerted to an issue. (I have feared using such a simple word as "woman" would result in an attack on me.) I learn from constructive criticism, but assumptions of bad faith are unhelpful and a violation of policy. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Loki, I have never accused Maddy "of POV-pushing or other misconduct solely for being LGBT" for several reasons: it was a discussion, not article editing; I saw no "misconduct", unlike what she accused me of by starting this procedure; we had a difference of opinion, and neither of us are guilty of "misconduct" for doing so, hence I have not started a procedure against her; I did not know Maddy is LGBTQ (I never looked at her userpage. I treat everyone alike. Discrimination is wrong.); even if she were, I would support and defend her on that basis. I am not homophobic or transphobic. None of my comments or edits can be interpreted in that manner. That would be reprehensible. Editors, both male and female, can get emotionally involved in their discussions. My comment had nothing to do with her gender. She was focusing on me and not on content too much. That's all. That's how I saw it. Oh, the COI comment looks bad, but only by not reading the comment that accompanied it. I am for all editors being able to edit and discuss topics, even those with which they have COI connection, IOW are closely involved. That is the sense of COI I was using, not the policy COI sense. I also don't want a walled garden where only LGBTQ editors are allowed to edit those topics. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Levivich, context is everything. I never advocated for the inclusion of her genital status as an isolated factoid. It was only in the context, assuming we had RS enough (which is still being discussed), of covering the accusations made by Gaines that she saw Thomas expose her male genitalia in the locker room. Otherwise, I don't care about the "genitals" matter and would not advocate for just adding such information as an isolated factoid. Heck no!

The problem was that any statement about her complaint made without that fact would be a BLP violation as it would imply that the only reason Gaines complained was because Thomas is trans. We do not have evidence of that motivation. (That I personally believe some of the statements made by Gaines are transphobic are another matter.) Again, context is everything. By taking my statements out of context, you can of course make me look bad. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Public figure. With that in mind, I take what Jimbo Wales says seriously, and that is we should document the sum total of human knowledge, (as it is found in RS). I am an inclusionist. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:42, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• An apology to everyone. I appreciate the thoughtful advice you are giving and the wisdom and experience behind it, experience I do not have. I did not mean to offend anyone, and my ignorance is obvious. Meaning well isn't always enough. I will indeed "dial it back" and be much more careful in this minefield. As an older CIS man, I was not educated with this stuff. It's a new area for me. I have long been a social justice warrior and defended LGBTQ and transgender/transsexual rights, but lack the intimate knowledge that comes with close daily contact and friendship with these people where the rubber meets the road. I hope that there can be some sort of forgiveness out there for me. I'm very sorry for hurting people. I feel like an idiot who wandered into the wrong room and made a fool of myself, but that's life. Onward and upward. I can learn from this and become a better person. I do hope that the topic area doesn't become a walled garden where only the initiated are allowed. That must not happen on any topic here. We must still AGF. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:30, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• An excellent article shared by Maddy. The next time anyone here runs into a newbie like me, share this article with them:

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 Soibangla

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Slywriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:09, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Soibangla (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/American_politics_2

Diffs

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

1. 3/29 Initial pointy edit
2. 3/29 Feigned ignorance on article talk of previous Talk Page discussions
3. 3/29 Claim that using slightly different words is a new edit, not a continuation of previous dispute
4. [10] Xtools showing over 100 edits to article
5. [11] Xtools showing over 100 edits to talk page

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor has over a hundred edits to the talk page and article, it is disingenuous  to claim the edit was merely

• Soibangla, looking at the edit again, Mr. Ernie's comment and your assessment is accurate that the word "purported" being added to the same sentence typically questioned triggered the mistaken belief that issue of ownership was being raised again. So, my apologies for such misinterpretation and bringing you here as a result.
• This particular page has novels written on parts of a sentence and limiting further drama was the intent of the filing.
• Request withdrawn and will strike the comment on Soibangla's talk page.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1147203635

Discussion concerning Soibangla

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 Soibangla

Mr Ernie, a very active participant on the article, wrote on my Talk about my edit, in part:

You absolutely know better than that ... I'm in disbelief you are actually claiming your disruptive edit did not contradict established consensus

Mr Ernie just struck those comments, then added:

I'm now realizing the edit was related to who abandoned it and not the ownership topic. I was so used to seeing the "purportedly" added to the question of the ownership. That issue has also been discussed several times, and the results have been to simply say that it had been abandoned without mentioning by who

Given the exhaustive/exhausting discussion on the article Talk, I can understand how that misunderstanding might happen, and I wonder if Slywriter had the same misunderstanding. soibangla (talk) 18:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

The over-beaten dead horse in the room is any suggestion that the laptop did not belong to Biden. Soibangla's edit didn't really touch that at all, instead mentioning that part of the narrative is that Biden dropped the laptop off at a Delaware repair shop. I think it's fair to separate the issue of ownership from the issue of who dropped it off. As far as I'm aware, there has not been discussion about whether or not to mention the second issue in the lead. I admit to sometimes skimming the walls of text that have been produced at that talk page, so I may have missed something. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

The bold edit by accused editor Soibangla related to whether it is verified that the laptop was abandoned by Biden at a repair shop. Although that has been discussed -- briefly as I recall -- on the talk page, this complaint is weaponizing the separate and distinct issue of ownership of the device. The aggressive comments here on Soibangla's talk page and this precipitous AE filing fit the longstanding pattern that has driven editors away from this article and blocked ordinary collaboration and improvement. If I were to confirm this by pinging the list of those editors who've quit the article after being bludgeoned, attacked, and ridiculed on the talk page, I would be accused of canvassing. So I'll stop here. SPECIFICO talk 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

