Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive319

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Interstellarity

There is clear consensus among uninvolved administrators to lift the page restriction at Watergate scandal. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:21, 27 May 2023 (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, substantial, and active 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: Interstellarity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Interstellarity (talk) 23:40, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Removal of the editnotice at Watergate scandal: Template:Editnotices/Page/Watergate scandal

Administrator imposing the sanction: JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Interstellarity

I am requesting that the sanction be lifted since there hasn't been any recent edits that would be sanctioned. The most recent edits seem to be simple vandalism and deletion of content that can be handled with normal Wikipedia policy and not under WP:AP2.

Statement by JzG

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Interstellarity

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 Interstellarity

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

Procedural note that Watergate is one of the "legacy" sanctions within the old 1932 AP2 scope, which ArbCom gave me (or anyone) permission to clarify the editnotices for, but I haven't gotten around to. This doesn't affect the validity of the sanction; just explaining how it got there at all. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see no particular issue with removal of the page restriction here. I note previous comment from Thryduulf on the point. Izno (talk) 04:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping Izno, having had another quick look I don't see anything obvious has changed since I left that comment, so I support removing the restriction. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the restriction doesn't seem to be necessary at this point in time—there's no disruption that can't be dealt with through our ordinary processes. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by FormalDude

The imposed restrictions at Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign are reverted, though the page remains under the WP:CT/AP contentious topic. BD2412 is reminded that pages under a contentious topic do not automatically fall under restrictions such as "1RR" or "consensus required", which can be imposed by uninvolved administrators when it's deemed needed to prevent disruption. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 14:53, 28 May 2023 (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, substantial, and active 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: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Imposition of 1RR and BRD page restrictions under WP:CT/AP at Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign. [1]

Administrator imposing the sanction: BD2412 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: [2]

Statement by FormalDude

WP:CTOP states that page restrictions may be imposed by a single uninvolved administrator, and BD2412 had made 51 edits to Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign and at least eight edits to its talk page prior to implementing the page restrictions, as such they appear actively involved with the article. Furthermore their implementation of these restrictions came after getting into a dispute with an editor, which gives the perception that it was reactionary. See this thread for that conflict, as well as where I asked them to reconsider their original decision. Additionally, the page does not have the level of edit warring or instability that would be expected for 1RR and BRD to apply. BD2412 stated that "we are not constrained to ignore developments in the real world in determining the appropriate level of caution to assign to a page falling squarely within restrictions" [3], but my understanding is that the implementation of page restrictions under contentious topics are not supposed to be preemptive. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine closing this, but how about a warning for BD2412? I explained all of this to them multiple times before coming here. Why did it take a report like this for them to accept that? ––FormalDude (talk) 23:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BD2412

I think it's rather unrealistic to act as though the article for a leading American presidential campaign is going to fall outside of the general issues recognized by Arbcom as plaguing post-1992 American political issues even at much lower levels. The issue is not vandalism, per se, but the inherent fact that editors will be motivated to shape the narrative one way or the other, and will boldly make (and restore) contentious changes. The proposal made earlier on the talk page to semi-protect the article, while premature, is worth considering as well. If the template should be removed because I am an involved editor (and, in fact, the creator of the article, as I am with many campaign topics, which insures their consistent presentation across the encyclopedia), then it should immediately be readded by the removing administrator under their own steam in advance of the escalation of slow-motion edit wars that experience teaches will come to this article. BD2412 T 22:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ: Adding {{American politics AE}} by default applies 1RR. I did not choose any parameter for this to come out as part of the message, it just did. Since there is no option to use the topic-specific template without specifying a sanction to be applied, I have changed this to a {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} template. I think it would be absurd to walk this back any farther than that. There is zero question that this is a topic of the type that made it necessary to impose conditions on editing post-1992 American political issues. BD2412 T 23:31, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ElijahPepe

As the foremost editor of said article, BD2412 is involved in this article and was involved in two discussions on the talk page, including one to rewrite the lede. This article has faced sparse, if any, acts of vandalism. In the last three days, I could only find two acts of vandalism, with the second act occurring after 1RR was enacted on this article. While I appreciate his contributions, the decision to 1RR was made swiftly and without casus belli. Standard procedures to reach a conclusion with the lede were followed and there was no sign of disruption. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by FormalDude

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 FormalDude

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

Based on the edit preceding the tagging, this looks more like someone misunderstanding how CTOP works than deliberately trying to "pull rank". Either way, though, it should be reverted, and BD should reread WP:CTOP. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:34, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tamzin that this seems to be a misunderstanding more than anything else. (BD2412, requirements like 1RR and BRD do not apply to all articles within the post-1992 American politics topic area: they only apply if an uninvolved administrator has imposed them on the particular article.) But it is indeed INVOLVED and therefore out-of-process, so I support rescinding per WP:CT#On community review point 1, with the understanding that either or both of the restrictions can be re–imposed by someone uninvolved (although I'm not confident that that would be necessary at this time).. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, now that Template:American politics AE (which imposes restrictions and should only be placed by an uninvolved admin) has been replaced by Template:Contentious topics/talk notice (which is just a notification that can be placed by anyone), this can probably be closed without action. To be clear, Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign is not subject to 1RR or BRD at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ruach Chayim

Indeffed under NOTHERE. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2023 (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 Ruach Chayim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ruach Chayim (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: Eastern Europe contentious topics

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

May 27 1st rv on Kosovo, failure to discuss on talkpage as mandatory under article restriction
May 27 2nd rv on Kosovo, violating special 1r/24h article restriction
Apr 18 long-term rv-warring on another Kosovo article
Apr 30 ditto
Apr 30 ditto
May 4 ditto, was blocked for a week after this revert
May 11 ditto, immediately resuming same edit war after 1st block, was re-blocked for 2 weeks
May 27 ditto, immediately resuming same edit war after 2nd block
May 27 rv-warring on another Kosovo-related article
May 27 ditto

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

May 4 blocked for a week for edit-warring, logged as AE action
May 11 re-blocked for immediately resuming edit-warring after 1st block

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see 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.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [4]

Discussion concerning Ruach Chayim

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 Ruach Chayim

Greeting. Per the talk page, it is voted to state "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." You changed it without any previous discussion. I just reverted it. What did You expect to happen? Other "issues" (like Tayna) are already resolved, except the Serbian districts but I will work on them tomorrow on the talk page. Ruach Chayim (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to Ktrimi991) However, I did not violate 1RR as I did not return the edit but changed the text in order to reach some kind of solution. Cheers. Ruach Chayim (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I added the text that was voted in a different way, which was also referred to by the editor who reported me on the talk page there, so what is problem here? It's totally fine if you think the "with partial diplomatic recognition" part is redundant, but then you'll have to make a little effort and start a discussion for its removal. Hope that looks good. Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to believe that you don't "care about it", when your promptness on this matter is very enviable. As I said, I didn't break the 1RR because I changed the text as the editor suggested. There is no problem. Ruach Chayim (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanjagenije

I just want to point out that both of Ruach Chayim's recent edits on Kosovo that are cited here ([5][6]) represent effort to restore to the text agreed upon on the talk page. In a rfc (see Talk:Kosovo#RFC), a consensus was reached that the lead section should be "Kosovo, officially the Republic of Kosovo, is a country in Southeast Europe with partial diplomatic recognition." In both of those edits, Ruach Chayim restored the "partial diplomatic recognition" part that was removed by other editors contrary to the consensus. Vanjagenije (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ktrimi991

Vanjagenije, you could have also pointed out that RC has breached the 1RR on Kosovo. Editors are not allowed to make more than 1 revert there in 24 hours. Pinging admins familiar with the editor, maybe they have sth to say. @Daniel Case: @Drmies: @Ponyo:. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(In response to Ruach Chayim) With both edits you readded text that was removed by other editors. Interested admins can look at the diffs [7][8]. I told you about that on your tp and asked you to self-revert. The fact that you have not reflected on that, even after 2 blocks for edit-warring, does not look that good. Ktrimi991 (talk) 20:47, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to "make a little effort and start a discussion for its removal" because I am not involved in that content dispute, and I do not care about it. The issue I raised is your breach of the 1RR. Btw, someone opened a discussion on the tp, but instead of responding there you reverted again and breached the 1RR. I am not commenting more here, better if some admins evaluate the report and decide what should be done or not. Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:10, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles and Drmies, as the IP below pointed out, RC has accepted they are the same person as HoneymoonAve27 [9]. There is addition evidence too. Above all, the fact that HA27 proposed to split the Netflix article on enwiki, RC repeated the proposal and then did the split. So should HoneymoonAve27 too be blocked if RC gets blocked for NOTHERE/CIR? Ktrimi991 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AlexBachmann

(In response to Ruach Chayim) That's speculative, I think Ktrimi knows better if he does care about the content or not. AlexBachmann (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from that, the user is always thinking that they're not at fault (e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4]). AlexBachmann (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 163.1.15.238 for bringing this up. @Ktrimi991 and I already had a suspicion. AlexBachmann (talk) 14:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional commment by Fut.Perf.

Update: It is disappointing to see that Ruach Chayim's double bright-line violation of the article-specific sanction ("you are required to discuss any content reversions on the article talk page") not only has remained unsanctioned so far, but was followed up by 3 instances of the same bright-line violation by 3 different editors on both sides of the issue [10][11][12], including one by admin Vanjagenije, who previously commented here just above. I had opened a talk page discussion two days ago, and so far not a single editor has bothered to engage. Maybe admins should revoke that article sanction, if nobody is willing to enforce it any longer. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 192.76.8.86

I raised concerns about this editor's contributions in this topic area about a month ago in an AN thread they started [13], but that discussion was rapidly shut down before anyone really had a chance to look at the evidence I had provided [14]. I'll quote the relevant section of my comment here:

If anyone is behaving poorly here it is Ruach Chayim, who seems to be on a mission to remove as many mentions of Kosovo as possible from the project or present it entirely in one light. A selection of examples: They have made large and inflammatory edits to articles with misleading edit summaries like "fix" [15] [16], Falsely accused other editors of "vandalism" [17] Deleted Albanian related content from articles for nonsensical reasons [18], accused other editors of spreading "pro-Albaninan propaganda" without evidence [19] and edit warred to reinsert changes against consensus [20] [21] [22].

I find myself in agreement with the comment made by Drmies. 192.76.8.86 (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the same person editing from a different Oxford IP.

It's probably also worth noting that according to this log entry [23] and this talk page message [24] on the Serbian Wikipedia this is not a new editor, this is an account operated by HoneymoonAve27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log).

