Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive320

Tombah

Tombah is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. While some editors did express good-faith content concerns in this topic area, there is no indication that applicable content-review processes are unable to address them. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:38, 16 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 Tombah

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Tombah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles discretionary sanctions

10:53, 12 July 2023 Quote: "This piece is the latest among a series of articles trying to delegitimize Israel, Zionism and undermine the connection of Jews to the Land of Israel, from the same author that brought us [lists articles]. I'd never want to cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors, but it is quite difficult to dismiss this as a coincidence."
06:49, 10 July 2023 Quote: "Comment on this piece as a whole, which is starting to resemble not only an anti-Zionist essay but also starts to bore a faint smell of antisemitism…"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

13-16 Jan 2022 ARBPIA 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 above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Working on a sensitive topic like the one we are currently discussing (Zionism, race and genetics) is hard work, and comments like the above make it much more difficult. The editor saying they don’t want to cast aspersions didn’t reduce the impact.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff

Discussion concerning Tombah

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 Tombah

Onceinawhile is a brilliant editor with great talents, and through him, I've learned a lot. I have no wish and didn't intend to disrespect him personally. But, things have to be said: we have a serious POV problem today on Wikipedia in everything Israel- and even Jewish-related. Once's recent articles, judging from their titles, content, and DYKs, all seem to aim for delegitimizing Israel and/or Zionism (from various aspects), or, to undermine Jewish history in the Land of Israel:

Mixed cities (DYK: .. that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing?) that for some reason discusses the phenomena in Israel only
Shrine of Husayn's Head (DYK: ... that the demolition of the Shrine of Husayn's Head (pictured), probably the most important Shi'a Muslim shrine in Israel, may have been related to efforts to transfer Palestinians out of the country?)
Ancient text corpora: (DYK: ... that all known writing in Ancient Hebrew totals just 300,000 words, versus 10 million in Akkadian (pictured), 6 million in Ancient Egyptian and 3 million in Sumerian?)
The DYK for the latest article, Zionism, race and genetics, was going to be ... that the genetic origin of modern Jews is considered important within Zionism, as it seeks to provide a historical basis for the belief that descendants of biblical Jews have "returned"? After seeing this proof, I don't believe I'm just being paranoid.

Sometimes those articles present well sourced but biased material, and sometimes they utilize synthesis and original research − as is the case in the article we currently refer to- Zionism, race and genetics − to prove a point and convince readers to follow a certain viewpoint. The article in question is thankfully now a candidate for deletion for multiple reasons, including the ones I mentioned above. Among the other reasons is the continuing use of the word "belief" to refer to Jewish descent from the Israelites, virtually ignoring the conventional view in genetic research, which is that most Jewish ethnic sub-divisions share Middle Eastern ancestry which may be derived from the ancient Near East, putting them in proximity to other groups of the Levant and the Eastern Mediterranean, such as Lebanese, Druze, Samaritans, Palestinians, Greeks and Italians. Yes, that also probably includes most Jews whose ancestors migrated from Warsaw, Poland, to New York City one hundred years ago for example. The same article was created in the first place as a reaction to a challenged edit by Once and a discussion surrounding it at Zionism, so it is hard not to view it as something akin to an attack page, aimed at winning a talkpage debate, which other user also described as "a textbook example of WP:SYNTH". Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg, and there are not only new articles, but many older ones, that suffer from the same issues. Here (#1, #2), for example, during the last week, Once has been trying to "prove" that Jews are largely descended from converts. In reality, while a few known cases are generally agreed upon (i.e. the Edomite population in southern Judea under Hasmonean rule), there is zero evidence to support large-scale conversions to Judaism. It is only logical to assume that the purpose of those edits to List of converts to Judaism was to support the new article in question.

Activism is a problem we don't have many tools to deal with on Wikipedia, and unfortunately, Once is not strictly acting alone, but with the help of other like-minded editors with very similar ideologies, exactly as described in WP:Activism, who join each other editing the same pages, and back each other when facing criticism. This recent surge in Anti-Israeli articles (including the fairly recent Zionism as settler colonialism, Death to Arabs, Legality of the Israeli occupation of Palestine, Land expropriation in the West Bank and there is even one newer to the aforementioned "Zionism, race and genetic": Thirty-seventh government of Israel and the Palestinians Once has been just invited to contribute to) on Wikipedia is problematic, and is even worrying. We're in a world where antisemitism is on the rise, and again, unfortunately, this kind of point-scoring and synthetic and unbalanced editing may contribute to this rise in hate speech, if not to violence. We have the responsibility to stop this phenomenon, and as a first step, we must be able to recognize and stop activism when we see it. This, and not personally attacking anybody, is what I was trying to do during the discussion Once mentioned above. Tombah (talk) 14:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin:, thank you for your comment. I never accused anyone here for being antisemitic, so I don't think that would be necessary. My claim is that irresponsible editing, focused on pushing a very particular view based on biased material and synthesis to make certain claims on Israel, Zionism and Jews in general, without even trying to introduce the well established conventional view on the subject, may contribute to the current growth of antisemitism. I believe we can all agree on that. On the same time, yes, I believe I know how to identify an ideology-driven editing when I see it.
If you believe my concerns are valid, I'd would really like to hear your opinion on the evidence shown above. I think it shows a very clear agenda and focus, aiming to promote a certain point of view. The DYKs above indicate that those articles, while touching different topics, all share the same bias: they try to show that various things related to Jewish history, ancestry, demography, etc, are not exactly what you think... Many of those articles are written as argumentative essays, using synthesis and biased material to push the same views.
In my opinion, this pattern of editing should immediately ring the WP:ACTIVISM bell. What options are available, and what is the appropriate course of action, for an editor who has these concerns? What is the missing evidence, in your opinion, to prove we are facing a problem with widespread activism? And what resources does Wikipedia offer those trying to halt it? Tombah (talk) 04:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is a recent surge in comments here. I would like to add that many here are of the same group, sharing many of the views promoted by Once. It's always the same people that defend and back each other when in need, and join forces when someone of the perceived "opposed" view is reported. Perhaps that, again, goes to show the extent of the problem I'm addressing. When it comes to voting, the numbers have an impact and the same viewpoint consistently secures a majority. The same can be seen here: editors who share my concerns won't even notice this discussion, but this group, who support Once's viewpoint, always has an exceptional level of communication and sync. I'd suggest that uninvolved third parties have a deeper look into the matter. There is genuine bias all across the board; its ramifications could seriously undermine the credibility of Wikipedia, and even make an impact in the physical world. Tombah (talk) 06:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about mockpuppetry, but the issue of activism is unquestionably present. Yes, all sides are represented on Wikipedia, but one side obviously works hard to promote their opinions, clogging the site with numerous pages that "prove" their points of view and, as was demonstrated above, exploiting WP:SYNTH other fringe sources to compose argumentative essays that criticize Israel, promote fringe views on Jewish history, and delegitimize Zionism. Unfortunately, this has turned into a battleground where only one side engages in combat while the other sees no sense in doing so. The same effort shows up in both individual and group undertakings. We have Once, which occasionally works on a new essay that criticizes certain aspects of Israel or Jewish history, perhaps with the intention of reaching the broadest audience possible by employing DYKs. I can add a fifth DYU recently published by Once to the list above; it was just posted on his chat page this past week: Ein Samiya (DYK: ...that Ein Samiya (pictured), which provides the water for Taybeh, Palestine's first beer, was depopulated in 2023 after harassment by neighboring Israeli settlers?) Is it really a coincidence that the same user always finds a way to say something about Israel/Zionism/Jews in his DYKs? With the exception of recent incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I find it difficult to think that any article from the past year was written specifically to criticize a particular component of Palestinian identity, history, or conduct, let alone repeatedly promoting the same views with streaks of related DYKs. The same user, for some reason, moved earlier this year the entire histories of Israeli cities such as Ashdod, Ashkelon and Yavne were moved without discussion to the articles of related former Palestinian villages such as Isdud, and Yibna (see the move of info from Ashdod to Isdud, and from Yavne to Yibna), as though to imply that contemporary Israeli cities cannot be the continuation ancient settlements. I still don't understand why on Wikipedia is Arab Yibna considered a legitimate successor to the classical-period Jewish town of Yavne, but the modern Israeli city of Yavne is not. If those efforts are not activism, I don't know what is.
Our page WP:ACTIVISM describes group activism as when: one of the blocs is usually dominant, either because it has more editors, is better organized, its members have more time on their hands. Sounds very familiar. In ARBPIA move requests you will find that votes nearly always proceed as follows: someone from the aforementioned group proposes a change; voting begins; Everyone who does not agree with the proposing group gets a response attempting to persuade him (or others) that he is wrong, while supporters rarely get responses. You can see the same pattern in Talk:1948 Palestinian Exodus, Talk:Israel and Apartheid, Talk:Israel, and repeating itself right now, in the AfD for for Zionism, race and genetics. Additionally, you can always find members of the same group closely collaborating on new articles. Above, we saw Once invited by Selfstudier to contribute to a new article named Thirty-seventh government of Israel and the Palestinians. Here, You may see Nableezy and Nishidani mentioning a "series of articles on the occupation" they collaborate on, later joined by the same editors. Nableezy suggests to start a new article named Israeli deportations of Palestinians from the West Bank, and Nishidani compares the issue to the events of 70 CE, it's unclear whether he's mocking of Jewish history or just enjoying the comparison between the two unrelated occurrences. Several of the pieces I have linked above feature the same editors working in pairs or trios.
Also according to WP:ACTIVISM: Activists don't want any other editors taking their articles off message. So, activists will try to drive away editors they don't approve of. The method used to accomplish this is usually to make the other editors feel very unwelcome in the activists' articles. The activists will display consistent and continuous incivility, including personal attacks, hectoring comments, biting edit summaries, baiting, condescension, and just plain rudeness. This problem is perfectly demonstrated by Nishidani, who previously compared Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, stating [1] that the settlements in the West Bank are part of an old ideology kicking Palestinians for "lebensraum". personally attacks editors who do not share his own view and consistently asserts that they are not knowledgeable enough about the subject. Here are a few examples: "Tombah's edit indicates a desire to insert clichés rather than sum up scholarship", "The popular Jewish, Zionist or Israeli narrative which Tombah’s uninformed generalizations repeat several times", "The author of this pastiche is writing the following message" and even writing once that "Jeezus, I mean, if that is the level of nescience feeding into this talk page, [...] then we have a problem: editors not knowing anything about the topic they are trying to rewrite. These are fables, nursery tales, vernacular chatpoints whatever, all rubbished above all in Israeli universities. What are they doing here? What you all appear to be doing is pushing for a 'Zionist' fairytale version to compete with the relevant historical literature, as the raison d'être for Israel's existence. It doesn't need those crap stories any more. Ancient history has nothing to do with it: the Holocaust does, massively." Not just me, but other editors frequently encounter the same problem. The same issue was mentioned by Walt Yoder in his comment above concerning the ongoing AfD on Zionism, race and genetics. There are many more instances showing the extent of anti-Israel activism on Wikipedia today, but it would take a lot longer to go over them all. And I'm not sure if I can still firmly classify them, or at least their ramifications as exclusively anti-Israel. Tombah (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Walt Yoder

It does seem to me that there are multiple editors in the Israel-Palestine space who are creating content which is essay-like and argumentative, but not encyclopedic in nature. When somebody calls them out, they claim personal attacks, bias by the other editor, or that any editor who has not read a specific 400-page book in detail is not qualified to comment (diff). None of which address the criticism.