I suggest that the filer strike the two claims of “feigned ignorance”. Particularly since Soibangla stated: If I've missed something, I will readily acknowledge it., there is a difference between own and drop off, and Soibangla has edited 1,400 pages. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint (regarding Soibangla)

@

• So, account of events. [12] Soibangla made edit at 03:13, then [13] we have Slywriter reverting at 03:52 with the rationale that Seriously? You know that consensus is required, then [14] Soibangla doesn't revert, but Soibangla at 04:09 goes to the article talk page to open a discussion, then [15] Slywriter at 04:45 doesn't discuss on the article talk page, but goes to Soibangla's talk page to demand the closure of the article talk page discussion. Slywriter doesn’t link to an article talk page discussion, but links to a user (RoyLeban) talk page discussion. Next, [16] Soibangla at 05:13 continues to discuss on the article talk page discussion, then [17] Soibangla at 05:15 responds to Slywriter on Soibangla's talk page, then [18] Slywriter at 13:09 comes straight here to AE. Frankly, it seems that Slywriter is being rather hasty and combative, while there is little disruption by Soibangla. It would seem that WP:BATTLEGROUND would apply more to Slywriter in this case. starship.paint (exalt) 16:18, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Muboshgu

Whether or not the laptop belonged to Biden has indeed been discussed ad nauseam on the talk page. Whether or not Biden abandoned it has not. I don't recall any discussion of it, but I imagine that it has been touched on briefly. I do not believe there is any consensus on whether or not Biden dropped off the laptop. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valjean 2

(Heading is numbered because there is another "Statement by Valjean" above it.)

This filing is based on confusion and should be closed. As Firefangledfeathers notes, the matters of (a) laptop ownership and (b) its delivery to the repair shop are two different issues. Soibangla was totally open to being corrected, but that did not happen, rendering this a tendentious dud. Drama boards should only be used after all other avenues of dispute resolution have been exhausted. There should exist a near consensus of a serious problem before opening such a case. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by GoodDay

Seeing as it's been requested that this AE report be withdrawn. I would say the waters have calmed. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Soibangla

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

• I don't see an issue here, as who the laptop belonged to and who dropped off the laptop are two separate issues. I'm not happy saying this, because it's likely going to lead to another 500KB of talk page discussion, but it is clearly a different topic. In the upcoming discussions on this, please, everyone, once you find yourself repeating the same argument, think long and hard about if you're helping the discussion by continuing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 Ferahgo the Assassin

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Ferahgo the Assassin (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

[19]

Diffs

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

1. 28 March 2023 Argumentative disruption of a related matter to forumshop.
2. 12 September 2022
   WP:TAGTEAM with now indef blocked User:AndewNguyen
3. 4 August 2022 Slow-mo edit warring in the R&I topic area
4. 30 July 2022 Argumentative sneering in R&I area.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

See above

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Enough is enough. We know it is a bugbear for this user. And yet the trolling continues. There is no net-benefit to letting this user continue to be active in these areas. Reinstate the topic ban. Seeing them "helpfully" comment on the latest RfArb was the last straw for me. To offer a bit of clarity: this user had their topic ban lifted and immediately returned to what I would consider trolling the topic area. It strikes me as a kind of

[20]

Discussion concerning Ferahgo the Assassin

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 Ferahgo the Assassin

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ferahgo the Assassin

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

• I'm aware of the problems that have occurred here in the past, but at this point I'm not seeing the "there" there, really. There's no explanation as to what was wrong with the statement at the arbitration request, and I sure don't immediately see what it's supposed to be. (I'm also more than a bit hesitant for us to police RfAR here—normally, I'd leave handling issues there to the discretion of clerks/arbs, and I see no reason to make an exception in this case). The second diff is one editor agreeing with another, which is not in itself sufficient to support an accusation of "tag teaming". Similarly, the third is a talk page comment, which does not support an accusation of "slow-mo edit warring" (I'd want to see diffs of actual reverts to support that). The fourth comment does come across a bit snarky, and could do with that being toned down, but it's not something I would sanction for. So, while I'm not saying these issues haven't happened, I'd want to see more than what's been presented here in support of them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm broadly in agreement with Seraphimblade, and are you sure that this was the link you were looking for, because it appears that they're no longer under any specific sanctions? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:20, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Seraphimblade and SFR. I'm familiar with the issues surrounding the original case, the case review, and the previous tag teaming/account usage issues. None of the diffs presented so far appear to be crossing a line where we would sanction a freshly minted SPA, much less an established editor who's topic ban has been rescinded without issue. In particular, the diff claiming to show a slow edit war instead seems to show her making a change to the article based on claimed consensus (I don't know whether there was actual consensus or not), being reverted, and then immediately going to the talkpage to discuss rather than re-reverting. That seems like
  WP:BRD, the exact opposite of edit warring. I agree with Seraphimblade that the fourth diff is more confrontational than we want to see, but not approaching a level we'd generally sanction for. Also, three of the four diffs are from Summer 2022 and pretty stale. I'm open to reinstating the topic ban if evidence can be provided that her current conduct is a problem in the topic area. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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 Marcelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marcelus (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/Enforcement/Archive316#TrangaBellam (administrator explanation regarding the most recent sanctioning (in Poland-related topic): It "applies in the mainspace and relates to all articles related to Eastern Europe. (...) This restriction is indefinite, but I will be willing to reconsider after three months with no violations and no edit warring in other topic areas." (diff).