I do not think this is a valid use of an alternate account - this appears to be abusive sockpuppetry. Just before they retired the account HoneymoonAve27 it was blocked for edit warring and status quo stonewalling on the article Pristina [25]. Using this new account they have been doing the exact same thing [26] edit warring with the exact same people to force through their preferred version of the article. This is clearly not a valid clean start - they have continued the same disputes with the same users and have continued the same behaviour that got them blocked in the first place. 163.1.15.238 (talk) 11:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ruach Chayim

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

@Ruach Chayim and AlexBachmann: Please try to stick to your own sections. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been exhibiting NOTHERE behavior since the moment they started, and frankly I doubt they have the competence to edit here at all, let alone in sensitive topics. Drmies (talk) 12:55, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would absolutely agree with a NOTHERE/CIR indef. Courcelles (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Courcelles, I saw that you checked for socking, so I don't have to--thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2023 (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, substantial, and active 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: Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Toa Nidhiki05 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction: Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

Since the topic ban six months ago, I've had time to reflect on my actions and find them to be unacceptable and embarrassing. I allowed myself to behave poorly in a topic area that doesn't need poor behavior. Ultimately, while I do feel I wasn't the only one at fault in these disputes, the only one responsible for my actions was myself, and the enforcement action was a result of that behavior. While I can't take back what I did then - edit warring and acting in poor faith towards others - I can commit to not behaving in such a way in the future. I do feel like I have made valuable contributions in this area and can do so in the future. I would be more than open to alternatives that allow me to engage productively in this area, including things like a 1RR restriction. Toa Nidhiki05 17:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative, I think I entered the discussion on the wrong foot straight-up by edit warring; I can't recall if I did so before or after the edit, but I'd be fairly surprised if I hadn't engaged in a number of reverts prior to this discussion, at least over a period of time. But more specifically, while I do think the content in question was reliably sourced and accurate, and I don't believe her claims qualify as anything more than WP:FRINGE viewpoints, I think I entered it with a confrontational attitude rather than a collaborative one. I don't think the concerns that you gave and the viewpoint you offered could be incompatible with a compromise; I think there's some way that the sources on the matter could have been reconciled into text that is both accurate and agreeable as a consensus. The attitude I entered the discussion with did absolutely nothing to make a rational middle ground impossible. I think the discussion would have been much smoother, at least on my part, if I hadn't engaged in snide comments or bickered.

To be clear, I'm not sure there's a wording or phrasing that would have pleased everyone (this is a topic that fuels a lot of emotions in a lot of people), but I should have at least attempted to engage in this area in a matter that wasn't confrontational and driven by my own personal opinions on the matter.

So the short answer would be that I shouldn't have edit warred, that I should have engaged productively and in good faith, and I should have worked to create some sort of wording that would have resolved the broad issues from editors on both sides of the discussion rather than focusing on my preferred wording. In any future discussion of the manner, a more sensible approach would be to do these things specifically; while I can't control what other editors say or do, and there's no guarantee discussion will ultimately lead to an outcome that is satisfactory to everyone involved, there's a responsibility to work towards that end goal regardless. Toa Nidhiki05 18:42, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand not wanting to relitigate it, Generalrelative; I also have no desire to do so. I'll definitely take this into consideration, however.. Toa Nidhiki05 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note: in the initial topic ban, Black Kite noted they could not post in the uninvolved administrators section as they are not actually uninvolved. Toa Nidhiki05 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the claims from Black Kite, the claim I've been inactive is pretty silly. I do a substantial amount of work in draft userspace, and got The Beautiful Letdown up to GA. That being said, some users seem to think a lack of editing is good, and others think it's bad, so it would be nice to have some clarity as to what exactly is expected. It's abundantly clear now how this is going, so dragging this out probably won't be helpful to anyone. Toa Nidhiki05 02:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, what would you specifically like me to address that I haven't? I'm not exactly clear on this. Toa Nidhiki05 23:05, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies, I've tried to be succinct in my response, but it is a bit lengthy - my apologies. I don't believe Black Kite is correct.

"Negative content", as starship.paint, isn't forbidden for BLPs; far from it. The reason I don't focus on Republican lawmakers is because I find Wikipedia does a good enough job of handling these people; frankly, I have no interest in getting involved in the shitshow that exists on Donald Trump and his related pages, for example, and if I did it wouldn't be on the side you think. My edits aren't disproportionately on the people Black Kite mentioned, nor was the content I supported adding beyond the pale; it was election denial claims for Jean-Pierre and Abrams, and antisemitism in the lead for Omar. You can argue whether these should be in articles, but I don't think you can argue they aren't valid topics to at least consider; reliable sources do talk about these. For the election denial in particular, I'll note I added this information to other pages, like Jamie Raskin and Bennie Thompson, where they remain to this day with no controversy.

But it's far from "Democratic politicians" that I have added "negative content" for. Take, for example, my edits on John Tanton and the Center for Immigration Studies, which focused on retaining the well-documented reality that Tanton was a white nationalist and eugenicist. This is undoubtably "negative content" (albeit for someone who is dead), but isn't it worthy of being mentioned on their pages? Or how about Adrian Vermeule, a white Republican, which focus on his bizarre integralist ideology and support of a Catholic theocracy - this is "negative content" being added to a BLP of a white, male Republican. There's also Sharyl Attkisson, a conservative conspiracy theorist most known for claiming that vaccines cause autism and that the Obama administration spied on her (neither of which are true). I was extremely active in contesting her own efforts to whitewash her page, which led to me being condemned on her own website multiple times.

Honestly, I don't actually edit on a ton of BLPs, actually - most of my AP2 edits were on pages for organizations - you could probably count on two hands the number of BLPs I edited in AP in 2022.

I will say what I said in my initial statement; I'm embarrassed by how I behaved. I think I entered these areas with a battleground mentality, treated other editors poorly, and attempted to reach a consensus rather than edit warring. I can't take that back, but I can pledge not to do it again in the future - which is also why I've discussed a sanction like 1RR on AP2, which would resolve at least some concerns that have been given here. Toa Nidhiki05 01:38, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

Statement by Generalrelative

Toa, I'm happy to see this request. I think that you have a lot of drive to improve the encyclopedia, and it would be great if you could bring that back to the AP2 topic area. In furtherance of that goal, would you be willing to comment specifically on whether you see anything wrong with your behavior in this talk page discussion, and if so what you would do differently next time? Generalrelative (talk) 18:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your thoughtful reply, Toa. It takes courage to be circumspect in a public forum. And I would be more than happy to work with you to arrive at compromise –– whether within or outside of the AP2 area –– in the future. Just so you're aware, my own frustrations had to do with what I perceived to be a refusal to WP:LISTEN, as I expressed a few times in this section of the discussion. My concern was that if we couldn't even agree on what the sources said, even after they were quoted for you, productive discussion had effectively ceased. I do not expect (nor desire) to relitigate that here, but if you are un-banned I ask that you give it some thought. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 20:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I think enough time has passed without any interaction with TN05 for me to be uninvolved here, but I will move this to here for the sake of argument.

My statement at the original discussion is here. My viewpoint has not changed. In addition, I note that in the six months of the ban, TN05 has made 146 mainspace edits. Prior to the block, 146 mainspace edits were made in just over a month (29 September 2022 to 5 November 2022). They also have made a lot of negative edits on the BLPs of Democratic politicians, especially non-white females such as Ilhan Omar, Karine Jean-Pierre and Stacey Abrams (and white females such as Rebekah Jones) - please note that I'm not accusing them of sexism or racism, because they're quite happy to add positive comments to non-white female Republican BLPs such as Mayra Flores. So it's simply a political thing, but for some reason those BLPs are easy targets - they don't appear to have done the same to white male BLPs of either political stripe. Also so many of their edits are reverts [27] it just looks like they would be best staying away from AP2 for the time being. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

It's OK to have a POV. It's OK to insert negative material on BLP pages as long as it is reliably sourced and follows WP:NPOV. But, I am reminded of the second link raised by Generalrelative above, and it is not OK to have your POV override reliable sources. In that incident, the presiding judge said that in Stacey Abrams lawsuit, there were wins and losses for both sides, and reliable souces highlighted this statement from the judge in their reporting. TN05 dismissed this as the judge being courteous, which was their personal opinion and not from a reliable source. If the topic ban is lifted, I don't want such incidents re-occuring. starship .paint (exalt) 02:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been languishing for a while, I'd support what Springee mentioned, and I hope I'm not wrong if this passes. starship .paint (exalt) 04:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Springee)

I understand the concern El_C and others have raised regarding a limited number of edits and waiting things out. As an alternative to simply saying no, would a limited allowance/probationary period be an option here? Something where TN could show they get it by being given a short rope? I don't think we should assume that nothing has changed in TN's thinking after being told to sit out for 6 months. What about something like a 1RR AP2 limit? If the issue was talk page conduct then perhaps a reply limit or a strict rule against commenting on other editors. This new limitation could be appealed in 6 months. Thus TN would have a chance to show they have changed while the community wouldn't have to deal with a whole new ARE if things are an issue again. Springee (talk) 11:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

No comment on the merits at this time, but in reply to Springee, the topic ban IS a probationary period. It is in leau of being indef blocked, which is a stronger (but highly effection) sanction to prevent disruption. They have rope, and to use it without hanging themselves only requires they edit often enough, for an extended period of time, and in a way that benefits enwp, and is clearly within policy and doesn't cause disruption. At first glance, they don't appear to have passed that bar yet. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FormalDude

Largely agree with Black Kite and am unsatisfied with their answers to Drimes. They've failed to address the clear POV-pushing that was demonstrated in the report that lead to this block, instead denying it and apologizing only for their incivility. What that tells me is that we'll just see civil POV-pushing going forward. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

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 Toa Nidhiki05

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

Decline. Largely per Black Kite. This is an indef sanction working as intended. Since, as mentioned, the user has greatly reduced their edits, to the extent that if the topic ban were set to expire about now, it could be argued that they simply 'waited out the sanction.' Which is a problem as we don't get to see how the appellant fairs in other topic areas with comparable activity. El_C 11:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would tend to agree; we just haven't seen enough yet to determine that lifting the sanction is going to end well. I think things are moving in the right direction, so at least for me, this is a "not now", but certainly not a "never". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I remember looking at the Stacey Abrams dispute at the time and being surprised at the obvious partiality of the edits and comments by Toa Nidhiki05, whom I have had little interaction with, but of course knew as a longtime editor. Rereading the original AE case, which I was not involved in, and noting especially the damning comments by Black Kite and Nableezy, made me wonder why none of those comments (which must have carried some weight with the admins who decided on the sanction) are addressed here, in this rather bland and formal mea culpa that addresses only tone, not the pretty clear POV that led to extensive edit warring and disruption in various articles. So, no, I do not find this convincing, and I think that the sanction is continuing to bring some peace and quiet to the AP2 area. Drmies (talk) 22:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Toa Nidhiki05, can you address Black Kite's points? I hope I'm summarizing correctly: how is it that your edits typically add negative content to BLPs of (often Black, female) Democratic politicians, but not to Republican politicians? That's more or less the gist of the Abrams dispute as well, isn't it. Drmies (talk) 00:47, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Homme

Indeffed as regular admin action, now CU-blocked for socking. Report further socking to AIV or SPI. Courcelles (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2023 (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 Homme