There are clear problems with Zionism, race and genetics as it currently exists, and Tombah should be commended for pointing them out, not punished for failing to reach an impossible standard of politeness. Walt Yoder (talk) 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Tombah needs to dial it back with the anti-Semitism/WPconspiracy innuendo, it's getting tiresome. The recent Diff is a typical example. Like minded editors? What about User_talk:Drsmoo#Antisemitism?? I could equally say there are a bunch of editors conspiring to push Israeli nationalist POV positions in Wikipedia but do I have any evidence? Evidence free allegations have no merit.Selfstudier (talk) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

Once is meticulous in adding reliably sourced content from WP:RSP, journal and book sources. The material they present, well ... it is what it is. The truth will set you free. What definitely does not set us free is the breakdown of AGF and a devolution into idle insinuation. Anyone forgetting AGF, and in doing so aggravating other editors, as well as, by requiring concerns over this to be taken to disciplinary forums, wasting community time, needs reminding of AGF. We keep thoughts to ourselves for a reason. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by PaleoNeonate

I just wanted to note that there also currently is a related open thread at WP:FTN where participation is welcome. —Paleo Neonate – 22:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

An editor is upset that their personal POV is being challenged by reliably sourced articles. They make absurd claims that manifestly notable topics like Zionism as settler colonialism are evidence of a spate of anti-Israeli editing. And they do this while making articles like Origin of the Palestinians. Compare the sourcing at Zionism, race and genetics and at Origin of the Palestinians. See who is primarily using sources representing a nakedly partisan viewpoint, and minimizing the opposing viewpoint. Being upset that your personal position is not accepted as gospel truth on Wikipedia is not an excuse for repeated personal attacks. And it should not be allowed to continue. I am unaware of Tombah's motives being repeatedly attacked. He should return the favor to the people he interacts with. All that said, I think Tombah is a very smart editor, and Id rather he continue editing than be restricted from doing so, but this one-way sniping cannot keep happening. That or let this degrade in to a free for all where we can all say what we feel about each other without consequence. nableezy - 05:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh, the cognitive dissonance is something else here. You have an editor making comments like seen here, an editor who has had multiple banned editors show up at his talk page precisely for his views (eg here, which contains the gem the disputed area of the West Bank, or this, or this). But yet he has the gall to write, presumably with a straight face, It's always the same people that defend and back each other when in need, and join forces when someone of the perceived "opposed" view is reported. Perhaps that, again, goes to show the extent of the problem I'm addressing. Just wow. nableezy - 06:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

Challenging the content of articles is par for the course, but Tombah's constant impugning of the motives of other editors is very tiresome. I don't like filing reports against other editors but this one is long overdue.

Of course everyone who edits in the ARBPIA area has their biases. Unfortunately, Tombah has a self-righteous belief that s/he is an exception. His/her response above is indicative. Someone really needs to buy Tombah a mirror. Zero^talk 05:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editors most likely to write against Tombah here are those whose integrity Tombah endlessly questions. But for Tombah this is evidence of a conspiracy ("an exceptional level of communication and sync"). One would have thought that Tombah would at least tone down the accusations for the duration of this case, but alas the opposite has happened. Zero^talk 09:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

Uninvolved except for two comments (one, two) to the effect of what I'm about to say here. I expect most editors will agree when I say that this area, more than any other, has a significant unaddressed WP:CPUSH problem. I believe that Tombah's accusations of inappropriate collaboration to push an anti-Israeli POV are true. I believe that Selfstudier and Nableezy's counter-accusations of inappropriate collaboration to push a pro-Israeli POV are also true.

I'm an adherent of the WP:TIGER/WP:INSCRUTABLE philosophy. If you can confidently tell what an editor's predilections are purely from their editing in a given area or from the trend when they !vote in discussions, then serious consideration should be given to whether their long term contributions run afoul of WP:NPOV and to whether they should continue editing in that area. I believe that the evidence provided by Tombah makes it clear that Onceinawhile has fallen short of this standard. Given the previous AE sanction and after a brief glance at their contributions, I doubt that Tombah would survive such scrutiny either. It's my suspicion that more than half of the editors that commented at the AfD discussion or at this AE discussion would be identified as a disruptive POV pusher if this standard were applied.

It is possible to edit despite your own personal biases rather than in service of them. Despite this, many regular editors in this area have chosen specifically to write things that are predominantly negative about Israel or predominantly negative about Palestine, and we need to consider whether this topic era benefits from their participation. I contend that it does not, and I will support sanctions (AE or otherwise) against any and all editors that can be shown to predominantly contribute in a way that denigrates or reflects poorly on a specific nation or ethnicity. This includes Onceinawhile based on Tombah's testimony, and it would presumably include many other editors on either end of this dispute if similar evidence were to be demonstrated.

I expect to make a lot of friends among the ARBPIA regulars with this position. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Drsmoo

(Redacted) Drsmoo (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, see below. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Boynamedsue

I would just like to add a comment on Tombah's opening statement. They argue that Onceinawhile's delegitimising of Israel includes: Mixed cities (DYK: .. that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing?) that for some reason discusses the phenomena in Israel only. Mixed cities are a specific settlement category existing in Israel which relates to 8 cities defined as "mixed" by Israeli authorities, therefore inclusion of information about other countries would be unusual.

This is an accusation of judging Israel by standards that would not be applied to another country, which is defined as antisemitic by the IHRA definition of antisemitism.

I find it unlikely that this allusion to the IHRA definition is accidental, and it would therefore constitute a deliberate, and completely baseless, insinuation of antisemitism on the part of Onceinawhile. --Boynamedsue (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TB

I agree with Nableezy, and this needs a logged warning at minimum. Frankly, I will go as far as to suggest that anybody who claims "Zionism as settler colonialism" to be the product of activism, implying a lack of encyclopedic value notwithstanding the hundreds of scholars who have written on it, can be safely blocked per CIR. TrangaBellam (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tombah

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

If Tombah's concern is that Onceinawhile's edits are not in accord with reliable sources, that is of course a valid concern. If Tombah's concern is that Onceinawhile's edits contain specific antisemitic tropes, that is also valid. But the above comment reads more like several leaps of logic, edits reflect poorly on Israel/Zionism → edits are anti-Zionist → edits are antisemitic. (There is, thankfully, no final jump to Onceinawhile is an antisemite, or this would be much more serious.) My first impression here is in favor of a logged warning that accusations of antisemitism and insinuations about other editors' ideologies are serious accusations, and thus require serious evidence. I'm open to being convinced of a more or less serious remedy, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Tombah: At your soonest convenience, please either retract your insinuation of inappropriate coordination among other editors in this topic area, or present formal evidence of it (here, or to ArbCom if private evidence is involved). I already linked to WP:WIAPA in my previous comment. "Someone should look into this" is not a loophole through which one can accuse people of meatpuppetry without presenting evidence. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 16:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Drsmoo: I don't know how you could enter a thread where the most recent comment is mine above and think that it's then a good idea to make your own set of unevidenced accusations, but no, that's not going to fly. I have removed your comment. You may add a new comment if all accusations it contains are 1) named (i.e. no the same editors, the same group of people) and 2) backed up with specific evidence (i.e. no I received personal attacks and insults without specifying what was a personal attack or insult). General warning to all commenters: The next person who uses this space to make accusations without evidence will be blocked as an ARBPIA action without further warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    - Tombah appears to have a fundamental battleground mentality in this topic area. Israel–Palestine is an incredibly difficult area to work in. Basically all contributors have strong views on the topic. Editors who accept that, and learn to work with those with whom they disagree politically, swim. Others sink. Tombah is asking us to sanction multiple editors for writing content that reflects poorly on Israel. He has presented little evidence of any content issues, beyond personally disagreeing with what certain articles say. He is saying that these editors are pro-Palestinian, and so their edits should be considered advocacy—while his edits, which he seems to acknowledge favor a Zionist point of view, are supposedly above reproach. He characterizes their collaboration on these articles—a basic part of building an encyclopedia—as sinister, and seems to think that this is self-evident. This is not an attitude compatible with editing in such a difficult topic area. Pro-Palestinian editors are welcome. Zionist editors are welcome. But those who can't handle the idea that sometimes most of the people at an RM will be from the other side are not welcome, not in that area. I will topic-ban shortly if no other admin objects (courtesy ping RegentsPark). -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I can agree with this. I’m almost of a mind that Tombah talked themselves into this needing to be a full topic ban here. So, please feel free to enact such with my support. Courcelles (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not impressed by the tenor of Tombah's comments above (accusations of anti-semitic groupism, the reference to real world dangers, etc.) and a logged warning is almost the minimum option, though perhaps, with an explicit reference to consequences (e.g., "... continuing to do so could lead to sanctions/a topic ban/blocks"). --RegentsPark (comment) 02:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMW03

Closed with advice. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:15, 16 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 NMW03

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: R.Lemkin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NMW03 (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:IBAN and WP:1RR

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

21 June 2023 First time NMW03 reverts me on an article they never edited before without any kind of discussion
23 June 2023 NMW03 again reverts me on an article they never edited before, claims my edit "has nothing to do" with the topic without discussing why
23 June 2023 Yet another NMW03 revert for article never edited before, again saying "has nothing to do with this page" without discussing
29 June 2023 Another instance of NMW03 WP:HOUNDING me to an article they never edited before to alter my edit
29 June 2023 NMW03 hounding again to write an essay in the edit summary instead of discussing, remove the entirety of my edit instead of just the parts they disagreed with
5 July 2023 I had addressed the concerns NMW03 had in the previous diff, yet they are still hounding me on the article and then make unnecessary biased POV changes to text that was already neutral POV. And NMW03 is still not using the talk page at all.
6 July 2023 NMW03 reverting me twice on the same page within 24 hours. In the first revert, NMW03 called a source unreliable without explaining why. I had also pointed out there was another citation, but NMW continued hounding, ignoring the additional source, and showing bad faith
6 July 2023 another NMW03 hounding revert, claiming Artsakh isn't a common name even though it's the name of the Republic of Artsakh article. And NMW03 scrapped the word entirely, even in the context of residents of the Artsakh republic. This is just blatant POV pushing now.
7 July 2023 NMW03 following me again to remove all uses of the word "Artsakh" on this article too even though it's the common name of Republic of Artsakh; more hounding, POV pushing, and edit warring

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

AA2 advisory and warned for Edit warring
Introduction to contentious topics and warned for breaking WP:1RR

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

NMW03 has been increasingly stalking my edits to revert them, and is now hounding every day. NMW03's changes are clearly disruptive POV pushing and in bad faith, and continues to follow whichever article I edit to no end. --R.Lemkin (talk) 13:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Which articles has NMW03 edited before reverting me? With the exception of Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, NMW03's first edit was removing my changes in all of the articles listed. And even for Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh, NMW03 only started editing it two weeks after I had, showing they likely were stalking me for that article as well, and their second edit on the article was reverting one of mine. R.Lemkin (talk) 17:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[2]

Discussion concerning NMW03

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 NMW03

I have been editing Wikipedia for a while, and these articles were already on my watchlist. I did not intentionally follow you to find any of them. I apologize if any of my reverts gave you that impression. In the future, I will take your suggestion to open discussions and try to communicate more effectively. But I want to ask question. If you didn't agree with my reverts, why didn't you open a discussion before?--NMW03 (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NMW03

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

Having looked through the diffs above some of them show NMW03's first edit on an article is to revert R.Lemkin. On other articles, NMW03 had edited the article before the R.Lemkin revert. Given this I'm not convinced that there is sufficient evidence of hounding to warrant sanctions. Having said that I'd recommend that in the future the two of you discuss your edits and engage in dispute resolution. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry R.Lemkin I was looking at Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh and missed your edit a couple weeks earlier. I wonder whether at this point, short of applying sanctions, we might be able to solve this by saying this: NMW03 it appears that your editing in these articles has been targetted against R.Lemkin. You mention above that if R.Lemkin didn't agree with your edits that they should have started a discussion, given that it was you who was following R.Lemkin's edits and then reverting them it was encumbent on you to start a discussion rather than edit war across multiple articles. I would strongly caution you to be consider your editing and ensure that you are not following other editors around to revert them specifically. If you have a general issue with their edits follow our dispute resolution processes and start a discussion before reverting. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SMcCandlish

Withdrawn by filer as out of AE scope. Comment objected to was withdrawn, as well. Courcelles (talk) 23:56, 22 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 SMcCandlish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBATC

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

10:54, 22 July 2023 Asserts that TheMainLogan is "willfully misinterpreting" MOS:DASH (an assumption of bad faith) and that if they disagree with his interpretation of MOS:DASH, they "are just smokin' crack" (a personal attack)
21:13, 22 July 2023 When I asked to strike, replied that I should "Try cultivating a sense of humor", with edit summary "[rolling eyes]"