Diffs

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

1. 23:52, 12 March 2023. A proposal discussion was started by user Amakuru regarding my request to change article name of a Lithuanian noble
   WP:COMMONNAME (see: screenshots
   ) and he was a Lithuanian noble.
2. 09:00, 13 March 2023. Soon the proposal was opposed by user Marcelus who provided links to the Google searches by purposefully selecting "Search pages in English only" and this way excluding all Lithuanian language sources (which use Povilas Alšėniškis). This, of course, dramatically affected numbers and Lithuanian version was presented as allegedly not the most common version (this is clearly very important for other voters and movers). Since Google Scholar (and Google books) have too few sources about this Lithuanian noble, I think such action was not Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
3. 09:02, 13 March 2023. He clarified: "Strong oppose", so likely unwilling to
   WP:COMPROMISE
   .
4. 18:11, 13 March 2023. Following my additional explanation why the renaming is necessary, Marcelus replied and inserted statement that "Paweł Holszański was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble". This is very strong argument how his name should be written, right? Nevertheless, I found no such information in
   WP:OR
   or to cross that out.
5. 20:28, 14 March 2023. Marcelus replied, but ignored my request about
   WP:NATIONALISM
   (one of its examples: "Famous person is or is not a member of group").
6. 20:59, 14 March 2023: again ignored my request.
7. 19:20, 15 March 2023: again ignored my request.
8. 18:44, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.
9. 19:59, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 22:08, 11 February 2023 for
   WP:EW
   in Lithuania, Poland topics.
2. 01:21, 17 July 2022 for
   WP:EW
   in Lithuania, Poland topics.

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by
  talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA
  ).
• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
• Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
• Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
• Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
• Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see:

(moved; reply to Volunteer Marek) Hello, I lately discussed about the situation with an administrator at his talk page (diff) and I was suggested to file WP:AE. I think that persistently not providing WP:RS is not disagreement. Similar situation occurred to Cukrakalnis and Turaids as well (described above). -- Pofka (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: Hello, being recognized as one of only two finest editors in "Lithuania" topic myself and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, I think it is unacceptable to use personal interpretations to prove POV/insert content and it raises concern about Reliability of Wikipedia.

As described in Cukrakalnis and Turaids situation recently, this is not the first time Marcelus act without providing WP:RS to support his actions in Lithuania, Poland, Eastern Europe topics. I did not participate in Cukrakalnis-Turaids-Marcelus dispute and only saw evidence provided about it at WP:AN, so I cannot describe these users statements here as well by having only 500 words. I pinged them with wiki links, so I think they could explain what happened back then themselves if it is necessary, but I think evidence provided at WP:AN also describe it well. WP:EV for which Marcelus was sanctioned was in the same topics as these concerns about his content-related actions are being made.

Usage of WP:EV, personal interpretations and ignoring good faith requests to

WP:IDONTHEARYOU is related with this. Or are we going to freely allow Marcelus to describe any Lithuanians as Polish-speakers, "chauvinistic pig" and anti-Polish without WP:RS/WP:VERIFY? -- Pofka (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@Marcelus: Your expansion of the article do not prove that Povilas Alšėniškis was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble as you claimed (and by the way it was performed with offline sources when at talk page you persistently refused to WP:VERIFY your claim). Your sanction related with Zigmas Zinkevičius was applied after a later report when you continued your actions in the same article (see: HERE), so the initial report was really left without a clear decision. It is easy to check. Request to evaluate activity is not negative commenting. -- Pofka (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I asked (six times) was

WP:RS to ensure that he was a Polish-speaker. -- Pofka (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

[21]

Discussion concerning Marcelus

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 Marcelus

Pofka created

On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me ([29]), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks ([30]). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported ([31]), Pofka declared: I learned from it, and I'll not negatively comment about other fellow editors.

Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - I and

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 InedibleHulk

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

InedibleHulk (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
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

Diffs

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

1. [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40] Despite the
   regular editorial process
   .
2. [41], [42] Implies that because of Hale's actions, we can disrespect his gender identity.
3. [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48] In many edit summaries, InedibleHulk makes comments that skirt the boundaries of what is acceptable in a CTOP article/talk page
4. [49] Edits a comment to describe Hale as an emotionally disturbed loner with a history of lying. As far as I know, I've not seen any reliable sources describe Hale as a person with a "history of lying".

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• [50] GENSEX DS notice, 25 July 2022
• [51] GENSEX and gun control CTOP notices, 5 April 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Many of InedibleHulk's talk page contributions are very likely

This type of disruption has a serious impact upon other editors, and can lead to them disengaging from the article and talk page due to stress and aggrivation.

These diffs show a pattern of

@Maddy from Celeste: Take a look at the sixth diff I've linked above (current link number 19). InedibleHulk doesn't seem to recognise that Hale was transgender, or even self-identified as transgender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic bans, this is a complicated one as the article that lead us to this point falls under three or four; GENSEX, BLP, Gun Control, and depending on how you look at it post-1992 US Politics. The issues that I've seen and documented here mostly fall under the first two, GENSEX and BLP. I agree with Seraphimblade that a single topic ban wouldn't cover all of the issues raised. A dual GENSEX and BLP (in the sense that it includes recently deceased) TBAN would cover the majority of the problem, if InedibleHulk can recognise that this article and any with similar circumstances would be covered.