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Maddy from Celeste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Homme (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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User talk:Homme#May 2023

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict: Special:Diff/1159033573.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1159131669

An IP has restored Homme's inflammatory comment: Special:Diff/1159276043. No idea if it's actually them, but is an option. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Homme

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 Homme

What kind of statement is expected from me? Do I get it right that somebody wants to punish me for calling men men and women women? You guys really enjoy being ridiculous and cancelling everybody who dares to speak out, do not you? Homme (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 192.76.8.87

@ScottishFinnishRadish and Courcelles: They're now socking as HommeRenaissant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Homme

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

I've indeffed as a standard admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Socking taken care of by Blablubbs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I’ve protected the talk page the IP sock targeted. I’m closing this, further socking is better dealt with at AIV if obvious, or SPI. Courcelles (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just came from UTRS by way of his talk page. Had a block coming for some time. Endorse regular admin block.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amaaretz

Amaaretz was not properly notified prior to making the edits which breached the 50/300 rule, but has been so notified now, and has not engaged in further violations since. Amaaretz is cautioned that their edits were in violation of that rule, and now that notification has been made, further edits which violate the 50/300 rule or otherwise cause disruption can be cause for sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:48, 18 June 2023 (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 Amaaretz

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Amaaretz (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: 500/30 rule

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

03:36, 7 June 2023 removes that the West Bank is occupied by Israel and changes it to "Israeli West Bank"
19:32, 7 June 2023 removes that the West Bank is occupied by Israel and changes it to "Israeli West Bank"
15:05, 15 June 2023 removes that the West Bank is occupied by Israel and changes it to "Israeli West Bank"

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

I told him at his talkpage about the 500/30 rule:[37] despite this he continued to violate it:[38] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Seraphimblade, I notified him at his talkpage before his last edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 19:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[39]

Discussion concerning Amaaretz

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 Amaaretz

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Amaaretz

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

I'm not seeing that Amaaretz was adequately notified of CTOP rules, as per CTOP: Only the officially designated templates should be used for an editor's first contentious topic alert, and these templates may not be placed using a bot or other form of automated editing without the prior approval of the Arbitration Committee. While I would consider an admin action in the absence of clear compliance if there were other, obvious, signs of awareness or severe disruption, I don't see that here. I will now notify Amaaretz using {{alert/first}}, and any further violation of the 500/30 restriction on their part will be cause for sanctions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:28, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also don't see that the notification procedure was followed before the edits took place. Supreme Deliciousness, please remember to use the actual templates for notification, not a handwritten message. That said, Amaaretz, you are certainly aware now, so if you continue to violate the 500/30 rule (or otherwise cause disruption) you will very likely be sanctioned. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:34, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that you left a note there, but you did not use the template. AE/CT is one of the cases in which that specific notification format is required. So next time you notify someone about contentious topic restrictions, use the template that Rosguill pointed out for you above. You can certainly leave a custom message in addition to that, but if you do not use the template, it cannot be counted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by DarrellWinkler

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:56, 24 June 2023 (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: DarrellWinkler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Topic banned from COVID-19, broadly construed; 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.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by DarrellWinkler

Requesting a rollback of protection of several articles related to the topic, when so much additional information on the topic has been published, is in no way disruptive or i violation of the editing sanctions of this topic. I would like my ban lifted. DarrellWinkler (talk) 16:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some corrections to Courcelles above statement

Despite the characterization that I have been pushing "an agenda for months", I have made exactly one request to have the page unprotected before today. its obvious from the talk page that my concerns are shared by a great number of editors who feel the extended protection is not warranted. The "half-year slow edit war on FCC fairness doctrine" is to stop one or two individuals from constantly removing sourced material. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am describing the frustration of editors on these topics, not "explicitly" stating what I will or will not do. DarrellWinkler (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

Interesting, the appellant brings up their recent string of RFPP filings, but not their conduct at Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. They’ve been trying to edit with an agenda for months, only stopped by the page being ECP. I won’t push building the case here, but there could be an argument to just indef this editor, as an AmPol2 topic ban could also be justified given edits like [40], [41], and the half-year slow edit war on FCC fairness doctrine. I considered doing so, but decided to try something more moderate first. Courcelles (talk) 16:57, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish, the diff you link as soapboxing was the one I called out as the proximate cause to sanction in the sanction template. (Clarifying since the appellant makes this out as a response to an RFPP filing). Of course, the sentiments expressed at RFPP were problematic, but the act of asking for unprotection itself was not. Courcelles (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by DarrellWinkler

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 Jéské Couriano

This person strikes me as someone who's trying to needlessly and aggressively play devil's-advocate in several American-politics-related contentious topics (they have warnings for AP2, BLP, and now the topic-ban for COVID). I agree with Courcelles that this is likely best solved with an indefinite block; usually when we see people speedrunning the All CTOPs% category they've got too much of an ideological investment to collaborate or are intentionally trying to pick fights, and in either case the general remedy has been to indef them under WP:DE or WP:NOTHERE. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by DarrellWinkler

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

I do not think that Courcelles erred in applying the sanction; the editor explicitly stated that they did not intend to respect consensus. As such, I think this sanction is appropriately placed to prevent disruption, and I would leave it in place. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:26, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Seraphimblade. Looking deeper, I'm seeing a pattern of disruptive editing almost everywhere. There's soapboxing/notaforum, NPOV violation, and adding "Black" to a quote where it was not found in the source. I found those with a few moments of spot checking edits.
DarrellWinkler, you must comment in your own section, not in other editors' sections or the administrative section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Seraphimblade and oppose lifting the sanction. The diffs uncovered by ScottishFinnishRadish are deeply concerning, especially the falsification of a direct quotation, and are indicative of a broader problem. Cullen328 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Normally I'm in favor of a "let's lift it for now and see what happens to figure out if it is still needed" approach to page restriction requests like this. In this case, Darrell's edits make it clear that the sanctions are still needed, or at a minimum fail to make any viable case for overturning them. If a cabal of "experienced editors" are keeping certain information out of articles (which does happen, though I haven't looked to see if it is or is not happening here), there are methods like noticeboards and WP:RFC for seeking consensus from the broader community. I also agree that this user's edits are an issue, and we should take a look into whether they're enough of a problem to warrant a boomerang here. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:05, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My very best wishes

My very best wishes is blocked for two weeks for violating their topic ban under World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Additionally, under the contentious topic procedures for Eastern Europe, they are topic-banned from the areas of World War II in Eastern Europe and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, and have been warned that further disruption may result in a full Eastern Europe TBAN without further warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:51, 27 June 2023 (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 My very best wishes

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PaulT2022 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:08, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: My very best wishes (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

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

9-13 June: Here, "My very best wishes", in violation of the broadly construed World War II in Poland topic ban, edits an article that discusses WWII monuments in Poland specifically, and buildings constructed by Nazi Germany and Soviet regimes in Eastern Europe more generally, edit-warring to reintroduce poorly sourced POV that has been challenged by multiple editors. (Edit-warring diffs in the comments below.)
7 June, 17 June: In another violation of the topic ban, MVBW edits an article about a slogan widely associated in the past with OUN, notable for its participation in Holocaust in Poland, and discusses whether a salute used by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army, fighting in Poland during WWII, is reminiscent of the salute used by the members of OUN.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

20 May: My very best wishes was topic-banned from WWII in Poland following a previous arbitration decision.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on the 20 August 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This request isn't merely an attempt to formally escalate arguably marginal topic ban violations. I was involved in the recent Totalitarian architecture AfD and observed how many of the findings from the arbitration case apply to the broader area of MVBW's editing.

Most of the Totalitarian architecture article, 64% by text, is written by MVBW. It was brought to a second AfD due to synthesis concerns. Half of the AfD participants proposed some sort of WP:TNT option, considering the article to contain synthesis. The statement that "totalitarian architecture" is an architectural style, as well as the thrust of the entire article advocating this viewpoint lacked consensus.

Following the AfD discussion, User:Paragon Deku rewritten the article on 24 May to rectify concerns expressed by the AfD participants.

Failing to achieve consensus (for "Style of architecture in totalitarian states" - see AfD, for "officially approved... international style" - see AfD and Talk:Totalitarian_architecture#Recent_changes_(WP:OR)), MVBW resorted to edit warring to restore their original claims from 14 July 2021 on 9 June 2023 and again, after being reverted by SnowFire, on 11-13 June 2023

This led to Paragon Deku expressing a feeling of burnout on 14 June 2023 after an evident failure of dispute resolution processes.

There were also multiple instances of edit warring to keep the preferred POV in the article prior to the MVBW's topic ban, for example:

I'm bringing up the broader pattern of the MVBW's editing for review as the MVBW's topic ban, in addition to apparently being disregarded by repeated attempts to test its boundaries, failed to improve the editing and talk page behaviour of MVBW in the wider EE topic area, and urging administrators to consider an appropriate enforcement action taking the "Impact on the Eastern Europe topic area (II)" remedy into account.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1161414284

Discussion concerning My very best wishes

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 My very best wishes

Please accept my apology for topic ban violation on page Slava Ukraine. That was unintentional, and I realized it was a topic ban violation only 4 days after my edit. How did it happen?

When I came to edit this page on June 2, it existed in this version. It did not mention Poland anywhere and seemed to be a purely Ukrainian subject. Hence, I thought it was safe for me to edit.
Then, immediately after my edit, Marcelus makes this edit [42], with edit summary added more information of the usage of the greeting by OUN, OUN-B, UPA, and regular Ukrainians especially during the WW2. In this edit, Marcelus included new text that appears in the diff by ScottishFinnishRadish, i.e. “After the creation in the second half of 1942, the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) took over the salute from the OUN-B, but dropped the fascist-like raising of the right arm above the head…” and so on.
I started making various changes in the new version by Marcelus, one of which was indeed a topic ban violation as appears in the diff by ScottishFinnishRadish. I did not realize it was a violation at the moment of making the edit because I perceived it per description in the edit summary by Marcelus, i.e. a material about Ukrainian nationalist organizations (OUN, etc.). That was my mistake.

To avoid such missteps in the future, I will stay away not only of any pages/content related to Poland during WWI| or Jewish history, but also of any contributors (such as Marcelus) who are focused on editing in this area, because they include such content “on the fly” to many pages they edit (as in this case).

Speaking about the broad ban from all EE subjects, I understand the concern by admins here (i.e. I might commit a similar topic ban violation in a future), but I am confident I will be able to avoid it. If you check my edit history, nearly all my edits during last several years were in EE area. If such wide topic ban will be enacted, I still will be able to participate in the project, but much less than I would participate otherwise.