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2013 § Article titles and capitalisation: "SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) prohibited from violations of WP:AGF; advised to avoid commenting on contributor.[3]" The linked warning includes the line You are strongly advised to avoid commenting on contributor and to confine your comments to content; in particular, you should avoid making personal attacks or engaging in incivility. Failure to achieve a requisite standard of discourse may result in further sanctions being imposed at WP:AE;

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

Under active sanction in topic area, see above

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I asked SMcCandlish to strike this remark after seeing that it had clearly upset TheMainLogan [4] [5] [6] [7]. Saying that someone must be smoking crack to disagree with you isn't a joke; it's a personal attack, even if you aren't literally accusing them of cocaine abuse. Doing so after putting oneself forward as an authority on the topic at hand just comes off as bullying. This is coupled with a violation of the AGF sanction. Accusing someone of willfully misinterpreting guidelines, without any evidence for that willfulness, is a prima facie assumption of bad faith. Given the age of this sanction, I was hoping it could be cleared up with a polite request to retract, but as he has, in his own words, rolled his eyes at the idea that he's done anything wrong, I am bringing it here for review. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@SMcCandlish: Apparently my vote/opinion neither counts nor matters and a major author of the Manual of Style has accused me of being addicted to crack cocaine. The first of the four instances I gave above of them clearly being hurt by what you said. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 21:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: My apologies. I was relying on the wording in the 2013 sanction (which applied to all discussion of MoS), but agree that the 2017 amendment to ATC limits the scope of that sanction. Given that what I initially asked for—a retraction of the personal attack—has occurred regardless, feel free to close this as withdrawn. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: Special:Diff/1166643597

Discussion concerning SMcCandlish

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

Statement by SMcCandlish

Observing that someone seems to be going out of their way to misterpret material is not an "assumption of bad faith". Indeed, I think that participants in disputes like that one have entirely good faith; they believe that they are "correcting" the English of others. Making what is obviously a silly-phrased joke is not a "personal attack". I'd be entirely willing to strike that phrase if the editor in question said they felt attacked by it, but they have so far remained silent, and probably have a sense of humor. Tamzin needs to find something better to do than thought-police other editors. I'll remind the commitee of previous decisions that even telling other editors to "fuck off" isn't necessarily actionable as an attack, and I've come nowhere close to such hostile behavior. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 22:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The "surrounding context" makes it abundantly clear I was neither assuming bad faith nor engaging in a personal attack. I was pointing out an interpretation logic error (based on very direct experience of having written much of the material being misinterpreted), and trying to inject some levity into yet another tedious style debate, which way too many people take too seriously and allow to suck up their time. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that theMainLogan, to whom the comment was directed, objected to the phrase, I've struck it. [8] — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SMcCandlish

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

Two comments, while leaving any specific decisions to the uninvolved admin. First, this isn't before the Arbitration Committee. It's at WP:AE so it's before uninvolved administrators (hence why I'm leaving decisions to them). Second, even telling other editors to "fuck off" isn't actionable as an attack is not correct; per WP:FUCKOFF "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
These comments are made outside the scope of the contentious topic designation, see the superceded version.
The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.
Izno (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal request by Товболатов

Appeal declined. Please be more active on the English Wikipedia before another appeal. Courcelles (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appeal request by Товболатов (talk)

Sanction, that appeal is being requested for

indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed

Administrator imposing the sanction

Rosguill

Notification of that administrator

Rosguill

Statement by Товболатов

Hello, respected arbitral tribunal. I have a topic restriction indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. My violation 17 February 2023 tendentious editing across multiple articles, particularly this editing spree on February 16 (Special:Diff/1139722862, Special:Diff/1139722968, Special:Diff/1139723019, Special:Diff/1139723084, Special:Diff/1139723110, Special:Diff/1139723167, Special:Diff/1139723254, Special:Diff/1139723211). I admit it's my fault. Half a year has passed, I did not participate in disputes, I did not violate the rules. Request to the community to remove the restrictions from me. I won't break the rules. User talk:Товболатов, User talk:Товболатов, Special:Contributions/Товболатов.

Sincerely, Tovbolatov. Товболатов (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Courcelles this i made this edit by mistake, confused the project with the Russian one. Any person makes mistakes, no one is immune from this. If I violate the rules, any administrator can immediately block me. There were no edits after that, I didn’t want to make a mistake, I thought if I made a small mistake, they could immediately block me. Sanctions were applied to me for the first time, I had not come across this before in 7 years (in the beginning I wrote from anonymous).--Товболатов (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot in the Russian project for 7 years I was blocked for one hour. I'm sorry.--Товболатов (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t understand why I have such a long block, I didn’t have any gross violations, only spamming once. During this, there is usually a day or two of blocking. I did not offend anyone, I did not have a doll. I didn’t create fakes, but there were disputes at the beginning due to three articles by one person, but their community (administrators) was deleted due to unreliable information. Like I'm some kind of villain. Everyone makes a mistake once, according to the rules, I can apply to three instances. This is the third time I've been rejected. --Товболатов (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the Russian project, I wrote two articles during this time, made many edits. I have been thanked several times for this. There were discussions with participants and I made positive contributions. I want to translate several articles into an English project, three so far. Two about the personality and one about the group of origin. I wrote 12 articles here, they are in the main space with three pages, the administrators helped me. Pages Created Diff- Эпизод сражения при Валерике 11 июля 1840 года, Товболат Курчалоевский, https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Служебная:Вклад/Товболатов,

I finalized this article, protected it from deletion Хамзат Нашхоевский, edited this page Верхний Наур, Штурм аула Гуниб 25 августа 1859 года. Created pages My three pages got on the main page in Russian Wikipedia. In total, I wrote 177 articles on Wikipedia. --Товболатов (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courcelles ok, i'll fix it, thanks for the trust!--Товболатов (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by Товболатов

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal request by Товболатов

Absolutely not. Essentially no editing since sanctioned. Should have been blocked for this. Likely we need to broaden this to the former USSR, including modern successor republics, broadly construed. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, withdraw my idea of expanding the ban, but still oppose appeal. We want to see good editing on the English Wikipedia, not merely the passage of time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that Товболатов has barely edited since the topic ban. Perhaps edit other areas for a while and then ask for the topic ban to be lifted. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept the explanation for that single questionable edit (God only knows I've typed things in the wrong window more than once), but even so the complete lack of activity doesn't really give us anything else to go on. We need to see evidence of actual improvement, not just the clock ticking. That's the exact reason that we don't very often do time-limited topic bans any more; before they get lifted, we want to see someone doing better, not just running out the clock. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless at least one uninvolved admin shows up in support, I plan to close this as appeal declined. Courcelles (talk) 16:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Insufficient editing on the English Wikipedia to determine whether anything has changed about your editing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler&fowler

Fowler&fowler has taken on the advice provided by a number of editors in this thread. Closing with no further action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:42, 29 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 Fowler&fowler

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Fowler&fowler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

Made 3 reverts on the main article of Mahatma Gandhi even after knowing that he got no support for his edits on the talk page concerning a 5 months-old content dispute. He resumed discussion on the talk page (by starting a new section instead of continuing on the existing one) only after reaching too close to making 4 reverts in 24 hours.[9][10][11] His talk page discussions have been toxic due to his personal attacks and he continues to show his failure to drop the stick.

22 July 2023: WP:NPA against his opponents by terming them as "revamped Hindu nationalist nosy parkers".
22 July: WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:CANVASSING.
Demeaning editors as having "Hindu nationalist-viewpoint" and violating WP:CANVASSING by pinging at least a dozen of editors (with most having never edited the article). Though he made no pings to any of the editors who have been involved in this months-old dispute.
22 July: Simply refuses to understand WP:ASPERSIONS and doubles down by saying "It seems to be the latest arsenal in the revamped, slightly more sophisticated, Hindu nationalist attack on Wikipedia".
22 July: Believes I don't have enough credibility because I have "a record of two edits" on the main article. This is very contrary to his own canvassing of editors as mentioned above who have never edited the article before.
23 July: Violation of WP:AGF; both you, Randy Kryn, and CapnJackSp are being less than generous when you respond to my reliably sourced edits with what are personal musings.
23 July: Once he failed to receive any support on the talk page, he went to misrepresent the content dispute on the page-protecting admin's page to convince him to restore his preferred version. He made no mention of the talk page discussions where consensus has been held against his edits.
24 July: Almost the same as above but this time more emotive and least objective.

His responses to editors who have raised issues on his talk page include "please do not post on my user talk page again. I have a limited amount of patience for arguments with people who have given no evidence for knowledge of the mode of historical argumentation".[12] "I'm sick and tired of bogus editors such as you".[13] And "you have no compunction leaving a superciliously preachy message on my talk page about my behavior".[14]

This is a long-term behavioral issue with Fowler, to impose his views and exhaust the patience of others. Experienced editors of this area have frequently condemned the behavior of Fowler,[15][16][17][18] with some deeming his actions as a "clever strategy to remove editorial opponents"[19] or "my way or the highway".[20] Even after various ANI reports,[21][22] Fowler has evidently refused to mend his behavior. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 11:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Warned in October 2022 for "personal attacks and incivility" over infobox dispute involving WP:ARBIND area.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [23]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Girth Summit: It does not means that the targeted editor should take out their frustration against editors who are not mistreating him but that is what Fowler is doing as one can see from the diffs cited above. Fowler was simply not the one who reported the socks, instead, he went to misuse that SPI by making false allegations against an unrelated editor[24] with whom he is edit warring elsewhere.[25] He just resumed his edit warring on Mahatma Gandhi right after the page got protected despite receiving no support for his content.[26] These things happened after this report was filed. Definitely, some action is necessary for dealing with this problematic editing. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [27]

Discussion concerning Fowler&fowler

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 Fowler&fowler

I shall not be responding to these allegations in any great detail. I suspect that Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs), who appears to be more of a talk page editor—for they have made but two edits in Mahatma Gandhi, both over the weekend—have begun this request because their sources, which I am about to take to RS/N, (see here) will not pass muster there and the rug of their revisionist effort at Mahatma Gandhi will be pulled from under their feet. What better way to stop a content dispute from progressing than to sink it in the mire of behavior.

The only other thing I'd like to note is that the exchange on my user talk page about "meatpuppetry" was in the nature of humor.

I am being baited relentlessly by Wikipedia's Hindu nationalists, all in polite language, all in the best traditions of Wikilawyering. One such editor Fayninja (talk · contribs) has just been banned for sockpuppetry; another Meowkiti (talk · contribs) who made a meat-puppetry allegation on my user talk page has also been banned for sockpuppetry. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 13:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @RegentsPark:. Very helpful advice which has been heard loud and clear. Again, many thanks. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 15:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I am in ArbCom, I might as well get some advice from the arbitrators. Increasingly, I find myself dealing with editors, who are either unwilling or unable to spot the difference between high-quality scholarly sources, and low-quality non-scholarly sources.

You can see the situation, for example, in the collapsed list I have lined up in Talk:Mahatma_Gandhi#Fowler&fowler's_sources,_lead_last_para and sources such as those the nominator of this Request for Arbitration has here.

Three of their five sources are abysmally poor quality. In my nearly 17 years and 60K edits on WP, I have never used any source even remotely descending to that level.

Increasingly, I find myself dealing with editors who counter my painstakingly found and rigorously summarized sources with what seems like a Keystone Kops collection of pseudo-sources. If I try to argue, I face pious reference to WP:THIS AND THAT. It seems people who have written nothing, who can't paraphrase at a bare minimum level, who can't

(or don't) comprehend common distinctions, can nonetheless quote chapter and verse of the WP rule book. So, what does one do with an army of talk-page mavens who have never written anything in article space, or written very little? I can take their sources to RS/N, but that is a time sink. ... I'm frustrated, and very depressed. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 17:34, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing that mystifies me is the familiarity many strangers display with my edits, especially my edit summaries. People with whom I have never interacted, or at least have no memory of a recent interaction, can at the drop of a hat pull out diff after diff. These are so similar across my detractors that it breeds the suspicion of having been shared or supplied from the same master list.