On a site block/indef. I was initially thinking that despite InedibleHulk's rather lengthy block log, a temporary or indef site block would have been too much, even with the wheelbarrow of TBANs being proposed. But, in the time that I was writing this reply, InedibleHulk has directed three edit summaries on his talk page to me. The first of these [52] is fair. But the second [53] and third [54] are crossing the line of unacceptable per the

civility policy. So now I think a site block is warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• [55]

Discussion concerning InedibleHulk

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 InedibleHulk

Police, old friends and Audrey Hale's mother seem to believe she was a woman, and though she seems to have perhaps denied this implicitly by preferring male pronouns online, she also has a reliably sourced history of lying offline. It doesn't seem like misgendering to agree with the majority of those who knew and cared for her. It seems like gendering. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering BDP only applies to material with implications (presumably meaning negative) for living friends and relatives, I think telling a woman who told ABC News "I think I lost my daughter today" her daughter was a man (if she reads that page) is probably erring on the side of least caution (and contradicting her teammates, who one said were "like a family", second least). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sideswipe, both of this BDP's living parents' opinions are "highly suspect". That's even worse than slinging mud at the dead, by my understanding of how sensitivity works. I'm not the judge here, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I haven't been disrupting editing by any of my comments, the page is locked (I've probably edit-conflicted a few people by making minor followups, and I'm sorry for that, as always). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, too, trusting a dead mass murderer (not even always the kind who kill children at random) when he, she or they seem to be the only one who ever shared an opinion on a matter is a slippery slope toward all kinds of fringe bullshit being treated as the opposite of fringe. Even if it's only applied to "Aiden", for some reason, there's still a lot of manifesto to leak or be released. Will we be so sympathetic if the coward blames Christianity? Bullies? The American educational system? A living Tennessee politician or two? TV? Straight people who just don't understand? The victims? God? Living relatives police say she may have also planned to kill? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm supposed to ping Maddy or what, but:

While I'm here, I may as well challenge anyone to find an edit which even hints at an anti-trans sentiment from me since 2006. I'm only in this mess because this article started off as one about the next big shooting, which is my bag here, historically. If it weren't the mountain of evidence that nobody alive today with firsthand experience seems to believe Audrey Hale was a man, even after learning she disagreed, I'd appreciate how this is misgendering. I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun on a colleague once or twice, and made sure enough to not do it again, out of common human decency. I don't edit articles about trans people or topics very often at all, not through any active avoidance, but just through their scarcity. I think the idea of switching gender identities is cool. But the dead have no identities, including gender-related. I've always known this, it just hasn't needed explaining to so many people yet, by chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Feathers, I'm not confused. "This" refers to the preceding guideline and "holds for any phase of the person's life" pretty clearly implies it does not hold beyond that point. And yes, Hale did have a life, and this would have applied to it then, while she was a person. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since my opinion on this particular former person is broadly (though wrongly) construed as something against every single trans person, current or former, I can see how keeping my voices away from that subject might seem warranted. But banning me from all gun, living people and American politic articles would be too much, given the reported problem here. And rebanning someone for previously having served a ban would be a double jeopardy in the real world. It would be more (but still not) reasonable to keep me away from churches, schools and Nashville. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, that "pop culture banality" diff should be taken to mean don't let your children grow up to be mass murderers, not don't let them question or answer their genders (that goes for other living relatives, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of Sideswipe's latest diffs refers to them, the next two to the content. I also find it disturbing how closely they still watch my page, after I asked them to unwatch already. For what, laying in wait? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I quit. Those who don't trust me can do whatever on top of it. Those who do, thanks again. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maddy from Celeste

It isn't a BLP violation to point out that parents often misgender their children, and that only the subject's own identification counts for

Thryduulf: I'm not actually certain if "transgender people, broadly construed" is a subset of "gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people". Sure, you could interpret all trans people as inherently associated with gender-related disputes and controversies, but that is overbroad in my opinion. I would much rather require a person to be associated with a specific controversy, rather than just painting all trans people, even those not personally involved in any notable controversies, as "associated with disputes and controversies". Now in my opinion GENSEX itself is also extremely ill-defined, so I'd propose a ban from just one topic which arbcom specifically states falls thereunder: any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: I think he was undeniably self-identifying as transgender, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re Swideswipe and Crunch, I don't see anything denying that Hale self-identified as trans, only denying the validity of his identity. And if such a claim does exist or come into existence, that would not be a GENSEX problem, but a reading comprehension problem. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

IH, are you genuinely confused about GID? Hale did have a life, and GID applies to every part of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to hold InedibleHulk in high esteem. He's one of those editors who I frequently disagree with but find to be incisive and likely to present the hardest to counter arguments. I'm surprised not to be seeing that at all here, and I do wonder if he should be encouraged or required to edit in other topic areas. IH, I'd be happy to talk more with you at one of our talk pages about how MOS:BIOGRAPHY applies to people even when they're dead; I worry doing so here would exacerbate your overage on the word count limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Funcrunch

Based on

@Maddy from Celeste: Not to be pedantic, but a potential problem with the suggested wording of your topic ban is that InedibleHulk apparently does not acknowledge that Hale was, in fact, transgender. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: You and I find that undeniable, but InedibleHulk does not. And that stance might extend to other subjects in the future. So I think it might be safer to focus a topic ban on gender-related controversies rather than, or perhaps in addition to, trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: I'm transmasculine but also agender. My pronouns are they/them, not he/him, as noted on my user profile. Funcrunch (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that my edit above was in response to this edit which was later amended and subsequently removed. Funcrunch (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FormalDude

The biggest problem I see here is that IH continues to use she/her pronouns for Hale numerous times well after a consensus was developed that Hale takes he/him pronouns. Having been informed of this multiple times, I don't know how it can be construed as anything other than intentional misgendering. Obviously that is not compatible with editing in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Looking at their block log, it does seem to be a broader issue. He was blocked for his edits to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018. He was blocked in December 2020 by Valereee for BLP violations, and got unblocked with an AP tban. He then violated that a month later in January 2021, and then a second time in February 2021, causing him to be blocked both times by EvergreenFir.