Here is my additional response about page Totalitarian architecture

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I made one revert on this page per WP:BRD: [43]. After some objections were raised by SnowFire [44], I did the following:

I suggested to make some new changes at the article talk page and waited a couple of days for response [45]. Given no objections on the article talk page at the time, I implemented the suggested changes using version by SnowFire as current/initial version [46].
Here is the series of new changes I made. Do they qualify as a violation of my topic ban? First of all, I did not even change anything related to WWII or modern day Poland (at the bottom of the diff). More important, there is nothing out there about WWII in Poland, which is the subject of the topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 15:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied over from User talk:My very best wishes by starship .paint (exalt)

My apology if my statement (copied from above) was not clear enough; and I am ready to answer additional questions if any. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC) Copied from User talk:My very best wishes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Marcelus

As the MVBW edition was about the changes I made to the article and the ongoing discussion between us, I feel obliged to add some context. I have a full understanding of why MVBW made this change in the belief that he was not breaking their ban. In the discussion the topic of "Poland and World War II" was almost completely absent, my edits and discussion were about the whole history of the greeting and its use primarily in the pre-war period. Mainly its use by Ukrainian nationalist organizations. Of course, probably MVBW should have been a bit more careful, but by engaging in an article at first glance completely unrelated to the topic of "Poland and World War II" they understandably lowered their guard more than they would have if they had edited something closer to that topic.Marcelus (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adoring nanny

A rule like "stay away from topic X" seems like a difficult one to follow. I should know as I once screwed that up myself[47], though I also noticed my mistake more quickly than MVBW appears to have done. Avoiding articles about topic X is step one. But, as happened both in my case and the case of MVBW, there is the additional problem of avoiding it when topic X comes up in an article about something else. One establishes a mental filter, which is a step in the right direction. But having such a filter engaged at all times is more difficult. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

I'd like to say something here, as someone uninvolved in the area who has interacted with MVBW elsewhere (always civil disagreement, but usually disagreement). I understand where admins below are coming from saying the TBAN should be broadened, but I think it would be excessive and punitive in effect. I think a block of 1 month is more than enough.

The holocaust in Poland area was a huge pile of flaming trash, and Wikipedia dropped the ball on many LTAs who received either no sanctions or too lenient ones. I followed the Arb case from the side lines and I completely agree with the recommendation to be very firm with future sanctions, to increase normal durations, etc. Wikipedia had a big issue here, and AC needed to make a strong statement on what our standards are. That impulse is absolutely justified, and usually well-served, but I think may be running a bit too far here.

I think User:Barkeep49 below made a good point that I want to underline: For many of the editors sanctioned in the case this would argue for more strict enforcement. Given the previous lack of blocks/enforcement against MVBW I think it's fair to say that a first offense of this topic ban not be treated as severely as a first time offense for other parties to the case. My understanding of the Arb recc for longer blocks was to stymie the impression that LTAs would be granted any further leniency in this situation. MVBW, on the other hand, is not really a "long-term abuser" in this area, not in the sense other parties were. I would have considered them a prime candidate to get their TBAN lifted in 6 months or a year, frankly. A 2 week or 1 month block is a sufficient "shot across the bow" to demonstrate the importance of following their WWII-Poland TBAN.

TBANning from the entirety of EE would be punitive, rather than preventative. Consider MVBW in total. Their edits in this area are most likely due to having eastern European heritage and some subject-matter knowledge. I understand the problems with their edits in the Holocaust subsection. But I have seen no evidence of such problems elsewhere. I see no evidence of malice or intent in this TBAN violation. Many of their edits in the area overall are of high quality. My impression is that if such a broadened "all EE" TBAN were to be enacted, it would substantially curb MVBW's ability to enjoy and contribute positively to the project, without preventing much, if any, disruption. That, to me, is the very definition of punishment for the sake of it, rather than to prevent problems.

I think the message from a 1 month block is perfectly clear: be more careful of your TBAN, MVBW. This is an early stage warning. It gets worse from here.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 16:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (editor)

Result concerning My very best wishes

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

I've blocked for one week as this is an unambiguous topic ban violation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the unambiguous nature of the violation and how recent the case was? That was very, very lenient. Courcelles (talk) 17:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to fall on the lenient side when there is a discussion open. Now we have a week to form a consensus while they're already blocked.

I checked their block log and saw that they didn't have any history of blocks, so although this was soon after the case I felt that starting the standard 1 week -> 1 month -> 3 month escalation was reasonable. I'm not tied down to that, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:32, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This case has a special enforcement provision, though, allowing even initial blocks to be up to a year. And we’re basically under directive from Arbcom to drop the hammer in this topic area. It’s such a flagrant violation that I’d be ready to just topic ban from Eastern Europe entirely. Courcelles (talk) 18:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay getting back to this, was pretty tied up over the weekend. The special enforcement provision says Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct and Arbitration history and seriously consider increasing the duration of blocks. As far as I can tell, the only conduct of MVBW's that made the final decision was specifically about their conduct in relation to the case: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland#My very best wishes' conduct during the case, and they had only a single self-requested block.

I'm leaning towards Valereee's thinking, and I think one week blocked and a warning that the next violation comes with an expanded topic ban and a much longer block is probably sufficient. I don't have an issue with bumping the block to 30 days and giving a final logged warning, either, as that seems closer to where the consensus rests, splitting the difference and ending up at Tamzin. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Courcelles, Tamzin, Seraphimblade, and Valereee:, extend block to 30 days, logged warning that any further violations will be met with a 90 day block (triggering the Arbcom review provision) and a full EE topic ban? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's a need to specify how long the next block might be, especially since not all EE violations would fall under the HJP review clause. But otherwise I support this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 17:02, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide my thinking...the editor has apologized, stated they realize they made a mistake, and have come up with a plan to avoid making the same mistake again. I don't see the point in extending the block. But I can see I'm by far in the minority here, and I trust the judgement of others here. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given the time stamp of that diff, and MYBW only changing their tune about their topic ban violation after the first mentions of serious sanctions dropping here, I do not believe this to be sufficient. After getting topic banned directly by the committee last month? I’m not being particularly charitable here, but I am very unimpressed with how they responded initially. Courcelles (talk) 17:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not my first choice. If the consensus here is to go with that as a sort of compromise solution, I suppose I'm not categorically opposed, but I think we should be clear that we are not messing around here, so I would still at least as a first choice stand by what I first said. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we're at a 2–2–1 split here as to what is best in keeping with ArbCom's intent, should this just be referred to ARCA? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really think so. We've figured stuff like this out before, and the facts aren't terribly complex. If SFR's solution is at least somewhat okay with everyone, even if not ideal for them, then that might be what it ends up being. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:55, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go to ARCA. I want us to figure this out. As Seraphimblade says, it's not complex. It's just that it's kind of new to us, but we really do need to figure out for ourselves how to deal with these. (Full disclosure: Also as someone who has been arguing for leniency, I don't think ARCA will lean in that direction.) Valereee (talk) 19:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay… spitballing here in terms of what we can do and maybe agree on. Make the block a fortnight and expand the topic ban to World War II and the history of Jews in Eastern Europe, rather than just Poland. That could be enough to unambiguously cordon off this area and draw a line that further misconduct will not be tolerated. (Essentially replacing Poland in the current topic ban with Eastern Europe). The message, either logged or just delivered here, is that the entire EE area goes, at a minimum, if MVBW violates this. Courcelles (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay with that. Valereee (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:27, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also take ArbCom's remedies as a directive to tend strongly toward the upper end of reasonable sanctions. I would support a one-month block under HJP and, under ARBEE, either a TBAN from Eastern Europe or a logged only-warning, with instructions to future admins to TBAN without further warning if disruption recurs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:55, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If being directly topic banned by ArbCom isn't warning enough, I don't think a logged warning from us is going to do any better. Given that and the blatant nature of the violation, I would not support anything short of a topic ban from the Eastern Europe area entirely, and also wouldn't object to lengthening the block to a month. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will note, though, that MVBW made some statements on their user talk page while blocked, and was blocked early in this process, so I've asked them if they want to make that statement here. While I do support sanctions at this time, and I don't see that as likely to change, I don't think we should sanction someone if they haven't had any opportunity to even tell their side of the story. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:50, 24 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like to interpret these kinds of vios very leniently, especially in early days. Let's give this editor a little learning room. Valereee (talk) 02:04, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the committee was crystal clear about our jaundiced opinion of giving established users in this topic area "a little learning room". -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you really, unambiguously were. Courcelles (talk) 14:45, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with what @Guerillero writes (and Courcelles agrees to) and if I'd thought of saying it like that I'd have replied to Valereee when I first saw it. I will also note, at least for me, Administrators placing blocks should take into account an editor's overall conduct matters. For many of the editors sanctioned in the case this would argue for more strict enforcement. Given the previous lack of blocks/enforcement against MVBW I think it's fair to say that a first offense of this topic ban not be treated as severely as a first time offense for other parties to the case. What that means is something I'm very happy to leave to the discretion of admins here. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:53, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

There is consensus against outright overturning the TBAN imposed by Dreamy Jazz. However, with Dreamy Jazz' consent, the TBAN's scope is modified to post-1992, not post-1932, mirroring the January 2021 amendment to WP:AMPOL. Lima Bean Farmer is encouraged to edit more actively before any subsequent appeal, and reminded that, if they are unsure whether a particular edit or article would be a violation, they can always ask the sanctioning admin or at AN. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:08, 5 July 2023 (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: Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: An indefinite topic ban from post-1932 American politics

Administrator imposing the sanction: Dreamy Jazz (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by Lima Bean Farmer

I was banned from editing US politics post-1932 for using a sock puppet. This was over two years ago and I deeply regret doing so. The other account was suspended and since then I have not used any other accounts to edit. The only account I’ve used to edit was this one, and I have very carefully edited to not break the topic ban. I feel like I would be a useful editor to help with certain articles that fit my expertise within post-1932 politics, as this is something I have studied extensively. In addition, I have reviewed numerous articles on Wikipedia guidelines regarding contentious and political articles. I feel my editing would be valuable, as it previously was on many other pages. Please lift this ban. Any questions or comments I will be happy to answer, please ping me. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seraphimblade, the comments you are referring to are from over 2 years ago. I understand you need to look at the entire case, but please don’t hold a grudge over my comments from 2020. I am apologizing for using the sock and would like to continue editing Wikipedia. I haven’t made many edits over the past 2 1/2 years, being very careful to avoid my topic ban. I will add that I believe my editing is helpful to the project as many of my suggestions and edits, as well as some of the pages I’ve created are still functioning. In addition, many of my additions have been praised by other editors, including those with experience. Please allow me to, after 2 and a half years of having this topic ban, get back to editing a topic I love and have significant knowledge about. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seraphimblade, adding one more section, to add how I would improve editing going forward, I would work more towards creating consensus with fellow, mainly experienced editors to better understand how to edit Wikipedia. Over the past 2 1/2 years I have spent a lot of time reviewing the articles that I used to edit and have noticed certain editing patterns that work best. In addition, I also monitored talk pages and have a better idea on how to have productive conversations. Please keep this in mind Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dreamy Jazz, please let me clarify. The reason I haven’t made that many edits was because I was very careful to avoid anything that could be related to my topic ban. I previously edited war criminal articles and some relating to WWII but I worried that too closely related to US politics. Many of my edits before my ban were also productive, I generally have a history of productive editing. This is all I hope to achieve and will work more with fellow editors to do so. In addition, I have done practice edits outside of Wikipedia about the articles which I would like to edit again. I am not too familiar with many other topics and would like to edit within my expertise again. Thank you Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 06:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:El C can you please explain how this falls short? If you read above, I address the comments that User:Seraphimblade made. I don’t think it’s fair to deny this based on me using and denying a sock puppet over 2 years ago. I deeply regret it, haven’t used one since, and fully understand what a sock puppet is and wouldn’t use one again. I went over 2 1/2 years without using one so while I can’t prove I won’t use one in the future, I would hope you would see this as evidence I don’t intend on using one again, and that I am deeply sorry for using one in the first place Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 16:09, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

I have not kept up with this user to know fully whether I would support or oppose this appeal. One concern I have is that there has not been that many edits made since 2020. Based on a quick estimate this user has made less than 500 edits since the topic ban was made indefinite in 2020. This may not be enough edits to prove constructive editing in other topics. However, these edits do seem to have been constructive based on a quick inspection and some of which are made to non-US political articles.