@CapnJackSp: is but the latest of these experts on my behavior. They fit the statistic of someone who has spent more time in talk space than mainspace referred to above. But I have no memory of ever interacting with them on a talk page either until very recently, i.e. until they appeared on my user talk page. The editor interaction analyser between us is very strange. I'm surprised to find 50 pages, but in all but three, they have followed me to the page, and in most instances, days, months, years, and decades later, offsetting the chances of any real interaction. So, how have they been watching my behavior enough to post mock-solicitous posts on my user talk page? And this is by no means the first time. Strangers can whip up these lists that I have no memory of, strangers feel the pain of my toxicity, and so forth. It is all very perplexing. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that people who promote POV, especially some version of a nationalist or sub-nationalist- or Hindu-nationalist POV, are looking here for the redress of bruised egos from past interactions. The egos were bruised because they couldn't have their way in the face of reliable sources of due weight. UnpetitproleX, for example, attempted to lock horns over a sentence in Himalayas describing the disputed sovereignty of the mountain range in the Kashmir region. In the guise of another editor user:Pankykh they had waged the same battle with me earlier. After I voiced my suspicions, and not just once, an admin determined the two accounts to have been operated by the same editor, even during the same time. After the admin told Unpetit* to state this clearly on their user page, they were very reluctantly dragged into admitting it on user:UnpetitproleX in what remains a marvel of evasive off-handedness. I, after nearly 17 years, would not have the guts.

Then, after I made the error of using "his" for Unpetit* somewhere, they said I had misgendered them. I doubt they had stated this earlier either on their user page or in any interaction with someone else. In real life, we have three daughters, now in their early 30s. Carol Gilligan, moreover, was a hero in our household. Long ago I created the Wikipedia articles on Dorothy Burlingham (see here), stubs on Phyllis Greenacre and Anna Freud Centre, references to Edith Pechey in Herbert Musgrave Phipson and so forth, and I'm thinking to myself, "Is this for real?" People who have been buffeted by society on account of gender, race, a physical handicap, or other "difference" are never so full of bluster, nor so off-handed about these issues to use them as a Wikipedia tactic. They've mourned for their condition. With them, I have a different order of interaction. (See here for an example).

Sadly, some people arrive on Wikipedia with more grandiosity and bias than skill. Their egos are bruised. Rather than taking it on the chin, developing skills, and moving on, in South Asia especially they harbor grudges for years. Whether this is the acting out of Louis Dumont's hierarchy-ridden society in Homo Hierarchicus, an All Chiefs and No Indian one, I can't say, but it is a sad, sad, fact. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Summing up As I anticipate this will be a pile on, I will conclude with this: If I come way from this without permanent damage,

I will be very careful henceforth about strictly following WP behavior-related policy in all my interactions on Wikipedia. Admin Johnuniq already gave me some guidelines about gender-neutral language on my user talk page. These I will follow like the night follows the day. I can offer an apology for perceived slights of the past, but this resolve is more meaningful.
My late friend @SlimVirgin: had asked me several times to contribute to Wikipedia policy on reliable sourcing, due weight and false balance in history-related topics or write Wikipedia essays on them. As I see that Wikipedia itself has veered away from more prescriptive sourcing-related policy of 17 years go to more prescriptive behavior-related policy of today, I will make an attempt to tighten the former in history-related topics. Many of these problems would not have arisen in their presence.

This is all I have to say. I will await the decision on my user talk page. Best regards, Fowler&fowler «Talk» 14:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PS Have taken admin @Tamzin:'s caution to heart; it supplements admin Johnuniq's. Thank you. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

(Involved because I have a long respected Fowler&fowler for their contributions.) Let me start by stating that, yes, we do have a Hindu nationalist sock problem (see this) on Wikipedia (though I don't see Abhishek0831996 as belonging to this group). And, as we can see by the blocking of editors like Fayninja, many of they are socks and they do target and bait Fowler. They do this because Fowler brings many good sources to the table and it is easier to bait him than it is to argue against those sources. What we end up with is endless discussions, a lot of needling, and, yes, a Fowler going off the rails. In defense of Fowler, they repeatedly ping various admins for help but, because the needling is subtle (you'd have to be a veritable Seneca if you're getting many comments like this one) there isn't much we can do (though Abecedare does try). I'd suggest closing this with the advice (to Fowler) to tone it down, try not to see Hindu nationalists everywhere, and ask admins for help directly (rather than using pings) with appropriate diffs. RegentsPark (comment) 14:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abecedare

My overall opinion matches Regent Parks'. So instead of repeating what they said, I'll only add my read of the events that led to this report.

The casus belli is this content dispute from March 2023, where despite the length, editors appear to be discussing sources and content in good faith. However, suddenly on July 20 Randy Kryn, who hadn't participated in that March discussion but had other editing disputes with F&f, decided to "removed incorrect information in lead and edited for brevity" based on that discussion while conceding in their full edit-summary that the discussion was still ongoing. This then led to:

A cycle of edits with F&f and Johnbod restoring the previous lede text (and 28,000 bytes (!) of supporting citations and quotes) and @Capitals00, Abhishek0831996, and Aman.kumar.goel: blindly reverting to Kryn's version. I say "blindly" because all the editors involved are competent enough to know that the text they were fighting to add to the lede section of a high-profile and well-developed article (...and led to the belief on some Indian Hindus that Gandhi had been...) was atrocious non-English.
At the same time, CapnJackSp left some good-faith but extremely condescending warnings/advice on F&f's talkpage, which only raised the temperature further.
To makes matters even worse, simultaneously, Fayninja who has been following and baiting F&f for quite some time, created a sock account, Meowkiti (talk · contribs), to add trollish content to the talkpage in an apparent attempt to rile F&f and others
And, likely unconnected to all the above content disputes and ego clashes, another sockmaster created an account জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা (talk · contribs) to add a stubby "Criticism" section to the article, ostensibly supporting the Fayninja sock. The জয় হিন্দ জয় বাংলা sock then went to make blatantly POV edits to Subhash Chandra Bose, an article chiefly authored by F&f and constantly targeted by nationalist/regional POV pushers. Inevitably contributing to the siege mentality.

To their credit Aman.kumar.goel, even while involved in a content dispute with F&f as mentioned in (1), reverted and reported the socks mentioned in (3) and (4).

My recommendation would be that the editor's involved in the original, largely health though frustrating, discussion use WP:DRN to resolve that dispute since its very length is likely to make an RFC unworkable and dissuade fresh participants. And as RP advised, tone it down, AGF, focus on content and avoid escalatory reverts and rhetoric. Yes there are trolls and POV pusher aplenty in this and the larger IPA area as my recap above shows, but the core group involved here are "just" having a good-faith content dispute. Abecedare (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Captain Jack Sparrow

There are a few persistent issues with Fowler&Fowler, which they have repeatedly refused to address. I had added a note to this effect on their talk page (this has been referenced above).

Fowler uses AGF as a suggestion, not policy - Casually accusing editors (including longtime editors) of "Hindu Nationalist" agendas, for no purpose other than to try and invalidate their arguments.

Fowler also engages in weaponisation of previous on-wiki achievements - Frequently using their previous achievements (like FA articles and time on the site) to strike at other editors, rather than discussing on merits.

This is quite egregious IMO, and directly against the spirit of a collaborative project.

Please don't attempt to faciley argue with an editor whose version of the lead has stood in this article for upward of ten years... [28]

And are you going to disrespect a 17-year veteran of Wikipedia's South Asia-related articles, including the chief author of the FA India and the Mahatma Gandhi page by not responding @Ingenuity?[29]

...You are wasting my time, You are wasting community time. You are wasting the time of the chief author of this page, of the India FA, and many related pages...[30] (this was during their attempt to add 30,000 bytes to the article after being reverted)

And all of these are just from a very recent dispute they had at Mahatma Gandhi. This behaviour is not one off - It has been used so quite repeatedly in the past as well. An example of condescending incivility from an older discussion supplied by OP, which had very much the same pattern, is an illustrative tool here.

You know nothing about the topic. You have written nothing of consequence on Wikipedia. You are blustering away about titbits that I have quoted to give the reader a general idea about the topic. As such I see you as nothing but a disruptive presence. I will continue to write the article. Enough is enough was their response to an editor with some 20,000 edits and years on wiki.

The issues go beyond this, to a general condescending tone, edit warring when they feel they are right -[31][32][33][34], [35][36] & [37][38] and hostility towards any disagreements; but these alone show that at this point, just ignoring the issue is no longer an option. When F&F has been brought to noticeboards previously, a few editors have cited some of their previous work in improving articles to shield them; Others have questioned their opponents behavior, and F&F has walked away mostly unscathed.

When misbehaviour is long term, it cannot be brushed off as a result of a content dispute. I think continuing to allow this with just a warning, despite the last logged warning for incivility, is just affirming in F&F's mind that their behaviour is acceptable. At what point do we finally decide to tell an editor, longtime as they may be, that their behaviour is unacceptable? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler has made several comments trying to snipe at others and muddy the discussion with the same poor faith allegations of POV editing and the refusal to AGF that have brought them here. What I have not seen from them once is an apology for their incivility, that everyone here has identified is an issue to varying degrees.

Given this, I support the suggestion of civility and 1RR restrictions, given their edit warring and unapologetic incivility. If 17 years of editing have not taught them to avoid edit warring , "soft warnings" for incivility will not make a dent. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Fowler has continued to try and push through changes without consensus as soon as the Page Mahatma Gandhi was lowered in protection from full protected [39].

[40] this edit is quite pointed; it serves no purpose. This is simply restoring "the atrocious non-English" that @Abecedare pointed to, just to prove a point.

I do not have the faith that they will actually work collaboratively despite the self proclaimed guarantees, given as they have used this very noticeboard for casting aspersions and disregarding WP:AGF, and continued their troublesome behaviour while this is in progress.

Some may consider their contributions to be worth too much to sanction, but I do not think that contributions provide a license for incivility. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This comment (now deleted) on this noticeboard itself, which extrapolates the addition of a relevant image to articles, to allege Islamophobia and Misogyny in an editor is a clear sign of their disregard for the WP:AGF guidelines.

In viewing their actions in totality, I do not see their "guarantees" as anything more than a way to escape sanctions at this venue. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 05:51, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aman.kumar.goel

I was pinged above. I would say that the entire response of Fowler&fowler is largely about what others might be doing rather than what they are doing themselves. Given that Fowler is showing WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior even on this noticeboard and assuming things that cannot be backed with evidence, I am sure it is sensible to assume that he is lacking collaborative approach to contribute in this contentious area. At least a restriction involving revert count (1RR) and civility should be in place, if not outright topic ban, to address the major behavioral issues such as page ownership and incivility. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 02:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CMD

I have interacted with F&F across a small selection of WP:ARBIPA topics, and have directly asked them to adjust or withdraw comments at times. F&F lacks a diplomatic nuance, and has a particular verbosity which often does not help. That said, as RegentsPark notes F&F has had years of being baited on various topics, likely due to their proficiency in the content side in an area with persistent issues. It is often difficult for uninvolved parties to intervene on these disputes, as they often involve great detail and domain-specific knowledge. The current dispute at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi is one such example, it's a sprawling dispute that would take hours to properly peruse. It is clear though that F&F has referred to a number of sources, and while I have not analysed this particular dispute in detail, in previous unrelated discussions I have found their choice of sources and their analysis of said sources persuasive. Given the persistent issues surrounding ARBIPA and the detail of the topic, I do not hold the WP:1AM argument to have much weight here due to the difficulty of input from uninvolved editors. F&F does not always interact ideally, but I would be very impressed if they did given what goes on year after year. As I'm sure might be common knowledge, these areas with persistent disruption are challenges it is difficult for en.wiki to deal with. The ideal answer is (as it often is) more uninvolved eyes throughout the topic area, and a lesser step may be to force discussions into a more accessible and structured format somehow. Both difficult asks. CMD (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku

At this WP:ARE forum I have been consistent that before bringing any disputes here completing protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE should be essential and preference should go for solving content disputes as per WP:DR rather than personalizing them.
My understanding so far is if some one keeps personalizing again and again then this forum is supposed to come to help to maintain good environment at discussion pages.
I would love to be on the same page as User:Chipmunkdavis

but

".. The ideal answer is (as it often is) more uninvolved eyes throughout the topic area, and a lesser step may be to force discussions into a more accessible and structured format somehow ..". But I am afraid, Wikipedians at times are too polarized, they do not love to leave any space for middle ground and neutral players. Rather many times opposite sides come together and knockout the neutral or middle space users first. My latest experience (with another user) had been at ANI when I objected a gendered attack first the user apologized but in two days again made the attack again, when pointed out by me right at the ANI made false attack on me saying I am partisan while I was provably neutral enough.