That was all before I became an active editor, but here is some of the problematic behavior I have seen from IH more recently in these types of articles:

1. Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting
2. Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting
3. Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting
4. Talk:Joe Biden
5. Talk:Joe Biden

––FormalDude (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a site ban is most appropriate. Given his history, he should be well aware of the standards that are required for editing in CT, but has chosen to edit the way he does anyways. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LilianaUwU

I'll have to echo FormalDude's statement here: the constant misgendering of Aiden Hale despite being asked multiple times not to do so is unacceptable, and incompatible with Wikipedia editing. So is being very aggressive in edit summaries. This reminds me of the Athaenara situation, but I'd say this is worse: InedibleHulk has repeatedly posted that type of comments, and they're much more blatant than Athaenara's comment (the use of she to refer to a trans man is constant across IH's messages). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcmastrpc Excuse me, but repeatedly misgendering someone would be worth an indef in my book, let alone a TBAN. Any rando who had just created an account would've been indeffed with no questions asked, no AE, nothing; the only reason we're here to discuss it is because it's an estabilished editor. A TBAN is not only appropriate, but I'd say it's not enough. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, with due respect, with how often IH misgendered Aiden Hale (more use of she than on ship pages!), I feel like a TBAN from GENSEX is also, or instead, in order. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silverseren

I think this diff given by Sideswipe9th originally above is really exemplary of the issue here. To quote the two comments therein:

Anyone looks like a shitty person if you misquote them. I didn't mean I'd only disrespect a trans bin Laden, but would still disrespect him (for his murders). And I never said anything like this bullshit "policy" you've ascribed to me.

and

I don't consider it misgendering, I honestly believe she was a woman.

It seems pretty clear that InedibleHulk has no intention of editing neutrally in this contentious topic area and is quite open about that. Silverseren^C 21:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kcmastrpc

I believe a TBAN is inappropriate in this instance. This is an unusually charged issue that I suspect anyone involved with editing has some emotional feelings towards, additionally, we have a large number of reliable sources who continue to use Hales birth name further aggravating the situation and creating what some might argue is a conflict with wikipedia principles. Perhaps we should ask IH to step away from editing this article in general and show grace for everyone involved (assuming he agrees to step away)? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zaathras

Observations. One, in Sideswipe9th's 3rd listed point, InedibleHulk's commentary-via-edit-summary is their modus operandi. Ranging from antagonistic to pop culture banality, it is honestly becoming un-collegial. Two, this is reminiscent of GooDday's AE. If one cannot be respectful of the gender of Wikipedia editors and/or subjects of Wikipedia articles, they really do not belong in the topic area. A topic ban is most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaathras (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

To me it seems like at most a transgender topic ban. Anything else is stale and/or not that serious. starship.paint (exalt) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

A site ban???? Ok, so we have a topic that for whatever noble reasons has this established carve out from our normal rules on sources and due weight, but to edit in opposition to that carve out is now cause for a site ban? Yall wildin. nableezy - 17:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And an edit summary on his own talk page is what seals that for one admin? Boggles the mind a bit. nableezy - 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wait a minute, AE cant do an indefinite block, or a site ban, it can do an indefinite block that is downgraded to a normal admin action block after a year. It takes a lot more than an admin or three to site ban an editor from the English Wikipedia. nableezy - 21:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

I have blocked EH in the past so I thought I should chime in. I think a topic ban (or bans) is appropriate given the conduct. I am honestly a bit fond of EH, though I understand he can be disruptive. InedibleHulk's does not seem to be maliciously or tendentiously disruptive, just annoyingly so in most cases. I'd rather not indef block this user as I don't think he is a harm to the project as a whole. But it is clear he needs to be restricted from certain areas. IMO, he's a WikiPossum; makes a mess of your trash and bothers folks at times, but is not generally harmful. Just my 2 cents.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning InedibleHulk

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

• My first impression is that this is a very clear and repeated violation of
  WP:GENSEX (and BLP in general in some cases), and the doubling down despite advice and warnings from multiple other editors does tend tend to suggest that a topic ban would be appropriate. A topic ban obviously needs a scope, based on the evidence presented here (at least so far) I think "transgender people, broadly interpreted" would cover everything problematic without being too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @The Wordsmith I don't see how this is an unusual circumstance at all or how there is any scope for different interpretations of the policy. Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. [...] Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. covers this exact situation.