I would note that this was made before the conversion to the contentious topics system, so it still is subject to the appeal rules that apply to sanctions less than a year old. If my input is requested, please do ping me so that I see this as I won't be actively watching this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:29, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin, I would not oppose such a change. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:22, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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.

Result of the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

I found the SPI which led up to the topic ban being extended to indefinite, which itself involved socking to evade a three-month topic ban from the area for disruptive editing [48] (and Lima Bean Farmer, I shouldn't have needed to go digging for those; you should have provided links to all those things in your appeal). In the course of that, I found this comment: [49], where Lima Bean Farmer is asked if they in fact operated the sock, and replies: Euryalus, I know it seems that way....If I say that I am running both accounts, do you think that would help or hurt my case? That's such blatantly dishonest behavior that it blows my mind; LBF was not being asked to provide the answer that serves them best, but the answer which was actually true. Lima Bean Farmer, you clearly thought before that you could be an asset by editing in that topic area, and you quite evidently weren't correct about that. I don't see anything here indicating that you understand what you did that led to your sanctions, or what you would do differently going forward, so I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:08, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline. In response to Seraphimblade's criticism above that this appeal lacks documentation, the appellant says: please don’t hold a grudge — what? I concur with Seraphimblade's conclusion that, as written, this appeal falls short. El_C 12:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dreamy Jazz: Given that the CTOP for American politics have been moved up to 1992 from 1932, would you be open to revising LBF's TBAN to match? Perhaps that would assuage their concern and give them more room to edit historical events without fear of stumbling over the TBAN, opening the way for a successful appeal after a few hundred more edits. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, my inclination then is to modify thusly but not lift the sanction outright. @Seraphimblade and El C: Would that work for y'all? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:02, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since that's the way the sanctions are now worded anyway, I don't have any issue with that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - That makes sense to me, especially since Lima Bean Farmer claims an interest in WWII and war criminals, which this modification would open up without fear of violating the sanction (although I skimmed through Lima Bean Farmer's contributions and didn't notice any edits on these topics; I may have missed some but most were on the 2020 elections and Donald Trump's cabinet). Rlendog (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prathamers

User:Prathamers has been indefinitely blocked as a sock. No further action here seems necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Prathamers

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 09:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Prathamers (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: 500/30 rule

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

There is a dispute at the talkpage that involves the addition of Eastern European and Iraqi foods that Jewish migrants brought to Palestine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Levantine_cuisine#Addition_of_Eastern_European_and_Iraqi_dishes

New user shows up and starts reverting, he continues to revert after I notified him about the 500/30 rule:

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

was notified before his second revert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Prathamers

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 Prathamers

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Prathamers

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

That’s a sockpuppet. Blocked and tagged. Courcelles (talk) 13:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ජපස

Filer Adoring nanny has been blocked by Courcelles as a unilateral AE action. ජපස is informally reminded that the correct response to disruptive editing is to report a user to administrators, not to argue with the user, especially in a designated contentious topic area. Sockpuppetry concerns can be raised at WP:SPI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:59, 11 July 2023 (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 ජපස

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Adoring nanny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: ජපස (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:ARBCOVIDDS

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

July 5 Somewhat hostile, but in my opinion does not yet violate WP:NPA
July 5 Again hostile, and focused on me. Again does not reach the WP:NPA threshold.
July 5 more hostility
July 6 again
July 6 Calling me "willfully ignorant" violates WP:NPA.
July 8 After I request amelioration of the personal attack, the user continues the hostility to me.
July 9 I ask if the user is refusing to strike. The response is further denunciation of me, and banning of me from the user's talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

April 5, 2018 User was apparently topic banned from an article called the "ark encounter" article. I have no idea what that is about.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I understand and accept that many see me as a controversial user. I further accept that this will sometimes lead to a personal attack. In such cases, my habit is to go to the user's talk page. Usually, a mutually satisfactory resolution can be found.

I don't like the fact that I am filing this complaint based, essentially, on a single interaction. What drove me to it was the continuing and unrelenting hostility. My experience is that users tend to become more reasonable when I raise an issue on their talk page. Here the opposite occurred. Even if, as the user repeatedly stated, I ought to be banned, some sort of reasonable discussion of the matter ought to be possible, leading to a resolution that works for both parties. In this case, by banning me from their talk page, the user shut down such discussion.

Due both to my own status and to the brevity of the interaction that led up to this complaint, I request that any sanction the admins impose be limited in scope and/or duration.

I would greatly prefer to be resolving this one-on-one with the user. However, that is no longer possible.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[50]

Discussion concerning ජපස

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 ජපස

This user does not belong on Wikipedia. See WP:NOTHERE.

Furthermore, behavioral evidence points to this user being a sock of blocked users outlined here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iran_nuclear_weapons_2/Archive which had two different personalities conflated, but one group of them was this account. The behavioral evidence may be sensitive, so you can e-mail me if you are interested. But here is a (partial) list of the socks:

MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
MissPiggysEx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Drouma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NPOV riiiiight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
NPOV npov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
GhostOfXmasPast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Oiudfgogsdf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I don't usually have time for this sort of nonsense. I am not amused.

If we need to do this here, go ahead. I have not filed a WP:SPI for this bad actor because I think the behavior evidence associated with their account alone should have been enough to get them kicked off.

Kick them off.

jps (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I have received your reminder and am very happy to take it on board. If you need to, for whatever reason, feel free to make some sort of formal logged note (I don't know how this stuff is supposed to work anymore, I am happy to say). I hope you understand that I try not to involve myself with WP:AE or other drahmaboards at all if I can help it. They are all risky places, and this has been made all the more clear from various peanut gallery comments and the implied swipes against my character showing up here. I am a little sad that SFR, who I thought I got along with well enough, seems to be holding a grudge against me -- it feels like it might be because of my criticisms of his position in the ArbCom case he is referencing. I could also just be overly sensitive, but that's what these spaces tend to cause, unfortunately. Long and the short of it is I don't like this side of Wikipedia and really would rather not bring any user here if I can help it. Obviously, there are instances where it absolutely must be done, but it is hard to know when that is. Obviously, this particular conflict came to a head, but I have to admit surprise that it did! jps (talk) 17:00, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish (jps)

I'll start by saying that I don't know anything about the sockpuppetry claims.

But this complaint is without merit. To a significant extent, it grows out of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination). Jps is being blunt, but is correct in calling out fringe POV-pushing. (As far as I'm concerned, the difference between "willfully ignorant" and either "willful" or "ignorant" alone does not create an AE-level NPA problem.) This does not rise to the level of needing AE action. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Courcelles is right in disagreeing with me. So I agree with disagreeing with myself. I should have said that we don't need AE action against jps. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I looked to see what Headbomb is referring to. It's a dispute at Physics Essays, over a journal that publishes stuff that a source cited there calls "extravagant views". Editors disagree over whether to call it a "journal" or a "science journal". After looking at it, I'm in agreement with jps, but there are editors I respect who are on the other side. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been thinking about various comments being made about the need for civility in the face of the kind of things that led to the boomerang indef. I understand, intellectually, why civility is important, and I personally try to adhere to that, as best I can. But. Take a look at the closely-related Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Adoring nanny/Essays/Lab Leak Likely (2nd nomination), and scroll down until you get to my own comments there. Then look at the puzzling hostility directed at me by someone who decided that I was a Ukrainian (I'm not), and concluded that I should not be commenting in that MfD. I'm not making an issue of that editor or their conduct, because that's not the point and not what this AE thread is about. But it makes me sympathetic to editors who lose their cool when confronted with this kind of stuff, and leads me to think that one should not be too judgmental when someone gets a little too blunt with what a notable member of the community once called "lunatic charlatans". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Headbomb

All I have to add here is that jps is dropping threats of AE pseudoscience enforcement (also [51]) more than Trump complains about the deep state whenever they can't get their way in edit wars. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Viriditas

This incident is a textbook example of Wikipedia:Civil POV pushing. ජපස (jps) has become impatient and aggressive in the face of fringe POV, which is unfortunate, but understandable. ජපස (jps) has made a remarkable and measurable effort in improving Wikipedia by pointing out issues with fringe POV. In the heat of discussion, human emotions and personalities will often clash, leading to the current status of the report. In any case, the behavioral response from ජපස (jps) to perceived civil POV pushing from Adoring nanny doesn’t rise to the level of sanctions, IMO. As for a boomerang, I will leave that discussion to others. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: given the documented misinformation campaign surrounding the dissemination of the lab leak hypothesis, I think the anger displayed by ජපස (jps) is understandable. Viriditas (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: I am not arguing this is an isolated incident and should be treated as such. I am arguing that because ජපස (jps) is a scientist, this is personal for him, and his reaction is normal and expected. One of the major themes of the lab leak hypothesis, is that scientists and academics are engaged in a global conspiracy to hide the lab leak. This conspiracy has been easily debunked for years, but it’s inherently derogatory towards people who devote their lives to this profession for the sake of benefiting humanity. One can understand, therefore, why ජපස (jps) reacts the way he does. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PackMecEng: I am not arguing that a topic ban is needed. I am arguing that if ජපස (jps) had not reacted in such a way, he would not be human. To close on my original point, it is unreasonable to expect people to remain civil in the face of persistent POV pushing. Viriditas (talk) 04:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

My comment is not about jps, but to mention that Adoring Nanny's editing history shows a sustained campaign wasting the community's time for POV pushing in the COVID area. It's not surprising that the community ultimately reacts to that, it was a question of time. —Paleo Neonate – 00:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PackMecEng

Given jps's extensive history in fringe topics, it's understandable that they would exhibit a defensive stance regarding the subject matter. However, at this juncture, their behavior appears to align with that of a WP:RGW warrior. This assessment becomes evident when examining the unusually lengthy block log associated with their account. While I generally extend them a considerable degree of leniency due to my belief in their alignment with a just cause, it's important to remember that this is a collaborative environment. The manner in which they are currently conducting themselves, as observed in these specific diffs and behavior here, is simply unacceptable and goes against the principles outlined in WP:5P4. Additionally, I find it difficult to accept the notion that their actions can be solely attributed to external pressures within the topic area. Each individual is responsible for their own actions, and this behavior has been consistently demonstrated over multiple interactions, thereby negating any "heat of the moment" justifications.