(Let me note one of later interaction with F&F was good - I liked there independent mindedness) Why I noted above is similar experience I have had with Fowler&fowler previously - they attempted an uncalled for characterize me among Hindutva when I had tried to facilitate talk page discussion - which they had refactored on my protest on one page and left same attack non-refactored on other discussion page.

Why I am bringing out this again is,- though I appreciate their good work and contributions- it is disappointing to see continuation of personal attacks on other users. IDK mistakes of OP and other, if any -address those separately, I have not studied those- but at least prima facie right at ARE, saying that some one is only talk page editor hence not eligible to object inappropriate behaviour does not sound convincing enough.

We all grow old and wish our creation remains at it's best, same time platform like Wikipedia has inherent limitations of openness and novice uninitiated users turning up again and again. If we to be good at languages it need not be rocket science to use good language and maintain WP:AGF irrespective of the challenges.

At talk Indus Valley Civilisation title discussion I found F&F very emotional and is understandable. 'Hindu garbage' attack can be inadvertent. All societies have some faults and fault-lines, we are encyclopedist, take note of WP:DUE issues with WP:RS, but Idk what is necessity of digression @ Talk:Indus Valley Civilisation/Archive 6#Merger proposal turning the discussions in forum with WP:OR?
This happens in 2019 okay, but we come across similar in July 2022 - July 2023 we are discussing again?. Sounds quite prejudicial, as said write in the articles where you have RS; expressing personal prejudices against communities on WP talk pages does not sound helpful.

I am not bringing up above because its against particular community; this week itself I approached a US user for unnecessary negative stereotype of a US township. We do not want Wikipedia to be censored but same time wish to have good environment at talk pages for the humanity's sake which we all work for free of cost without any other expectations. Just pl don't attack us use good language, we don't expect more, we don't expect less.

While searching for all this I came across personal attacks against F&F I did not like them, I came across F&F not liking behavior of some other users and they were right. I am not sure they would come up to their own standard for themselves with frequent repetitive digression. More experienced are role models to us juniors we look forward to better of them.
In spite of all this I would love to work collaborate and learn good things from F&F. I hope and wish they improve and give others less chance to complain about.

-- Bookku (talk) 09:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let us not digress further, may be time to close the discussion

IMHO,

Mistakes happened, F&F accepted and gave sufficient positive promise, this discussion is kind of over and it is for some uninvolved admin to take closing call. Continuation of good faith compassionate statements supporting experienced users by other experienced users is understandable, same time parts of those statements - every concerned one here is not a sock here, some statement relying on Tu quoque (you/ they also) fallacy would not necessarily stand- rather inadvertently may raise various concerns in minds of other users and may lead to further avoidable back and forth.

Anyways some topics have come up, just for record purposes I shall note down opinions on some of them. First of all I would support CMD's above proposition of improvements in discussion processes itself. May be something like experienced content developers to have some additional formal weightage in content discussions - or may be some other mechanism - that would be far better than depending on compassion of other experienced users. Said that, keeping content and behavioral issues separate is best and least complicated standard to address issues. Bringing up and judging users on their content priorities at ARE may amount just to digression of the discussion in hand, I doubt shall be of much help to resolve behavioral issues.

Bookku (talk) 06:01, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UnpetitproleX

The biggest issue for me has been this editor casting aspersions against me in multiple discussions. ([41][42] [43]) I’m made to defend myself rather than focus on the discussion at hand (like here and here).

There are instances of aspersions that are also wikihounding. They made these comments [44] on my featured picture nomination, essentially "warning" people at FPC about me (and recently made this accusation [45] regarding my work at FPC on an unrelated RfC). When I complained about their behavior (earlier, when they posted on my nom) they removed my message without any response [46] and continued to wikihound me.[47] They made this comment [48] on my post to another editor’s talk page, "warning" them against me.

They have made several highly uncivil remarks on my gender and repeatedly insulted me—all snowballing from me asking them to use gender neutral pronouns for me. I asked them to not assume my gender the first time they referred to me as "he", in response to which they rudely asked me [49] to "please read Carol Gilligan before you shunt garbage." They referred to me with male pronouns again, I asked them politely to not do so again here assuming it may have been a mistake given a year had passed. They responded by asking me to read Gilligan [50] again just as they had done a year ago, and then told me that they "have three adult daughters and none are slouches," the implication clearly being that I cannot be a woman since, according to them, I am a slouch (they made this comment just before). I politely asked them again to not do it, pointing to WP:EDPRONOUNS, to which they said [51] that they did it unknowingly and asked me a third time to read Gilligan and repeated the thing about their daughters not being slouches. Then they made this [52] insulting comment about me on an RfC started by me, where they (i)accused me of instantly assum[ing] a new gender identity only to "con" them, (ii)repeated the thing about their daughters with pushover replacing slouch this time and (iii)said they have discussed my gender with multiple people who also think I cannot be a woman. Then they pestered me with inquiries into my gender [53] when I protested, for which they later offered this explanation [54] (laced with another accusation of scheming by me and condescending commentary about my gender) to an admin who felt it was creepy.

After an intervention by an admin, where they again accused me [55] of scheming against them, they tendered a backhanded 'unconditional' apology for "hurting [my] feelings", though I doubt the sincerity of this apology because of its tone and because they later again said that my objections were too "wiki-lawyerish". And just yesterday, they accused me of sock-puppetry at SPI without providing any evidence at all. [56] -- UnpetitproleX (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler said "an admin determined the two accounts to have been operated by the same editor, even during the same time," this is wrong. I myself declared it here, after which I was asked to declare it on my user page, which I have done since then (and also on the related user and user talk page). UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can also now say with more certainty than before that their apology was never sincere, because they have accused me a third time here (above) about using my request for gender-neutral pronouns as merely a "wikipedia tactic." UnpetitproleX (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnbod

I agree with RegentsPark and Abecedare. I am involved as reverting to F&F's version, but I don't claim to have read all the long talk section on the dispute, or have specific knowledge of the point at issue. I have had many disagreements with F&F in the past, and he certainly does tend to mount his high horse, but I have great respect for his passion for keeping WP's Indian articles up to the highest standards, and his knowledge of the scholarly sources. I think everyone should calm down. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

I will recuse with respect to the pronouns matter, as the primary author of WP:EDPRONOUNS, and comment here instead. @Fowler&fowler: I have no doubt of your prowess as a content creator, nor your commitment to women's rights. Until I got to Unpetitprole's comment, I was reading this from an admin perspective and inclined to close with RegentsPark's warning/reminder. I do want to say now, though, that it is basically never a good idea to question the sincerity of someone's gender/pronouns, outside of those rare cases where someone is blatantly trolling (e.g. certain far-right commentators). There is no outcome where that will tend toward building an encyclopedia. I understand the uncomfortable feeling of being called out in blunt terms, and there's a reason EDPRONOUNS advises against that. Unpetitprole's initial comment to you was testier than I'd advise, but then again, the essay also advises, If someone points out that you've misgendered them, you should apologize, make a note for the future, and move on. If they are noticeably upset, you have a better chance of defusing the situation if you understand why it's a sensitive subject for them. (For what it's worth, the considerable majority of times I've seen someone lash out over what pronouns were used for them on Wikipedia, it's been cisgender men who were referred to as they.)

I don't think anyone's trying to cancel you for assuming "he" on two occasions, but I would strongly discourage you from going down any road of whether someone actually identifies as a particular gender, and instead focus on content rather than contributors. And if you can take that on board as well as RegentsPark's comments, I think we can be done here. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 22:03, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TrangaBellam

F&F is almost always highly accurate on the aspects of content — a rarity that must be rewarded in such a contentious area — but as others say, the rhetoric needs to be toned down and above all, he needs to assume good faith of those who choose to disagree on occassions. Please keep comments focused on content; not on meta-issues. That said, while his discourse on UnpetitproleX's gender was (and is; what's with piggybacking on the essentialist Dumontian nonsense?) eggregiously poor, I do not see reason to doubt that he has taken Tamzin's advice to heart and perhaps, all of us can move on. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that some of UnpretitpoleX's edits are indeed weird — for example, I did find their addition of the no-ladies-allowed-image to such a prominent page very suspicious too —, sanctions on one side for CIVIL violation will be a poor idea. TrangaBellam (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Fowler&fowler

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

I haven’t looked into the substance of the complaint yet, but please comment only in your own sections, using pings as necessary. Courcelles (talk) 16:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Fowler&fowler, per above, forgot my own ping. Courcelles (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any action required here and what RegentsPark says is very sensible. It is always a difficult issue dealing with multiple POV warriors. Black Kite (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been involved in clearing up after some of the socks surrounding this case (I only just became aware that this request was open), and would observe that F&F has been subject to gaslighting and harassment from multiple socks - that kind of abuse inevitably has an effect on the recipient, which ought to be taken into consideration. I too think what RegentsPark says is sensible. Girth Summit _(blether) 16:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by BobNesh

Clear consensus to uphold sanction. Note that the AEblock becomes a regular block (subject to WP:UNBLOCK/WP:RAAA rules) on 2024-07-14. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:21, 29 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: BobNesh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – BobNesh (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite block, imposed and logged at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1133

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

Notification of that administrator: Notification

Statement by BobNesh

I should be unblocked because in the meantime I haven't made any edits on main Wikipedia pages (for over a month!); because I think (or at least, I thought) that we should avoid double standards; because I think that Wikipedia should be objective and not to push someone's bias and agenda. Unfortuanly, this isn't the case with pages related to Ukrainian war. There are users that constantly treat other users that make good faith edits (citing Western mainstream media sources by the way) and revert their constructive edits. I personally never treated anyone. The treats and insults were directed towards me and towards other editors that make constructive edits in order to make Wikipedia articles as objective as possible. Numerous times they were called "dogs" on the talk page, but there are no sanctions for that. These insults remain to this day on "Battle for Bakhmut" talk page. Yes, I said that as written, Wikipedia article "Battle for Bakhmut" distorts the reality and negates the facts. But this was noticed by dozens of other users as well, not just me! They cite a number of Western sources that admit that the battle of Bakhmut ended, yet by bias-pushing, stealth canvassing users these claims are ridiculed and ignored. As a sign of good will, I will completely give up and won't edit even talk pages related to Ukrainian war, I promise. Time will take care of that. Thank you. BobNesh (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

Contrary to the appeal statement, the reason they made no edits for a month was because they were serving a month-long block for edit warring, after another ANI a where an indef would have been a reasonable call, in archive 1130. The diffs were very well presented in that ANI, archive 1133, where Bob was shown to be casting aspersions on anyone disagreeing with this, calling them fanboys and worse. Given the extensive block log, returning to cause yet more disruption, I submit an indefinite block under CTOP was not only reasonable, it was essential at this point. Courcelles (talk) 04:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by BobNesh

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 BobNesh

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

I suggest BobNesh read WP:NOTTHEM. If someone appeals a block then we generally expect them to show some sort of awareness of why they were blocked and show that the behaviour which led to the block won't happen in future. Instead this unblock request focuses on attacking other people, which is one of the reasons the block was imposed in the first place. This request isn't likely to be taken seriously. Hut 8.5 12:03, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We can overturn a CTOP sanction for 3 reasons: 1) out of process, 2) unnecessary at the time, or 3) no longer necessary. BobNesh seems to be arguing #2, and their argument in that regard is very unconvincing. An argument for #3, framed as a request to downgrade to a topic-ban, might be persuasive. Might be. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:49, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see anything here which convinces me that the sanction should be reversed or modified. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with my colleagues that nothing here convinces me that the sanction should be overturned. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree there is nothing to convince me this should be overturned. To the contrary, this seems evidence the sanction was correct. Doug Weller talk 12:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal request by GoodDay