  Regarding the topic ban scope, I've read the comments but I want to think on them further before reaffirming, amending or withdrawing my suggestion - all three options remain firmly on the table (with the British English meaning of that idiom). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Courcelles in that I think we're going to need three topic bans, and at least a warning about civility and not misusing edit summaries. In isolation the event that precipitated this report doesn't justify a site ban, but considering their other actions and that previous topic bans have not successfully dealt with the disruption it does at the minimum justify active consideration of whether someone is worth the volunteer time and energy required to manage them, and the time and expertise that other volunteers choose not to contribute to the project because of them. I don't know whether I would support a site ban at this point, but I'm certainly not far off doing so and if one isn't imposed here it will be if their behaviour brings them back to this board. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The recent edit summaries noted by Sideswipe9th, particularly this one have removed all the doubts I had about a site ban. If your behaviour and civility is being examined that is the time to show yourself at your best, but this is not acceptable let alone best. It's always a shame when someone who clearly can make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia chooses to do the exact opposite, but there simply is no space in a collaborative environment for them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It may well be that a topic ban is appropriate, but this case is a little unusual because not only is IH confused about how to refer to the subject, our reliable sources themselves are confused about how to do so and we have good sources using both sets of names and pronouns. I haven't examined every diff yet (will try to do so later tonight), but so far I don't see malice or intent to cause harm. It seems more like a disagreement about how to interpret policy in an unusual circumstance. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  After looking into the issue further, I'm leaning towards the behavior being enough of an issue that a topic ban of some sort would be the right move here. I'm just unsure which of the several scopes proposed would be the best a containing the problem. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• InedibleHulk's behavior in this noticeboard has been less than ideal. That, in conjunction with the provided diffs, makes me think a topic ban is appropriate. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I like HJ's suggestion of and support a one year site ban in conjunction with an AP2 and GS topic ban. This isn't IH's first rodeo with topic bans and they should know we expect better behaviour from editors in contentious areas. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 17:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be interested in seeing evidence, if any exists, of problems within either the GENSEX or BLP areas beyond the recent mass shooting before opining on a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My point is I wonder if we are looking at a AP2/BLP problem being presented as a GENSEX one. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, looking over everything I think we have a messy situation that is going to take at least three CTOP actions to contain the disruption. 1) A GENSEX topic ban from making any edits relating to the gender identity of any person. 2) A ban on articles about mass shootings. 3) An AP2 topic ban. Here's the problem, IH has previously treated an AP2 topic ban with a rather cavalier attitude, being blocked twice for violating a three-month topic ban. And incivility is a running concern throughout the various CTOP areas being discussed here. Courcelles (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Following on from Courcelles' point, looking at InedibleHulk's block log and the links from Formal Dude I'm thinking rather than rather than dealing with this under GENSEX CTOP, a topic ban from mass shootings, broadly construed, under gun control as well as TBAN under AP2 (not sure whether to go all post-1992 or narrower yet) might be more effective and targetted at the topic area where problems lie. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to agree with Courcelles and Callanecc—this isn't a case where just saying "Topic ban from GENSEX" completely addresses the issue. I still would topic ban from GENSEX, given how poor IndelibleHulk's behavior has been in that area as demonstrated here, and would also topic ban from AP2. Given how political the issue of mass shootings has become, I think any articles about American mass shootings after 1992 can already be considered covered under AP2, and so a separate topic ban on those specifically is not needed. And though not formally, I'd warn that if this type of behavior continues on in other areas, I'd strongly be considering an indef next time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  When I was on the committee, if I felt the need to propose this many topic bans in a PD, a site ban would be included in the PD to at least be voted on. I would not oppose one here given how significant the disruption is. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I know I am supposed to stay out of AE as a current arb, but I can recuse if this comes to the committee. Seeing the block log, my first choice would be an indef block with my second being the wheelbarrow of topic bans suggested above. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think there's enough here to support either or both of a site ban or indef, so if that's what's agreed to, I don't object to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support a one-year site ban as the maximum we can impose at AE (with an indef on top as a regular admin action). My first thought was there IH had some semblance of a point that the shooter had been inconsistent about their gender identity but when I see that there's a talk page consensus on the matter, it starts to look like tendentious editing. Add in the tone of talk page contributions and the edit summaries and I start to think this isn't someone who should be editing controversial topics. With the recidivism, based on the block log, this clearly isn't the first time and it's clearly not limited to one topic area so a site ban seems the appropriate response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not averse to the topic bans. I slightly favour the site ban because there seem to have been a variety of issues with IH's editing in a variety of topic areas going back years. If it's to be a site ban, I would have no issue with it being a one-year finite duration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support the one-year ban at this point followed up by the topic bans, due to their history of violating topic bans and their edit summaries referring to SS9th today. Initially I was thinking that the topic bans would likely be sufficient to stop the disruption here, but looking over their block log, and seeing incivility in the their edit summaries (something else they've been blocked for) makes me think that something a bit broader than just the topic bans will likely be necessary. I would not be opposed to just the topic bans if there is a reasonable belief that they'll abide by them and adjust their behavior in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 JCJC777

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

JCJC777 (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

Specifically (emphasis mine): Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines... follow editorial and behavioural best practice...refrain from gaming the system....You should err on the side of caution...

Diffs

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

1. 10:47, 12 April 2023 Editing against consensus, whitewashing POV, repeated content blanking, see also: [56][57][58][59][60][61]
2. 13:11, 13 April 2023 Repeated mis-representation of sources, or only deriving the most favorable POV from sources: [62] [63]
3. 10:09, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of low quality news-org and
   WP:PRIMARY sourcing to make claims of medical efficacy. See also: [64] [65] [66] [67][68] This is also not the first time this user has been warned about this: DocJames and Jytdog and Donlago and many multiple users across their talk page
4. 10:47, 12 April 2023 [69][70][71][72] Repeatedly uses bare URLs despite being warned about this 16 times, even saying others should clean up their mess "Hi Doniago, I know with your brilliance and your love for making Wiki maximally rich, that you'll find the ref. Go well":[73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88]
5. 12:00, 8 April 2023 Repeated tagging of content already sourced in the body, or in the same sentence as "citation needed" despite multiple talk page discussions about this. e.g.
   WP:IDHT. See also: [89]
6. 04:35, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of wikipedia links as sources. See also: [90] Been warned about this before ([91] as far back as 2012)

Violation of our policies on

edit warring

(repeatedly reinserted material over several days without engaging meaningfully on talk, and broke 3RR)

1. 07:00, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
2. 21:02, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
3. 19:57, 11 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
4. 03:37, 12 April 2023 Re-adding, whitewashing, and re-interpreting and cherry-picking a source (Cuijpers 2020) in the lead and elsewhere (as was also done on 4 April: [92])
5. 10:47, 12 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV (same passages as #1)
6. 11:13, 12 April 2023 Again removing content from section/ converting "is" to "was". Similar to #1 and #4.