Reply to Viriditas: While I would entertain the idea of attributing this behavior to a one-time outburst, the reality is quite different. This is not an isolated incident but rather a long-standing issue that has persisted for years with this particular user. The consistent and sustained pattern of problematic behavior cannot be overlooked or dismissed lightly. It becomes evident that this is a deeply ingrained problem that extends beyond a single occurrence, further highlighting the significance and urgency of addressing the issue. In order to maintain a healthy and productive community, it is crucial to acknowledge and take appropriate action regarding such ongoing concerns, as they have far-reaching implications for the overall atmosphere and integrity of our collaborative environment. It's important to remember that being right or having noble intentions does not serve as an excuse for engaging in harmful or inappropriate behavior. Regardless of one's beliefs, it is essential to uphold the principles of respect, civility, and constructive engagement in order to foster a positive and inclusive community. PackMecEng (talk) 03:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Viriditas: Once again, it is crucial to emphasize that such behavior is unacceptable and should never be used as a justification for mistreating others. In fact, being aware of one's difficulties in handling a specific topic area should serve as a reminder to exercise even greater caution and restraint in those discussions. Perhaps a topic ban is indeed warranted for jps in order to prevent further harm and disruption caused by their actions. Your observation regarding the lack of isolated incidents and the unlikelihood of improvement is astute. It is disheartening to acknowledge that the problematic behavior has persisted without signs of significant change. In such cases, it becomes necessary to take appropriate measures to protect the well-being of the community and ensure a respectful and conducive environment for all participants. PackMecEng (talk) 04:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Editor conduct says Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited. ජපස/jps has some history with issues like this, so maybe a "hey, please don't do that" is in order.

Dealing with fringe topics where fringey people push buttons, sealion, and generally edit poorly can certainly lead to stress and lashing out, but that is no different than any other CTOP. Such behavior generally isn't overlooked in those topics just because someone else was editing poorly. One of the things that leads over-taxed editors having to patrol and defend a topic area is that poor editing on either side, and especially when it is on both sides, leads to a toxic shit-show that uninvolved editors don't care to wade into. If one finds themself unable to edit about a topic without making personal attacks, they should step back and take a breather, not contribute to a bad editing environment. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Springee

In looking at jps's comments I think they are walking the CIVIL line. It's one thing to suggest someone has other than good faith motives on a user talk page but doing so on other pages poisons the well. It does nothing to make your arguments logically stronger but it does tend to promote further incivility. jps's concerns may be valid but, per wp:FOC they shouldn't be discussing them on the deletion page in question. I don't support any formal warning but I would say they need to change their approach.

As for any sanctions against AN, what evidence has been presented? jps has suggested sock editing. If true then AN should be blocked as a sock. Claims of civil POV pushing need to be handled carefully as one person's POV pushing may be another's reasonable evidence. More importantly, it's OK to suggest/argue for content so long as it's done civilly and doesn't involved edit warring. AN may wrongly argue for some addition but so long as they accept when consensus is against them they shouldn't be sanctioned. Certainly they shouldn't be sanctioned here as the complaint has merit and the claims of socking are basically presented without evidence. Springee (talk) 15:19, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles's INDEF seems way out of line given the limited evidence presented here. Springee (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See that AN has zero prior blocks the indef seems even more out of line. Were any warnings or other notices given before hand? Springee (talk) 16:39, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles, I guess I'm not really seeing much in there. That's the log of people posting the yearly DS notices followed by the newer CTOPS. What I'm not seeing presented here is a history of AN/ANI/ARE discussions or warnings etc. If an editor is going to be INDEF'ed, in my view, they either need to be shown to be doing something really disruptive (clear BLP violations, clear CIVIL violations etc) or there should be some sort of history of escalations. AN's block log is clear. I presume they weren't under any tbans or other restrictions. An indef for an account that has been around for 5 years seems over the top to me. Springee (talk) 17:04, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

I'll endorse the indef. As someone seeing the interactions as someone uninvolved in that area, I was seeing AD's behavior earlier as really obvious WP:SEALIONING in the interaction with jps with jps being fairly measured in response. It was pretty clear some sort of topic ban from the subject was needed, but I do think Courcelles had a valid point that the POV pushing was apt to just shift around if it was only a topic ban. It was a clearcut WP:NOTHERE case, so I'm kind of surprised AD hadn't been brought here earlier. Coming here for a boomerang just put it well over the top. KoA (talk) 16:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles, I commented above on how I was somewhat surprised AD hadn't been brought to AE yet, but if I were in jps' shoes with my experience handling fringe AE subjects, coming "too early" (i.e. when it's not quite yet glaringly in your face like this case) is something people try to avoid even though it really should be the time to come to AE. Even in cases of clear disruption in terms of FRINGE, you'll still get people coming in saying the problem editor really wasn't doing anything disruptive, no history of escalations, etc. That's enough of a headache even in this case, but do keep in mind how much it can muddy the water in still clear-cut but not as obvious cases like this one. That's just an atmosphere issue to be aware of in these topics for why topic stewards don't always come here right away.

It can be a crapshoot whether fringe advocacy is taken as a serious behavior issue or not at AE at times. You identifying the fringe behavior outright as an issue without weeks of discussion is a huge relief though (regardless of action taken) since that is how the fringe-related sanctions are supposed to work. I think in jps' case, it would help a lot to have a close saying it's encouraged to come earlier to nip things like this in the bud. That would help as a fallback against some of the atmosphere issues I mentioned above. KoA (talk) 17:37, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

Agree with Springee, where is the strong evidence needed for a straight indef, User:Courcelles could you cite the evidence that you have seen? starship .paint (exalt) 23:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Horse Eye's Back

Whether or not the user remains indeffed the sock puppetry allegations need to be exhaustively examined, if true (and they do appear to be at least plausible) then the indeff isn't the end of the problem. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Novem Linguae

I agree with the blocking admin that Adoring nanny has been engaging in sealioning. It has not been fun to have Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory on my watchlist for the last two years. Perhaps this block will help make the COVID-19 origins topic area more pleasant to edit in.

There have been sockpuppet allegations made against Adoring nanny (stating that they are connected to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Iran nuclear weapons 2), but as far as I can tell no one has filed paperwork at WP:SPI yet. I'd recommend that this be done. If this person has been a sock all along, that'd be good to know and may affect things such as unblock requests. And if not, then it will prevent a rumor from going around.

ජපස, would you be willing to file an SPI? You can go to Adoring nanny's userpage, then go to Twinkle -> ARV -> Sockpuppet to file the paperwork fairly easily. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning ජපස

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

I disagree with Tryptofish in this not meriting sanctions, this case merits sanctions of the BOOMERANG variety, and we ought to topic ban Adoring nanny at minimum. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve indeffed Adoring nanny. It’s clear to me that at least a COVID and pseudoscience, as well as AP2 bans would be necessary, and we do not need to simply shift this POV pushing around to other areas. Logged as a COVID DS. Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3AAdoring+nanny. The breadth of topic areas covered and the number of notices are both of interest. This user was clearly aware of CTOPS, and has spent a lot of their time here stirring things up in CTOP areas. That they weren’t bought here, and instead came of their own volition with unclean hands is surprising. Maybe, @ScottishFinnishRadish, that’s how we should close this case, a general reminder (explicitly not a logged warning or anything such to @ජපස) to bring pro-FRINGE POV pushers here or another suitable noticeboard rather than engage in borderline incivility. Courcelles (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m in bed and on my phone now (it’s late here), so I’ll go over some more in the morning, including pulling out specific threads (linking is very hard on a small touchscreen). But, really, I did read a lot of their talk namespace contribs and the continuous impression one gets is someone who is SEALIONing constantly towards an agenda. That’s actually one of the reasons for the DS/CTOP regime in pseudoscience specifically is the endless civil arguments those with an agenda are willing to go through, and a solid pursuing of this editors talk namespace contribs show all the classic signs. Courcelles (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll enter into what I saw most was an active agenda being pushed, epitomized by things like [52] and the entire record on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. Going back tot he beginning, I am essentially certain this was not their first WP account. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that a WP:BUNGEE situation is apparent. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Theheezy

Indeffed by Courcelles as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:07, 12 July 2023 (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 Theheezy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Theheezy (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:ARBCOVIDDS among others

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

I hold these diffs to be self-evident; that they are personalizations, extreme WP:ADVOCACY, and general disruption. jps (talk) 20:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[56]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Above, it seems like admins were requesting that we bring more of these instances to them. This one is pretty egregious. Personalization, conspiracy theory promotion, and a general pattern of petty harassment seem to be the M.O. of this user. Amazing that we have so many WP:NOTHERE examples floating around, but here we are. jps (talk) 20:45, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[57]

Discussion concerning Theheezy

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 Theheezy

Given the severity of my editing behavior, which occurred mostly due to family issues. I accept the arbitration committee's decision, whichever it may be. I agree that WP:NOTHERE is the policy I am violating, as well as "gaming the system."

In my defense, my editing behavior was quite good prior to June 13th of this year. So hopefully that counts for something. I have also struck out some false information I claimed on the essay deletion page due to self-safety concerns, as well as apologized to User:Tryptofish for my mistake.

~~May I propose a four year self-imposed ban from editing Wikipedia in any manner or capacity. However, I accept any decision the arbitration committee makes. Theheezy (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2023 (UTC)~~ [reply]

I think WP:INDEF WP:NOTHERE ban is appropriate for my behavior. Theheezy (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Abecedare: Apologies, I was about to strike the rest of that comment chain as well, but it has been hatted by User:Tryptofish. I can continue this once I sleep as it's very late where I am. Theheezy (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tryptofish (Theheezy)

I just commented about this in an AE thread above: [58], and didn't see this AE thread until after I had posted it. But yes, I think that there is quite a bit of WP:NOTHERE going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

@Theheezy: The arbitration committee does not, itself, process arbitration enforcement requests. The process is convoluted and poorly explained, which is not any specific people's fault, but here is how it works: "Arbitration" requests are handled by the Committee, and "Arbitration Enforcement" requests are handled by "uninvolved administrators" (as nebulously defined at WP:INVOLVED). jp×g 23:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so in this case, I think indef WP:NOTHERE is the correct procedure. In the future am I allowed to create a new account or is this a true permanent ban? Theheezy (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theheezy

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

Yes, another account making the rounds through all the hot button CTOP areas. I intend to NOTHERE indef unless someone can build a good argument why not. Courcelles (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sheesh. And despite Theheezy's statement above, the actual part of (one of) their edit that they struck out suggests that they still don't get what the problems with the listed edits were. Don't know if it is trolling or WP:CIR but a WP:NOTHERE block seems right. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Explicitly, this is not an AE action and is therefore not logged. Courcelles (talk) 17:03, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Raj208

Indeffed by Courcelles as a regular admin action. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Raj208

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: PaleoNeonate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:59, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Raj208 (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:ARBAP2

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Notified about AP2: 22 December 2022‎, renewed: 22 June 2023‎

Some diffs

The editing history is not very long and shows a clear pattern.