Appeal declined. GoodDay is advised to take on board the feedback given before making a future appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appeal request by GoodDay (talk)

Statement by GoodDay

Well, it' been a full year now, since my t-ban was imposed. ~~I might've been able (not sure) to request having it lifted six-months ago, but chose to wait longer.~~ I understand the mistakes I made & certainly recognise that the topic-in-general is indeed contentious. Should administrators chose to lift my t-ban from GenSex? I can easily promise, it's a topic area I would very much rather avoid. If any questions, please feel free to ping me. PS - I will also avoid the editor, whom I wrongly described with an offensive pronoun & not use such offensive pronouns on any other editors. Heated exchanges do not excuse, such utterances. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked why appeal, if I'm going to avoid the topic anyway. Because, it's less stressful, if one edits a page (unknowingly) even remotely related to Gensex, without the possibility of breaching a formal t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch @Courcelles:, I did appeal, six months ago. My apologies for the over sight. Since then, I've successfully had my t-ban modified. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th:, I've no plans to make any Gensex related edits or get involved in Gensex content disputes/discussions. If my appeal is successful? I would certainly walk away or stay away, from such disputes & undo any edits to main space, if seen as problematic. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm:, We've got links to both the July 2022 case & Jan 2023 appeal, I believe now. I would appreciate it, if you would point out, any other. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miesianiacal:, I'm fully aware, one must tread carefully around the GenSex topic & interaction with editors, when content disputes arise. Can I do better? There's only one way to prove if I can. That would be lifting the t-ban & giving me that chance. In the GenSex topic, I can prove I can do better, if I'm given the chance to 'walk the walk. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To administrators - I will not be argumentative around the GenSex topic, since I won't be giving input in GenSex topic disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: & @Thryduulf:, thanks for pointing out, that the amendment has been successful. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf. It's been a whole year since my t-ban was put in place. I was hoping that my ability to abide by the t-ban & the amendment (which I requested six months ago), would show I no longer needed to be t-banned. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf:, so I won't exhaust the process. When would I be allowed to request an appeal again, if the current request is turned down. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Tamzin:. I must ask the question (to all administrators) - If I've proven that I won't be a problem around GenSex. Why then keep me t-banned from the topic. The t-ban is a preventative measure. So the question remains. Is it still viewed, that I would continue to be a problematic editor in the topic-in-question, if the t-ban were lifted? Figuratively speaking - If one says they won't visit a certain town again, or at least not cause trouble in that town again. Should one still be barred from that town, in any form? FWIW, I've proven myself to be capable to adopt in the past, with two other t-bans (since lifted). The British/Irish political topics & the Diacritics topic, where I've toned down my behaviour. GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity's sake. Are administrators wondering why, I'm choosing to not go around the GenSex topic, if my t-ban is lifted? GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam:, your observations may well have clarified much, for me. I already have apologised to the editor-in-question, whom I used the offensive pronoun against. I've no malice against the editor-in-question, but I'm not allowed to communicate with them, anymore. I was indeed site-banned for 13-months (2012–13), concerning being argumentative/disruptive in (I believe) three topic areas (I think the third area, was the Baltic states) -- but have since proven myself to the arbitrators who lifted that site-ban & eventually the topic-bans, that their faith in me wasn't misplaced. But, perhaps you're correct. Messing up in the GenSex area (yes I did this to myself), just might make future appeals 'dead on arrival'. GoodDay (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Floq, I understand what you're telling me & appreciate your honesty. I'm also aware, if the t-ban were lifted. I would continue to be under tight scrutiny. GoodDay (talk) 21:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Just to note on the timeline, this is GoodDay's third appeal, having made and withdrawn an appeal in January 2023, and having made a successful amendment request in February 2023.

I'm honestly not sure what it's less stressful, if one edits a page (unknowingly) even remotely related to Gensex, without the possibility of breaching a formal t-ban will mean in practice. After the amendment in February, GoodDay can already make his typical Wikignome style edits to GENSEX articles without fear of breaching the TBAN. I have to ask, what sort of edits and contributions are you planning on making if this appeal is successful, and that you can't make now? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

Black Kite raised the issue, in the thread where the TBAN was imposed, of "a moderate CIR problem". In light of the above—10 comments after which it still remains unclear why GoodDay, an editor of 18 years' tenure, wants the TBAN lifted, why he thinks the criteria for lifting are met, and whether he understands that the amendment already allows the kinds of edits he wishes to make—I do wonder if that's something that needs to be explored more seriously. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay's response to me amplifies that concern. He is arguing that he has "proven [he] won't be a problem around GenSex"—but he is TBANned from GENSEX, and thus has had no way to prove that (other than the bare minimum of not violating that TBAN / not abusing the limited exception for gnoming). Across 11 comments now, the only explanation he has given of why we can be sure he'll no longer disrupt GENSEX is that he won't edit about GENSEX... but then hasn't explained why, if that's his solution, an unban is needed. Again, there seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here despite multiple requests for clarification. I'm aware this is already headed for a decline but I think someone needed to point out that this is more than your average bad appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

GoodDay, I do not have time to research whether I'm "involved" regarding you, so I'll play it safe and post here (this should not be interpreted as agreeing I'm involved if it comes up in the future; I think I'm not involved). But to answer your question, I think the general philosophy might be that you too often refuse to let something go (to the point where at one point you were sitebanned because of it), and that you cannot necessarily be trusted when you say you're over it. That, combined with a persistently annoying and tone-deaf approach to these requests, means that most people are going to shrug and say "I'm not going out on a limb for this person". And finally, your reference to another human as "it" may strike some people as evidence of you being a hateful person, rather than a clueless one, and regardless of whether it is true or not, no one wants to go out on a limb for a potentially hateful person. You're acting like this is Kafkaesque, and that it's crazy that there's nothing you can say that would get you out of the topic ban. But I'd say it's more like you made your bed, now you have to lie in it. After so many disputes in so many areas, you should be prepared to hear "Just no. Never." Even if it seems excessive to you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:41, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: Think of it this way: How do you think admins would react if they accepted this request, and then you didn't cause any further problems in the GENSEX area, but caused significant disruption in a different area, and were topic banned, and then requested an unban? The key is realizing that many admins probably already see you as being in a position analogous to this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by GoodDay

Statement by FormalDude

Why are you appealing the t-ban if you "would very much rather avoid" the topic area? ––FormalDude (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Miesianiacal

Can GoodDay demonstrate he's learned from the mistakes he's made? Simply recognizing the topic is contentious isn't enough; an inability to recognize contentiousness wasn't even the problem that led to the t/ban in the first place. Given my own recent experience with GoodDay a couple of months ago, I'm highly skeptical of any claim that he's learned from his mistakes and "I'll just keep myself away from the topic" isn't very reassuring. My impression is GoodDay should elaborate on what he believes he did wrong and then on how he proposes to do things better going forward. --₪ MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal request by GoodDay

I find myself unimpressed this appeal is filed without a link to the withdrawn appeal in the archive. Looks like it was withdrawn when it was apparent it was going nowhere. Courcelles (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, that appeal itself apparently didn’t go anywhere because GoodDay did not address or link to the previous discussion there either. It looks like he’s immediately jammed up his appeal again with the exact same issue. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 23:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think I’m formally an oppose here. But we need opinions either way… Courcelles (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I had to sum up this appeal in a single word it would be "unconvincing". The amendment in February was intended to remove the stress of accidentally stumbling across a GEN/SEX issue while gnoming and no evidence has been presented by anybody to say that it isn't working as intended. Given that, I don't understand the stressful comment given the stated desire to avoid contributing to the topic area in substantive ways and the replies to other people also fail to enlighten. Combined with the lack of evidence that the other issues that led to the topic ban being place, and which led to the appeal in January being unsuccessful, have been resolved I find myself opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The comment from GoodDay that the amendment in February "has been successful" - i.e. has removed the chance of being sanctioned for GENSEX violations while gnoming - leaves me even more confused as to the meaning of the stressful comment in this appeal and even less inclined to grant it. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay there is no specific time between appeals mentioned in your ban, and none has been proposed here, so when you next appeal is up to you, but as a rule of thumb most admins are going to be looking for at least three to six months of productive contributions that demonstrate you have understood the reason for the ban and the reasons why the appeals have been unsuccessful, and also that you have acted upon the feedback you've been given in the appeals. It is important to note that any future appeal that doesn't demonstrate you now understand and/or doesn't enable reviewing admins to understand what would you do in future that the ban is stopping you from doing now (and why you want to do that) is pretty much guaranteed to fail regardless of whether you make it two months or five years from now. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Thryduulf. It's very easy to work out if a topic falls under GENSEX and to be honest I'm pretty sure that if GoodDay made an uncontentious gnoming edit on one article by mistake an admin wouldn't slam them with a long block; that's how it works. Otherwise I don't see a reason to lift this. Black Kite (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there are any other comments in the next couple of days I intend to close this as unsuccessful. Thryduulf (talk) 09:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Oktayey

Consensus that the restriction should stand, and if anything was quite generous. Oktayey is warned that several admins felt an indefinite block would have been appropriate, and that further disruption may result in such without further warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 03:35, 4 August 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: Oktayey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Oktayey (talk) 09:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: 30-day & 100-edit arbitration enforcement topic ban from the subject of gender issues, imposed at User_talk:Oktayey#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_topic_ban, logged at [58]

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

Notification of that administrator: [59]

Statement by Oktayey

(Apologies if this is formatted incorrectly!) I was in an RfC discussion when Zaathras collapsed it [60], claiming it was off-topic. For context, the RfC was about whether to state a couple claims in Wikivoice, and my discussion was about whether the provided sources could support the claims in Wikivoice. I twice reverted the collapse [61] [62], explaining in my edit summaries how it wasn't off-topic and asking for any explanation otherwise. The collapse was restored both times, first by Zaathras (again) [63], then DanielRigal [64], neither providing an explanation of how the discussion was off-topic. I left a message [65] on DanielRigal's talk page asking them to revert their collapse, who refused. I asked how the discussion was off-topic, and they accused me of sealioning. Denaar then restored the discussion [66], but it was collapsed once again by ScottishFinnishRadish [67]. Denaar challenged ScottishFinnishRadish on their talk page, and I chimed in [68]. It was then Doug Weller banned me [69] for "disruptive editing".

I don't hide that I've made blatant mistakes on Wikipedia early on, but I've learned much since then, and this ban is ridiculous. I felt I was making great points in that discussion, and it absolutely was relevant. I reverted its collapse those two times because I was being given no explanation otherwise. I tried to give DanielRegal and ScottishFinnishRadish the benefit of the doubt by trying to resolve it on their talk pages before resorting to ANI, but was instead banned for supposed disruption.

I request that this sanction be lifted, and I think at least a condemnation of Doug Weller's and ScottishFinnishRadish's conduct would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oktayey (talk • contribs) 09:49, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bookku I didn't mean to sound aggressive, but I am frankly clueless as to how such a ban could possibly be justified. Doug Weller didn't even reply to me when I asked on their talk page how I was being disruptive. [70] Oktayey (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Zaathras, @Sideswipe9th Before March, I had for several years steadily contributed to a spread of different topics—however, when I came across the GAG article, I became so fixated on it because I was appalled by its blatant disregard for Wikipedia's guidelines and spirit.