The above diffs 3-6 demonstrate 4 reverts in a 24 hour period which restore this user's preferred version.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11:15, 19 November 2021 Indef'd from
   Multiple Sclerosis
   for many of the same behaviors as above (using poor quality sources, disruptive edits, edit warring, repeatedly not listening to others about bare URLs)

If

WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics

)

• Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In summary, this user is doing basically the same thing here at

I see no reason why this behavior should be tolerated at a contentious topic page when it was so clearly not tolerated at a featured article. This user very clearly has a

I recommend a page-block from Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing at a minimum, TBAN from pseudoscienceat a maximum as a reasonable next step.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) (added diffs 23:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Clarification 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC): I am not opposed to a site-wide indef, it just isn't my first choice in this particular situation. I wish this user could get the message that these behaviors are not okay, and resume their past editing in less-contentious areas, with more knowledge of the PAGs. But I also acknowledge that has not been their response at every previous juncture.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• 18:52, 13 April 2023

Also pinging other involved users:

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 JCJC777

I've retired, so outcome of this immaterial and I'd suggest you good people don't waste your energy ahd time on it.

As I've said before elsewhere on wiki, I think the wiki editor role should be split. If you look at a music band, a sports team or an investment bank team, there will be some people with some skills, interests and passions and some with others. The current wiki system demands all editors have all skills.

Imagine what a massive increase in wiki editing resources could occur if we enabled - those who want to to play offence (spotting wiki articles that are hurting people out there by being wrong, proposing good new content, proposing elimination of bad content) and - those who want to to play central midfield (gatekeeping on wiki rules, maintaining disciplines ahd standards, mopping up errors). Arguably that might work by the offence people proposing content on the article Talk page, but that seems a slow way of moving. The offence people (Loki they're probably often Chaotic Good alignment) will lose interest and go. Wiki needs to encourage them and help them operate.

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I oppose this action on two grounds. First of all, all of the linked edits have been on the page for

Second and probably more important is that if JCJC777 has been edit warring, so has every other editor on the page, including the filer. The following diffs are all reverts made by Shibbolethink on

• Reverting several tags from the lead questioning phrasing issues
• Reverting a large edit to the lead which contained significant noncontroversial material
• Reverting a previous edit of mine that questioned whether a claim was properly sourced
• Reverting a big edit originally by JCJC that added quite a lot of sources to the article.
• Again reverting a large edit to the lead, this time by an IP.
• Reverting a bunch of direct quotations in the medical guidelines that tend to support the idea that EMDR is evidence-based. This one in particular includes restoring a direct misreading of one source, the NHMRC source, which is quoted as conditionally recommending EMDR off the basis of a side comment when its main recommendation recommends EMDR for PTSD in adults with its highest grade of evidence.

And he's not even the worst offender; several other editors on the page have made a habit of mass reverting the page to their preferred version. Many of them characterize these mass reverts against "whitewashing", as the filer does above, when they are instead often reverting the addition of high quality sources (like, again, the NHMRC source above) that simply don't support their POV. (To clarify, like I say on the talk page, I don't really agree that anyone involved is edit warring at the current time. Most edits to the page have been building on top of edits of editors opposing them in the underlying topic dispute rather than reverting them. But also there have been a lot of unjustified reverts, and JCJC777 has not really been a major offender here, in my view.)

Just in general, the state of the article is not good and this is not JCJC777's fault. JCJC777 certainly is a clumsy editor, but he's also added a bunch of sources that really are valuable and

MrOllie: I'll give you that the GPT comment was very weird, but it was pretty harmless all things considered. I'll also agree that studies themselves are not the

WP:BESTSOURCES

in the topic area (while also lightly pushing back on the idea that they are so weak that they deserve to be mass reverted). I don't think JCJC is the strongest editor in this topic area but I do think that despite that he has a better idea of the overall consensus in the field than many of the other editors here.

I disagree strongly, as you know, with the idea that the several highly reliable sources from big professional organizations saying that EMDR is an evidence-based therapy for PTSD in those words do not bear strongly on the issue of whether EMDR is pseudoscientific.

WP:FRINGE/QS only requires a "reasonable amount of academic debate" for a theory to be unsuitable for description as pseudoscience, and the sourcing we have is way past that. Loki (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Eh, much as I hate to admit it, BC is right that I didn't evaluate all the sources in that edit I reverted with sufficient rigor. I saw that most of them were to what seemed to me to be fairly standard studies and assumed that all of them were.

I still object to the characterization of JCJC's edits as

WP:PROFRINGE, though. Loki (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

JCJC777's editing really is disruptive, and IMO worse than anyone else editing the article on either side of the argument. I may be a shade biased on that, though, since JCJC777 did come by my user talk page to make personal attacks ([95] and [96]).

-

I do think that despite that he has a better idea of the overall consensus in the field than many of the other editors here. Funny how we all think that the editors who agree with us have the best grasp on the field.

MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I would also add, by-by-by, that ‎JCJC777 is not the only problem editor here. By restoring[97] ‎JCJC777's entire huge edit, and invoking "MEDRS quality sources" in the edit summary when in fact the sources are - yes - "the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia" (and a predatory journal also), LokiTheLiar is acting as an enabler in a similarly problematic manner. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JCJC777

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

• That’s quite a lot of FRINGE pushing. Absolutely support a PS topic ban, but wondering if that’s enough. Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I took a 30-second look and my inclination was to indef. But it was only a 30-second look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The use of sources like the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia as references for medical content is a very serious problem that cannot continue. This behavior indicates a deep misunderstanding of how articles on medical topics must be written. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  "Retirements" when an editor is under scrutiny are commonplace, and this particular retirement should have no impact on this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• In agreement with Courcelles: we should at least give JCJC777 an indefinite topic ban from pseudoscience. I would not be opposed to either a one-year block as arbitration enforcement, or an indef block as a regular admin action (since there's a rule that AE blocks can't be longer than a year.) And yes, never mind the retirement. Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
• These problems seem pretty severe and unlikely to improve on their own. JCJC777 absolutely should not edit in this topic area, and probably not at all given the massive issues presented here. I'm leaning towards indef block, the first year of which would be an AE action. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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 NeuroZachary

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

NeuroZachary (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:ARBAP

Diffs

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

1. [98] 19 April 2023 20:09 UTC — it should be obvious;
2. [99] 19 April 2023 20:05 UTC — it should be obvious;
3. [100] 19 April 2023 20:03 UTC — it should be obvious.

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 [101] 19 April 2023 19:05 UTC (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• [102] 19 April 2023 20:23 UTC tells me he is an experienced Wikipedian. You should examine if he is a
  WP:SOCK. He just got indeffed. That's an extra reason to perform a sockpuppetry investigation. Their first edit at en.wiki at [103] looks pretty advanced for a "newbie". According to [104], this account has no edits at other Wikimedia projects. See [105]? I have an account for more than 20 years, and I didn't know that <kbd> exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• [106] 20:13 UTC 19 April 2023

Discussion concerning NeuroZachary

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 NeuroZachary

Statement by Sideswipe9th

NeuroZachary strikes me as an editor who is textbook

Sockpuppetry concerns aside, which are probably better handled at

WP:SPI if still necessary, as NeuroZachary has just been indeffed (I think as a regular admin action) by Courcelles, this filing may now be largely moot? I guess unless or until NeuroZachary files a successful unblock request? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Indeffed per NOTHERE, since the only thing they want to do is POV push. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:NOTHERE and is probably not going to be unblocked, so asking for a Checkuser without any evidence would just be a fishing expedition. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I am asking the community and/or administrators to allow me to edit in the ARBPIA area, rescinding the current topic ban, a ban which I unsuccessfully appealed here, but which allowed me to edit ARBPIA pages without diverging into political issues. This freedom, too, was taken away from me when I wrote a new Wikipedia article entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” which you can see here

I first want to say that I made an honest mistake. Since my topic ban actually permitted me (as one can see here), to edit pages bearing the Arab-Israel (ARBPIA) tag, I felt that I could do so on a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem”, mentioning both Jewish and Arab cultural sites, following the format of Outline of Munich, without touching on the political intricacies besetting the Israeli and Palestinian Arab peoples. In fact, I simply mentioned while editing that page the name of the current government over Jerusalem, which information the page in its format had actually called for (and what information is presently known by all). My freedom to edit pages bearing the ARBPIA label gave me a sense “unfounded” confidence that it would not be a breach of my topic ban (which prohibited me from engaging in issues involving the area of conflict) if I were to write the name of the government currently in charge of the city, as the page format requested.

I made an honest mistake and am asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area by rescinding my current ban. I can assure my colleagues here that I will do my utmost to abide by all Wikipedia policies, and act in Good Faith when editing. This will allow me the opportunity to help promote articles in the ARBPIA field to good article status, as well as to add historical data, whenever needed.

Secondly, I wish to say that my original topic ban in the ARBPIA field involved a dispute that I had with another editor, but that this dispute has since been resolved. I wish to remind all those here that I have NEVER once made any statement on Wikipedia that incites violence against any of my Arab or Palestinian countrymen, nor have I ever hoped that harm come upon them. My editing history will prove this without any doubt.Davidbena (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Venue is ANI? It is Arbpia related but the original and current ban are imposed at ANI. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If this belongs at ANI, I'll move it there.Davidbena (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, this was imposed at AE and can be appealed here or at AN or directly to the committee. The prior community sanction can only be appealed to AN or to the committee. David, if you want to appeal here I strongly suggest you use the appeal template in the edit-notice ({{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}). nableezy - 21:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Davidbena: From my recollections: you were at one time given a broad topic-ban; another time given a "narrow" topic-ban (allowing you to edit about ancient history, but not present-day I/P-issues.) Am I right in understanding that you want all topic-bans lifted? Huldra (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is correct, so that I will not make the same mistakes that I made in the past. Having a "limited topic ban" is what brought me into trouble the last time and not safely recognizing the limits of that topic ban. If, however, the community should feel that I am still unworthy to have my ARBPIA topic ban lifted, even after more than 3 years under the ban, I will be content to have my "limited topic ban" restored.Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Nableezy. I'll use the format that you've suggested.Davidbena (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Where is this appeal actually active? The OP filed at ANI (not AN) as well, in which I commented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per David's last comment here, he appears to want to reformulate this using the template. Id collapse this as withdrawn myself but sadly you all have not seen fit to grant me an admin bit, but I request that be done now. nableezy - 00:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]