One of the early edits, unsourced but disclosing motive: Special:Diff/932884746
On a right great wrongs mission where all reliable sources must somehow be corrupt, because those that promote the Trumpist conspiracy theories typically are not: Special:Diff/966098422
Agglomerative diff of some recent interaction with Objective3000
Another of recent interaction with Valjean. It seems clear here that the intention is to soapbox, with insinuations that WP editors are Deep State shills, part of a grandiose conspiracy against Trump the innocent.
Apparently claims that their activity on WP is "scientifically valid", after having been warned for making personal attacks by Objective3000. Trolling?

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I propose a WP:NOTHERE block or an AP2 topic ban that may allow them to try editing in other areas. Clearly a user on a mission to right great wrongs since the beginning. Thanks.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1164833602

Discussion concerning Raj208

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 Raj208

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Raj208

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

Indeffed. NOTHERE, trolling, attacks... take your pick. Not an AE logged action, just a regular admin action showing a 45 edit troll the door. Courcelles (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the action by Courcelles and will close this. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Justito

Indeffed by Bishonen as a regular admin action. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Justito

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ජපස (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Justito (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

So many, but let's just choose WP:ARBPSEUDO for one.

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

Etc., etc., etc. I challenge to find recent diffs from this user that are not active WP:PROFRINGE WP:POVPUSH WP:AGENDA edits. What is going on?

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

[62]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Seek and ye shall find. Ask and it shall be given. Knock and the door shall be opened.

WP:NOTHERE. Same story as before. I'm sorry, all. This is what we deal with all the time.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Justito

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 Justito

How long do I have to respond? This has been confusing trying to figure out what exactly this is and how to respond. Frankly Seems like a huge overreaction and/or attempt to discourage, bother or block people with valid edits you don’t like for personal/political reasons. Going to bed and cant deal with this for a couple of days probably.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Justito

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

Are we really looking at 7 years of anti-vaccine POV pushing here? Outside of focusing on a single high school, I’m not seeing much else… Courcelles (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three diffs provided, the second actually looks reasonable per WP:BLPCAT, but I agree that the complete picture of Justito's edits is one of someone trying to push an anti-vaccine POV across many articles, trickling over into topics such as the LGBT chemicals conspiracy theory (where he's been edit-warring a broken template containing some unclear objections back into the article). I am inclined to enact a TBAN from pseudoscience and fringe science, explicitly including disputes over whether people or groups are described as supporting fringe ideas. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:22, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We’d have to add COVID-19 as well. And they would need a GENSEX alert. And be prepared for a lot of stuff at the boundary. I’m inclined more to just issue a block. Courcelles (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've blocked indefinitely for persistent tendentious editing. Bishonen | tålk 07:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC).[reply]
I agree with the action by Bishonen and will close this. Johnuniq (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WikiEditor1234567123

This request is closed without action at this time. The parties are encouraged to use resources like the reliable sources noticeboard for evaluation of disputed references. WikiEditor1234567123 is warned that, while legends and folklore may in some cases be appropriate for Wikipedia articles or mention in articles about other subjects, it is not acceptable to present them as though they are factual or historical, and any future instances of this may lead to sanction. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 12 July 2023 (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 WikiEditor1234567123

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Goddard2000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:40, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: WikiEditor1234567123 (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:ARBEE

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

[63] Using outdated Ingush folktales to push nationalistic POV (including the category "Ingush people" to non-Ingush persons) in order to change the ethnicity of well known Chechen historical figures.
[64] This user gave undue weight to the very same sources he used in the previous diff to other articles he created previously such as the "Nazran conflict" where the Ingush defeat all three of their neighbors (Chechens, Ossetians and Kabardinians), all based on a folktale with no supporting evidence.
[65] He made other articles based on random outdated folktales and then included them in his article "List of wars involving Ingushetia"
[66] Changing the name of Chechen names for mountains and replacing them with Ingush name without explanation as to why he did it.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This user is well aware that many of the random folktales he uses are outdated, in a similar now deleted article of his he admitted (although only after admins were involved) his mistakes and promised to use more reasonable sources here. Yet he again tried to do the same thing on a different article recently. Again i contacted an admin in their talk page and this user "dropped it". The admin recommended that i could do the WP:AE even if he dropped his case if he has a history of inserting unreliable folktales then promising to do better but then doing it again. I think i demonstrated with the previously now three deleted articles that he has a history of this. I can explain with more detail on why his folkloric sources are outdated and why they shouldn't be relied upon while ignoring important context but since this report shouldn't exceed 500 words i tried to be more short. The deleted articles and recent article talk page has more details.

@Seraphimblade Regarding the 4 month old deleted articles, they were only brought up as this user keeps doing the same as he did there (even though he admitted his mistake only after admins became involved). Wikieditor pushes nationalistic POV by using outdated folktales (note: only the ones that benefit him while he ignores the less complimentary folktales which are in the very same sources he uses.) to claim other people's historical figures or to glorify his nation. Surely this is against Wikipedia's policies and counts as WP:NATIONALIST? Not only does he overly rely on outdated folktales but he also like my 4th diff showed removes Chechen translations without explanations and replaces them with Ingush. The previously deleted articles were only included to demonstrate that he has a history of doing what he did 4-5 days ago in the Aldaman-Gheza article. As for if there should be a discussion on his sources i don't know, this report was more about him cherrypicking and pushing nationalistic POV by using outdated folktales, for example one of his sources like this shows that he cherrypicks outdated folktales when it comes to glorifying his own nation while ignoring parts that speak of folktales about Ingush slave clans, Ingush Semitic ancestry etc. As if this isn't enough his recent edit is a continuation of his series of edits on the Orstkhoy article where he includes Chechen-Orstkhoy/Karabulak conflicts [[67]] (Orstkhoy/Karabulaks is both a Chechen and Ingush tribe) while whitewashing Ingush history by either not including or removing Ingush-Orstkhoy/Karabulak conflicts such as [[68]]. If this isn't Nationalistic editing and pushing a POV then i don't know what it is, it is clearly not building an encyclopedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

WikiEditor1234567123

Discussion concerning WikiEditor1234567123

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 WikiEditor1234567123

Goddard2000 is, in order to find something against me, bringing up 6 months+ old deleted articles of mine, one of which (Battle of the Assa River) I personally told him should be deleted as I understood my mistake. Back then, I was a very inexperienced user that made a lot of grave mistakes, since then I have added information mostly based on reliable sources and not folktales. Further more, this is a very exaggeration that I do nationalist editing because I once added Category:Ingush people in Aldaman Gheza in haste and should have first discussed with him instead. Although I didn't even add the sentences about Ingush ethnicity in the article, because I first wanted to reach consensus with Goddard2000 as can be seen in the talk page. Later, I dropped the ethnicity debate of Aldaman Gheza, not because an admin interfered as Goddard2000 stated, but because I understood that even in that article (which itself is full of folkloric facts masked as historical, such as the battles of Kabardians with Chechens or the participation of Aldaman Gheza in the Battle of Khachara (1667)), ethnicity shouldn't be based of folklore, and lastly, seeing a source mention him as Cheberloy aristocrat. I replaced Chechen translation with Ingush translation in Kazbek, because I thought that Chechen translation wasn't notable enough to be there. Later I told you I could add it back in talk page of an admin if you wanted. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:51, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Goddard2000 brought up 4 months ago made revert where while restoring deleted map and text by the admin, unknowingly my revert also deleted "Karabulaks". Thanks for letting me know, I will add it back. Also, what's wrong with me adding Sheikh Mansur raids on Orstkhoy? It's an additional information of Orstkhoy to add into the article. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:10, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Btw since Goddard2000 is bringing up old diffs, how about I will demonstrate some too? For example here Goddard2000 wrote "Chechen Teips from all areas of Chechnya and Ingushetia", so what we see here is that Goddard2000 was knowingly writing the Ingush teips as Chechen. For does who don't know Ingush teips like Torshkhoy and Guloy [ru] as well as the mixed Chechen-Ingush ones like Tsechoy [ru] and Merzhoy [ru] also migrated to Aukh. This text was like that for almost 3 years, before I noticed it and corrected it. WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning WikiEditor1234567123

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

I am...unimpressed, to say the least, with the prior deleted articles, which do indeed appear to present highly dubious material, probably at least as much legend as fact, as historical events. That said, it was some time ago that those things happened, and the latest iteration looks, at least at the first instance, a lot like a content dispute so far. Has there ever been any community discussion over these sources as to their actual reliability, such as at the reliable sources noticeboard? If not, why is this at AE before even going there? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I recommended Goddard2000 take this to AE after they first brought it to my user page, as I have been traveling and could not commit to conducting an investigation myself. Lest the validity of Seraphimblade's suggestion be misunderstood, I would amend it to "why [was] this [brought to an admin] before going [to a centralized discussion board]". _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As there has been no appetite to take any action here, unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects, I will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:43, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to take a look at this by the end of the week, as I think this is the most appropriate forum. While a better established groundwork of examples where clear community consensus demonstrating a misuse of sources would have been desired, given the relative obscurity of the topics in question I don't think the lack thereof should preclude investigation here, while still reserving the right to potentially decide, following review, that further content discussion was needed. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, after reviewing all of the relevant diffs and talk page discussions, I think I agree with Seraphimblade that this should be closed without action. While using folkloric sources as references for historic claims is a serious error that quickly leads to sanctions, in the case of Aldaman Gheza WikiEditor1234567123's position is significantly ameliorated by the apparent fact that when they began editing the article, they were under the impression that Gheza was a folklore figure, as evinced by the discussion between the two editors at Talk:Aldaman Gheza. Past usage of similar sources in more clearly historical contexts has been disavowed and chalked up to inexperience; such an excuse has a short shelf life, but I think it still works at this time. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A scan of the deleted January 2023 discussion at Talk:Nazran conflict makes me unsure that WikiEditor1234567123 should continue editing in this area due to the claims of mixing legend into factual articles. For example, Goddard2000 wrote that the article about a battle was sourced to a statement by one man written "200 years after it supposedly happened" and WikiEditor1234567123 replied "what about if I write that it's legendary battle". I am discomforted by the willingness to switch an article from factual to legendary—a better response would have been "I see what you mean. Sorry, and I will support deletion of the article." However, the details are over my head and I am happy to agree with the admins above on the understanding that another request can be made here if needed. Johnuniq (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk

The one year block and site ban of InedibleHulk is lifted. InedibleHulk is topic banned from: Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people and post-1992 politics of the United States. InedibleHulk is further warned that his conduct is very close to exhausting the patience of the community, and that any topic ban violation or other disruption is likely to lead to reinstatement of an indefinite block with the strong possibility that no one may be willing to lift it again. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 13 July 2023 (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: InedibleHulk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: GENSEX/CIVIL/BLUDGEON-related siteban imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive317#InedibleHulk, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2023#Gun control

Administrator imposing the sanction: HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by InedibleHulk

It was wrong of me to refer to the Covenant School shooter as a female. I was too trusting of the external sources and not nearly considerate enough of what this might suggest to many transgender editors and readers. I'm not the sort of person who uses a deadname just to be a dick, and wouldn't use one for any reason to refer to a living person. Now, I won't use one to refer to a dead person either, regardless of what the sources say. I don't want any part of this wider culture war or that one article. I also now appreciate how seriously annoying it can be to other editors to be told the same thing (even worded differently) repeatedly, and will stop that, in all discussions. There've been issues with funny, "funny" and confusingly unfunny edit summaries, too; no more in tragic topics. Finally, American politicians, gender controversy and the Florida Panthers are off my menu. With this in mind, I ask for a clear consensus to unban me after three months (on July 13).