@Zaathras Claiming I "narrowly avoided" being banned as a sockpuppet is downright deceitful—your accusation was based on NOTHING. I have NEVER created, owned, or used any other Wikipedia account, and I have NEVER colluded with another editor. Oktayey (talk) 21:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, @Aquillion, @RegentsPark You say I was being disruptive by repeating myself, but it was because I was given the same arguments—I exhibited WP:IDHT no more than that group of editors on the talk page. Am I presumed at fault because I was in the minority? If the majority can preserve the status quo by stonewalling, then the strength of any argument is worthless, and Wikipedia is run by majority vote, not consensus. Oktayey (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Doug Weller

This feels a bit surreal. It's true I didn't reply to him on my talk page, ScottishFinnishRadish explained it and Courcelles told me that I should have indefinitely blocked. SFR has explained the issues again here as have other editors. If the problems aren't obvious I doubt anyone can convince them that they are the problem, not everyone else. What I've learned from this AE request is that I don't expect a change in this editor's conduct and that I should have indefinitely blocked, which would have saved a lot of people's time while still allowing them to appeal. Doug Weller talk 12:56, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

Although I consider myself uninvolved, as all of my actions have been made in an administrative capacity I'll put myself here instead of the uninvolved administrator section since some action is being called for against me. It seems they have an issue with my restoration of a hat of a non-constructive tangent during an RFC. I explained my action, and stand by the restoration of the hat. As I said when explaining my action, The arguments about bias in sources have already been made, so continuing them with increasingly unrelated metaphors among the same editors isn't going to build consensus, and is going to create increasingly more work for the closer. Hatting the section leaves the discussion there, and makes it clear that further travel down that path won't be productive.

As for the (lenient) topic ban, it prevents the disruption that Oktayey is causing on the talk page and to the RFC, allows editing in other topic areas, and requires them to edit in other topic areas so they can return to the topic with broader experience on Wikipedia. It will also give the community the ability to judge whether they are disruptive in just this one topic area or in general. This may become an important piece of information in the future. This seems like a win-win as far as sanctions go. No one is blocked, the disruption is ended, the sanctioned editor has to gain more experience before returning to a contentious topic area where they are causing disruption, and the community will have a better baseline to judge Oktayey's behavior on if it becomes an issue in the future.

As far as the disruption goes, there has been significant bludgeoning, IDHT, and general time wasting caused by their behavior. About a third of their total edits are to Talk:Gays Against Groomers, and their contributions amount to over 20% of the edits to that page, and nearly a quarter of all text added. They have constantly been beating the drum that the sourcing is inadequate, despite the clear and obvious consensus over the past several months that this is not the case. Wasting editor time by rehashing discussions where there is a clear consensus over the course of months is disruptive. I warned them in March that this behavior was becoming disruptive, where I said At some point, normally when repeating the same arguments becomes the norm in multiple discussions, you should step back accept the status quo until you have new sources, there has been a shift in coverage, or something else has changed. Consensus can seldom be changed by arguing the same points over and over. It's a big encyclopedia, some times it's best to realize consensus is against your position and focus on something else.

The collapsed text on the talk page related to bias in sourcing, with the first collapsed message reading, in part, Not in its entirety, but It does mean it is biased in favor of its own identity. Oktayey has been making this same argument in March (Furthermore, per WP:BIASED, potentially biased sources should meet the normal requirements such as editorial control and independence from the topic the source is covering.), April (Are you arguing that a claim cannot be considered contentious if many similarly biased sources make it?), May (Bias is not irrelevant. Wikipedia makes it clear in WP:BIASED and WP:WIKIVOICE that even if a source is considered "reliable", it may have bias that precludes it from being echoed in an encyclopedic tone.), July (This user seems to be arguing exactly what I was months ago: that almost all of the media coverage about this group is from sources clearly at ideological odds with it, which is to say, biased.), and then in the collapsed thread where the last post before collapsing went far enough afield to use Nazi metaphors. There has consistently been a solid consensus that the sourcing isn't an issue, and the current RFC is further demonstrating that. That they think the hatting is a problem is a further demonstration that they're not understanding that repeating the same arguments since March is disruptive.

They said above, I felt I was making great points in that discussion, and it was absolutely relevant to the RfC. Well, everyone thinks their points are good and they're contributing. Only trolls contribute thinking their points are bad and irrelevant. That's why we should listen when uninvolved admins and multiple other editors say you're being disruptive.

Statement by Zaathras

I hatted a tangent that had gone way waaaaaay into the weeds. Far away from discussing the usage of sources in the article and into a meta-discussion regarding what it means to be a "biased" source and whether that alleged bias renders it unusable for a topic, despite it being deemed an otherwise WP:RS. This was ultimately upheld by an admin. I was not involved in that particular discussion, though I have participated elsewhere in the article talk page for the record.

Oktayey is for all intents and purposes at present a single-purpose account. While the account itself is 6 years old, and it was once involved in many other articles, since 2 March, 2023 there have been around 250 edits by my rough count, with around 225 of them having to do with Gays Against Groomers. Either article, article talk, ANI or talk pages. Yikes.

Back in April, I filed an ANI regarding the talk page of Gays Against Groomers being flooded with socks, Oktayey narrowly avoided being swept out the door when the sock drawer was closed. Oktayey is tipping close to a self-inflicted exile here.

I've never seen one of these 30 days or 100 edits style of restrictions, it seems new. It also doesn't seem odious, and would demonstrate a commitment to other areas of the Wikipedia. Zaathras (talk) 20:06, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Oktayey has essentially been repeating the same argument on talk, over and over, since March; large swaths of the talk page and far too many discussions eventually devolved into repetitive arguments with them, eg. here and here and here and here and here and here. This is WP:BLUDGEONING. Doing it again in the RFC intended to finally put most of that to rest was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Oktayey had the same opportunity to make their argument there that everyone else did; they didn't need yet another massive discussion on something that the talk page had been filled with for literally months. --Aquillion (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th (Oktayey)

When I first read the sanction I thought that it was an interesting way to approach this. A quick look at Oktayey's contributions shows that he has edited almost nothing but the Gays Against Groomers article and associated talk page since March 2023. I see this sanction as a good way to provide just a little rope to demonstrate whether he is fundamentally here or not here to build an encyclopaedia, as the floating nature of its duration (100 edits, or 30 days, whichever is longer) would require Oktayey to edit in another topic area to gain a better understanding of our relevant policies and guidelines. Yes there is a risk that the behaviours that he displayed (not dropping the stick, requiring that editors satisfy his requests, see comments by SFR and RegentsPark for diffs) will shift to other content areas, but with such a small footprint of edits to other articles it's extremely hard to tell if this problem is specific to just this article or is more widespread in Oktayey's general approach to editing.

My suggestion would be that Oktayey should withdraw this appeal and take on this challenge in the manner that it was intended. Demonstrate that you are here to build an encyclopaedia, and can at the very least accept when the community consensus on how a PAG is interpreted even if you fundamentally disagree with that interpretation. There is a time and place to state your objections to the consensus interpretation of a PAG, and it is rarely on an article talk page. Otherwise the alternative from the comments here is clear that he will be indeffed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Oktayay. In response to being added to your list, prior to March 2023 you had made 160 edits total after the creation of your account. Since March 2023 you have made 209 edits, of which 119 are edits to GAG's talk page, 15 are to the article, 3 are to a NPOVN discussion about the article, 19 are to individual user talk pages about the articles, and 10 edits to this discussion. In otherwords since March 2023, you have made only 43 edits to pages unrelated to GAG. That isn't healthy, we even have an essay about this phenomenon, and Doug's sanction should be seen as an attempt at making you a more balanced editor.

Being concerned about the state of an article is fine. Pointing out what you believe may be violations of a policy or guideline is fine, in moderation. But when the overwhelming response from both involved and uninvolved editors is that you are interpreting the PAGs incorrectly, then at the article level you need to accept that and move on. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ser!

_{(I'm not sure if I'm counted as involved here as I've engaged on the talk section where this discussion happened, but not the hatted section itself, but I said I'd err on the side of caution and post here. If this isn't considered involved enough, feel free to move this to the uninvolved section.)}

As pointed out by a few above including Zaathras and Sideswipe, Oktayey has been skirting painfully close to being a WP:SPA for the last while; the sole purpose being pushing changes on the Gays Against Groomers page. They've dismissed reliable sources as "biased" and tried to use much weaker sources (including sites incredibly close to being Breitbart mirrors) to further push their points. There has been a long-running theme of this user having no willingness to drop the stick, in spite of having been asked specifically to drop it by editors above such as Sideswipe - hence, yknow, 134 (15 on page, 119 on talkpage) of Oktayey's 392 edits in total being to either GAG's article or its talkpage, and as Sideswipe noted in her response, around 80% of the editor's edits since March pertaining to this page. Combine this with the aforementioned WP:BLUDGEONing of the same point over and over without end or acknowledgement that they're outweighed by consensus and it's hard to see this pattern of tendentious editing and POV pushing as anything bar being WP:NOTHERE. Amidst the impending WP:BOOMERANG potentially resulting in an indef, I concur with others suggesting the user should withdraw this appeal. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Oktayey

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 (Random person no 362478479)

I agree with Zaathras that the discussion that was hatted had at the time reached a point where it was no longer constructive. I also agree with them that should Oktayey want to continue discussing the reliability/bias of sources taking the question to WP:RSN would be better. Where I disagree with Zaahthras is in labeling the discussion as off-topic. Oktayey challenged the reliability of quoted sources for the topic in question arguing that they are biased against the subject of the topic. In my opinion closing the discussion was justified, but the justification given missed the mark. (I voted in the RfC that triggered the discussion. As far as I understand the rules that does not make me involved. If I am wrong please move my comment to the section for involved editors.) -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 10:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bookku (uninvolved editor 2 )

I was around at ARE because of previous discussion. We were discussing importance of having more uninvolved eyes. Gender is my area of interest but I am less involved in Americas in general (though not totally) and uninvolved in the specific article for which RFC is going on. Also I am not admin @User:Oktayey The language of seeking condemnation is unnecessarily sounds strong and usually unhelpful; Unless you are sure to back up with very very strong evidence. It sounds like you are being aggressive right at ARE and may be over all aggressive. So this might be self defeating. Usually I would suggest to take back such language.

Not needed since things are clear now

I would prefer to wait for DW's inputs, specifically would be interested to know if the TB action is due to behaviour at one article or it is due to over all behaviour at multiple articles. Secondly though emails between users are private matter, an email message seems to be on a user's talk page immediately after this action is it related or unrelated. Bookku (talk) 13:58, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Oktayey ARE discussion structure is different. @ ARE one has write and reply only in own section. You can write user name to whom you want to address your reply. Please shift your reply in your own section. Bookku (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

`

(Rappru.= Respectful appropriate pronoun as preferred by respective user)

Referred to contested RFC discussion, User talk:Oktayey, and above explanations by involved users, admin actions of mentoring and the topic ban action from both the admin seem valid taking into account Oktayey's behaviour of repetitive argumentation over a period of time. Though @Oktayey seem to have good analytical skills and rationalism, but given With Wikipedia's well known structural limitations @Oktayey need to be pragmatic, avoid over reactions and persuasive advocacy with rhetorical manners. This suggestion might sound to Rappru. ironic but Rappru. need to be away from contentious topics for more number of edits and days than present topic ban and understand how policies are interpreted and understood by other users. Said that.

There seems some over reaction from opposite side too. If Oktayey is analyzing policies properly or not is for discussion closer to decide that need not be reason for support to dislodge any disagreeing user, secondly I would agree with part of Random person no 362478479 analysis

".. Where I disagree with Zaahthras is in labeling the discussion as off-topic. Oktayey challenged the reliability of quoted sources for the topic in question arguing that they are biased against the subject of the topic. In my opinion closing the discussion was justified, but the justification given missed the mark. .."