Copied from User talk:InedibleHulk by Extraordinary Writ (talk) at 17:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 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 DrewieStewie

I have editing and discussion history, both procedural and side-banter, with InedibleHulk. I also wasn't involved in the discussion leading to this Arbitration Enforcement sanction. Knowing IH, while I didn't condone the behavior resulting in these sanctions, I also thought one year as imposed by HJ Mitchell was excessive, a view shared with several other editors. It was wrong to refer to the shooter by a deadname repeatedly after several warnings, but a year for incivility for an otherwise net-positive long-term editor was a bit much. IH has acknowledged the wrong of his behavior in his request (and frankly never went to the abhorrent extremes RoxyTheDog did at ANI), and these three months should very well be considered time served. It would be a shame and net-loss to discourage his prolific article-space contributions. I'd support lifting a site ban, lifting the block, and imposing no topic bans on him. I am truly convinced IH will avoid on his own volition the behavior leading to this sanction, and I have full trust and confidence in him as an editor. He's clearly learned his lesson. Incident aside, he's helped lighten tensions elsewhere on talk space before with his witty humor, and Wikipedia needs more of that tension eased. DrewieStewie (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Adoring nanny

One thing I hope all editors, but especially IH, take away from this is that if one disagrees with a policy, violating it is not the answer. I don't agree with WP:DEADNAME. But it's a policy, so I make every effort to follow it. That's the way one needs to handle something like that. Adoring nanny (talk) 02:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that the consensus that formed in regards to Hale's name was itself not consistent with the wording of WP:DEADNAME

Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with the name and gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources.

Here are Hale's last known messages.[69] I am not going to quote the actual messages here, because doing so would itself violate the policy. But in the messages themselves, Hale uses both male and female names, and the last message with any name uses both. By the plain wording of the policy, Hale was using both names, and this is Hale's most recent expressed self-identification. Therefore, either would be OK. That's not the consensus that formed among the editors, and IH should have respected that consensus (much as one still respects a legal ruling that misapplies the law). I still see it as a mitigating factor. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke Cole

I have a few thoughts:

I think it's important to recognize that InedibleHulk was correct with regard to the sources conflicting on the gender of the shooter in the 2023 Nashville school shooting. It's a stretch to say that the consensus gender in use in the article, should somehow be used as a stick on the talk page where the matter would (obviously) be discussed (and where there was some disagreement still).
I believe the process that resulted in a one year block was comically shortlived: the initial filing was made at 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC), and HJ Mitchell enacted the block by 21:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC), a duration of 1 day, 4 hours and 43 minutes. As there was no immediate danger to the project and this was clearly not a case of vandalism or bad faith, it defies logic to not leave the matter open longer so editors could provide dissenting views.
WP:DEADNAME applies to article-space as it is part of our Manual of Style. It does not apply to talk pages, and even if we were to want to stretch it into that, it certainly doesn't apply in situations where our sources are conflicting on the gender identity of the subject under discussion (and where reasonable editors may disagree and be voicing dissent).

Ultimately I think this block was made in error and should be removed with all haste so that InedibleHulk can return to editing and contributing to articles. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:52, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could any admin below please indicate which WP:PAG/WP:PGLIST they believe supports either the initial sitewide block or the discussed topic bans? In looking at WP:CTOP, it refers back to PAG/PGLIST and behavioral guidelines, and it's unclear to me which one is being applied here. As most of the supporting diffs were either focused on confrontational language in edit summaries or disagreements about pronoun usage on the talk page, I'm not seeing anything that would support the original block or a topic ban. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Speaking as an uninvolved editor who happened to watch this while it was unfolding but chose not to comment at the time. I do believe that some level of disruption took place and that sanctions were (and still are) appropriate. But a one year block was probably beyond the minimum necessary sanctioning to prevent disruption, and even then I believe InedibleHulk has demonstrated his understanding of the issue and his intention to fix it. I would support an unblock with these conditions:

A topic ban on GENSEX
A topic ban on American politics, broadly construed to include crime and gun control in the United States
A probational civility restriction in which any incivility, whether it be in a talk page or an edit summary, is subject to a block

This is contingent on the fact that there was genuine confusion about this particular GENSEX subject in both the sources and the article's talk page, and I do not believe that InedibleHulk was intentionally deadnaming or trying to push a transphobic POV. The topic ban is purely because he was unable to respect consensus in this area. If he were to attempt to push a transphobic POV, then I would not support any unblock, now or in the future. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 21:12, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Valereee

I blocked IH for a BLP vio a few years ago so I'm going to consider myself involved. I think an unblock with tbans is worth trying. I hate these gigantic tbans, though, and I'd rather see a narrow definition. AP2 is hard to avoid, but American politician bios is not. Gensex is a little easier, but I'd really hate to see IH blocked for a year because someone is stalking them around, finds they fixed a typo at Dwyane Wade, and hauls them back in for a tban vio. Valereee (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IH, per your response on your talk: I would certainly hope it was too fine a point -- personally I would not consider a copyedit at Dwyane Wade that didn't touch on their daughter to be within gensex, and as you point out the article is not marked for it -- so for me it wouldn't be a vio. But I've seen a lot of people dinged for tbans for going anywhere near an article that might be construed as being within the tban. That 'broadly construed' thing is a bear. Valereee (talk) 16:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

I concur with Valereee, instead of the AP2 ban, I suggest a ban from American politician biographies, plus I propose a ban from edits regarding American politicians. Also, similar to Valereee said, there should not be a block to editing non-GENSEX content on articles only tangentially related to GENSEX (this doesn’t apply to people who are LGBT). starship .paint (exalt) 23:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by InedibleHulk

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

A few comments:
- I disagree with the commenters above who think the site ban was extreme or out of process. AE enforcement provisions are designed specifically so strong measures can be implemented quickly in contentious topics once the editor knows it is a contentious topic. Had Harry wanted to, he could have unilaterally imposed this without any discussion at all.
- I do think this would have been more accurately characterized as a GENSEX-related ban than a gun control-related ban, but in the end, this doesn't really matter.
- I would definitely not be willing to support an unblock without a GENSEX topic ban. This was cemented when IH made a GENSEX-related comment on their talk page (which I removed) while he was indef blocked. Also, this was not a one off. I think I would be willing to consider an unblock with such a ban in place, indefinitely.
- I don't think a gun control-related topic ban is needed, but I don't object (and I'd suggest IH not object) if others feel it is needed.
- IH seems to finally grok what the problem was when he says "...not nearly considerate enough of what this might suggest to many transgender editors and readers."

I think I've criticized/threatened IH with a block before about something else. ~~I don't think this makes me involved, but I'm willing to defer to IH; if he thinks I'm involved, I'll move this to the involved section.~~ --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC) (per comments IH made on his talk page, it's up to me, so I'll leave this here and won't consider myself "involved". --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2023 (UTC))[reply]

I'm neutral on expanding the topic ban to include AMPOL. I support whatever everyone else does. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see gun control as the particular issue here; it was more incidental that the article in question had a relation to that. I don't see a restriction in that area as being necessary, at least not unless someone can present evidence that InedibleHulk caused disruption specifically related to that topic. GENSEX was the crux of the matter here, and I would also not be willing to consider an unblock without a topic ban from that area replacing it. That said, I do see at least some indication that InedibleHulk was willing to think about what the issues were and hear feedback on it, and so the block may no longer be necessary to prevent disruption. So at this point I'm willing to give another chance (if and only if the GENSEX topic ban is imposed along with it), with the clear understanding, though, that any violation of the topic ban or other return to disruption will very likely lead to reinstatement of the block, and that third chances are a lot harder to get than second ones. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- While I didn't myself see the need for an AP2 sanction, I also have no objection to that if that's the consensus here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:24, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like this has more or less run its course, and the rough consensus is to unblock InedibleHulk and topic ban him from the GENSEX and AP2 areas. Unless any uninvolved admin shortly objects, I will close this as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Floquenbeam and Seraphimblade that any unblock without in indef GENSEX topic ban is a non-starter; and that gun-control topic-ban is likely unneeded. Some partial page blocks may need to be restored though since, due to system limitations, they were over-ridden by the most recent AE site-wide block (pinging EvergreenFir to weigh in on that part).

That said, I am concerned to see that over the last three-ish years InedibleHulk has been indeffed twice; been unblocked after a civility block with a "Please remain civil EH or I fear the next block may be indef." message; and, that they violated their previous (3 month AP-32) topic-ban multiple times resulting in several partial and site-wide blocks. Given that, I wonder whether we aren't just setting up another rinse-repeat cycle by shortening a 1-year AE block after 3ish month? Abecedare (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm (cautiously) happy to take IH at their word that they are "years wiser now" and support an unblock with, at least, a GENSEX topic-ban. I haven't examined their recent contribution in the AP2 area to know whether a topic-ban from American politics is needed or not. But if IH themselves plan to stay away from the topic, as they say in their appeal, and Courcelles believes that such a topic-ban is necessary, then an "unblock with indef GENSEX and AP2 topic-bans" would be the fastest way forward. Abecedare (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See this for IH's clarification about what areas they plan to sat away from in any case (TLDR: American politicians). Abecedare (talk) 13:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topic bans would likely be necessary on both GENSEX and AP2. Gun control could be left off as gun control within the US is absolutely within AP2. I would find GENSEX alone insufficient to support this appeal. Courcelles (talk) 20:16, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would shorten the sitewide ban to time served and place topic bans on GENSEX as well as AP2. I'm not wedded to AP2, but GENSEX would be indispensable.
I would also want InedibleHulk to be very clear that community/admin patience is not infinite, whereas their next block might well be. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My main concern here is their history of violating topic bans, which is what led me to support the site ban in the first place. I think if they are unblocked and topic banned it should be made clear that any topic ban violation comes with a fresh one year ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]