IMO Contesting user need to have say in labeling of own discussion. Bookku (talk) 07:24, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result of the appeal by Oktayey

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

More battleground mentality. I said it in Doug’s talk page and I’ll say it here. NOTHERE block was the suitable sanction. Courcelles (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised Doug Weller gave a sanction that is practically a non-sanction (100 edits and 30 days is quite meaningless) given that this has been going on for months. A single minded focus on an article, repeating the same arguments again and again with a plaintive "All I'm trying to do is get explanations for why things are, in my perception, wrong" - most admins would just indef as a waste of time. We can't function if editors keep reiterating the same arguments ad nauseam just because the consensus doesn't align with their "perception" and I'm open to upping the sanctions to a NOTHERE block. RegentsPark (comment) 05:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the persistent battleground contact, I agree that the appeal should be declined I've no issue with an indef block if someone wants to do that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline appeal. Total waste of time. Kudos to Doug for his patience. Drmies (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal Request by 3Kingdoms

3Kingdoms' ARBPIA TBAN is downgraded to a 0RR, which may be lifted at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator after 3 months. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: 3Kingdoms (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 3Kingdoms (talk) 03:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban on Arab-Israeli Conflict

Topic ban from the subject of Arab-Israeli conflict, imposed at [71], logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive284

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

Notification of that administrator: [72]

Statement by 3Kingdoms

How I acted back then was wrong, overly aggressive, and honestly embarrassing. I let my own personal frustrations spill over here which is never the right thing. Since I have come back, I feel that I have been a far more constructive editor and will not fall into the same habit as before. I have not engaged in edit-warring and have worked to talk out differences with other editors to achieve consensus. I would happily accept a 3-month 0revert order. I hope that I can have this sanction removed. Thank you

Statement by Newslinger

Statement by Nableezy

I hope 3Kingdoms has learned how to edit collaboratively in heated topics. I don't really have any thoughts on if he has, just haven't looked at his edits, but the request reads sincere enough that I don't really have a reason to oppose it. nableezy - 00:45, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 3Kingdoms

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 3Kingdoms

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

Will await further comments before weighing in, but just to note, there is already a blanket 1RR in the topic area, so the second half of the proposed alternate sanction is unnecessary. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant wording removed here, thanks. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Alright, guess I'll get the ball rolling if no one has anything to say yet: My initial impression here, based on clear admission of wrongdoing and desire to find a step-down sanction, is favorable—although procedurally I would prefer a "0RR, liftable by any admin after 3 months" over a "0RR, expires automatically after 3 months". This is based just on what's been pleaded so far, not an in-depth look. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  2 years and an allocution also looks pretty good to me. As far as the 0rr goes, I think the only reason to require an admin to lift the restriction is so they can make sure there were no violations, and I think the community can cover that will enough. If you think that is necessary, though, I'm not opposed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:50, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, I can support a lifting of the sanction to 0RR. I kind of like the "any admin can lift" just to ensure there is editing over that period. Courcelles (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nableezy: You started the March 2021 AE request. Do you have any comments about this appeal? Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm comfortable with 0RR liftable by any admin after 3 months. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Wikieditor1234567123

No sanction appropriate as this was about old conduct before the warning. Doug Weller talk 07:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Landkomtur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:11, 11 August 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

First He removed every single mention of this clan/society being Chechen without consensus in the talk page with other users.
second He removes this clan from the teip list of Chechen clans without any explanation .
third After his previous edit was undone he again removes the clan from the teip list of Aukh Chechen clans, again without any explanation not consensus.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Previous wp:ae

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Wikieditor1234567123 engages in nationalistic POV pushing, he was warned for doing this while using folklore in the previous wp:ae. What the previous wp:ae didn't discuss in detail was his removal of Chechen related information like I have posted above. He seems to think that he can delete information related to Chechens without consensus, recently almost a month ago right after the previous wp:ae case he deleted an entire section about Chechens in the Fyappi article without asking anyone in the talk page. Previously he has TWICE removed information about this Chechen clan from the teip list. He acknowledged that he is in the wrong here but this seems to be a common theme. He tries to twist articles into his POV but when he gets called out he apologizes and tries to play it off, playing the good faith of the moderators. It is important to note that he did this TWICE after another user undid his edit, the more recent change was undone just 4 days ago here. Now after an admin suggested I make this wp:ae report Wikieditor apparently changed his mind and brought back the Chechen mention here I am not sure how much I can write in here but previous WP:AE cases against him paints a clear picture of his intentions. I can not fit everything in here, but you can even check his contribution history, this user clearly is engaging in sort of nationalistic POV pushing. This person even goes as far as swapping Chechens with Ingush name positions (!), regardless of the alphabetical order, nor population sizes of those nations. Doesn't this behavior warrant a sanction or a ban?

Quick response to Tamzin: Rosguill or rather Seraphimblade warned Wikieditor to not use folkloric sources to promote his POV, this report is unrelated to folklore, it is related to his constant removal of Chechen related text from articles without consensus. I only brought up the previous wp:ae to show that this user's nationalistic POV pushing is multi-layered. He has yet to be warned or sanctioned for his removal of Chechen-related text. In fact he kept removing Chechen-related text on the same day he was warned for using folkloric sources but no one noticed it.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here

Discussion about 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

I removed the section "Aukh Fyappiy" because I was thinking of making a separate article, as I made it clear with the quote: "This will need it's own article". I was literally the one who added the section in the article (see here) and at the time I had removed it temporarily to make an article for it, there was no other ppl who contributed to the article so who should I have first discussed the matter with?? For now didn't have the time to make the article so it was like that for a while. I literally didn't see a problem with separating the two terms--Fyappin society and teip Vyappiy (which originated from the former as indicated by it's name)--because after this there wouldn't be any confusion. Landkomtur, on the other hand, is trying to make it seem as if I removed this section temporarily because it mentions Chechens and is villainizing me. I added it back after discussing with an other user, but also realizing that if the section is that small, then it wouldn't be a proper article. I didn't add it back because admin suggested WP:AE or anything. Regarding the teip list, I had forgot I had removed it, I deeply apologize that I removed it and explained myself in my talk page. I most likely removed it in haste because I thought the Fyappiy (society) were mentioned as Chechen. Similarly I recently, in a haste, accidentally reverted user Muqale's edit, when I thought he added a biased source (here reverted back when I realized I made a mistake). Either way, I wouldn't remove the Vyappiy teip from the list because I thought it wasn't also Chechen, when in the earlier existed section "Aukh Fyappiy" I made it clear that it's a Chechen-Ingush teip. Furthermore this removal happened in March-April, 4–5 months ago, I don't think it's fair to pull up mistakes from very far ago and then punish a person for them. People make mistakes and change. (WikiEditor1234567123 (talk) 08:43, 12 August 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.

Does anything here postdate Rosguill's warning? If not, I'm not sure there's procedurally anything to be done. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 19:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Landkomtur: I'd have to see something really bad to be comfortable issuing any kind of sanction, even a warning, for conduct that predates the last warning. Inclined to close this procedurally. However, I realize I pinged the wrong admin above: It was Seraphimblade's warning. Maybe he'll feel otherwise, in which case I defer to him. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is relatively old conduct, and all predates the warning. If anyone thought they merited sanction, they should have brought this up sooner. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miner Editor

Indeffed by user:Guerillero, first year as CTOP sanction. Courcelles (talk) 00:59, 17 August 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 Miner Editor

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: FormalDude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Miner Editor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Behavioral standards

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

10:19, 14 August 2023 (UTC) Calls me "a disgrace to the community", violating NPA.
11:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Calling me "a danger to the integrity of the encyclopedia, and an impediment to its improvement", violating NPA.
12:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing me of "bullshittery" and having a "reading comprehension issue", violating CIVIL and NPA.
13:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Accusing me (without evidence) of stonewalling and tendentious editing, violating CIVIL.
16:22, 15 August 2023 (UTC) Again states I have "reading comprehension issues", and claims I have a "passion for skewing this article to cast Kennedy and everyone associated with him in the worst possible light while removing anything which paints them in a positive light", violating CIVIL and NPA.

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 03:52, 8 August 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Some background, I started an ANI thread on Miner Editor regarding what I perceived to be competency issues from them, but later withdrew it after reading Miner Editor's response, and the ANI was closed. It was then reopened for Miner Editor who made multiple accusations against me, but ultimately decided to (in their own words) drop the stick and not seek any warning/sanction of me. Aside from the very first one, all the diffs I've provided are from after that point.

Note Miner Editor was told on 11:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC) that article talk pages are not the proper venue for conduct accusations. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miner Editor made a comment here that included more incivility, and removed it a little over three hours later without any note. They've been significantly refactoring their comments here hours after making them and without noting any of the changes. [73] [74] [75] I recommend reviewing this version from before their dozen reverts. ––FormalDude (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found another instance of a dispute where Miner Editor has displayed similarly poor behavior:

6. 08:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Questioning another editor's competence.

7. 08:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Claims they will drop the stick on this dispute.

8. 09:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Calling the same editor "Completely unfit to edit Wikipedia" and threatening to take them to ANI.

9. 10:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC) Again threatens to take the same editor to ANI.

––FormalDude (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Miner Editor: As Black Kite explained, this isn't about any content dispute, it's about your behavior towards other editors. "They started it" is not an excuse to act with incivility. Two wrongs don't make a right. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:17, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My comment above was in response to this original reply I received from Miner Editor, which they again refactored minutes before my response was posted. ––FormalDude (talk) 14:25, 16 August 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [76]

Discussion concerning Miner Editor

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 Miner Editor

I stand by all cited categorizations of FD. He is indeed unfit to be editing the Kennedy article and is a danger to the reputation of the work. His case against me at ANI claiming incompetence was complete bullshit (aka "bullshittery"). He has indeed stonewalled on the cited article, and appears to be a textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. His reading comprehension issues were are documented in the talk page. He continues to pile on reasons to question his suitability to be editing such contentious articles.

Regarding me calling his behavior "disgraceful", I realize that was strong, but I stand by it, although it was the improper forum. I was referring to his stamement, in ANI, that he would be "stepping away" from editing the RFK Jr Campaign article. He went back on his word about a day later, and I consider that contrary to the spirit of ANI, where we take editors at their word when they say what they will do going forward.

However, FD makes several good points where I used the talk page inappropriately, and I have struck those instances. Going forward, I will do my best to adhere to the spirit and letter of all policies and sanctions. I have, however left in particular #3 and #4 in their entirety, as he has banned me from their talk page and has banned me from pinging him. I do not believe I should be required to go to ANI to warn him his edits are problematic, or to question the suitability of his behavior pertaining to the article and warning them in-line seemed to be my only option. Miner Editor (talk) 22:46, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Editors are allowed to edit/remove comments that have not been replied to, and your attempt to make that appear nefarious, or that I am trying to hide something, is more of the same ol' same ol'. Despite your claim, I did indeed document the removal of the "incivil" comment you cited (which I stand by) and gave a reason. Miner Editor (talk) 22:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: @Black Kite: Topic banning me is not indicated. My edits to the article are not under question here, it is my interaction with FD that is. I have not edit warred, I have respected concensus and sourcing requirements, and I have made objectively excellent edits, including removing the false and inflammatory claim from the lead that FD repeatedly inserted into the lead against WP:ONUS (and therefore in violation of the contentious topics sanction), that RKF Jr. received most of his funding from Republicans. This is the kind of thing that gets quoted by those who seek to disparage Wikipedia as biased....this would likely have remained in the article to this day without my action, and I did a big service to the project with that. Yesterday, I removed the laughable claim that RFK Jr said that "poppers causes AIDS", which a source used as a ragebait headline and an editor thought would be fine to add that to the article. I could go on but I'll be concise... It's never ending with that article, and removing my ability to affect the article would be untoward. My edits to the article space have been golden. FD's... not so much given that he has several times inserted inflammatory and incorrect material into the article which I then was compelled by policy to revert. Although I will welcome an interaction ban with FD, applying a topic ban to ME seems bass ackwards. Miner Editor (talk) 13:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And allow me to be clear in my motives. I am no fan of RFK Jr. The first edit I made to a RFK Jr. article was this after I learned he wished there was a law by which he could punish people for questioning climate change. That seemed extreme and Orwellian to me and adding it was warranted. As a Wikignome and vandal fighter his articles seemed worth watching. I am motivated by the belief in fair treatment; that he and his supporters deserve to have their views and actions accurately represented in the encyclopedia. Miner Editor (talk) 11:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: When someone calls me a "grave dancer" for defending proper encyclopedic practices, me calling them "unfit" in return is to be expected. "They started it", as I have often heard said. Miner Editor (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@FormalDude: Your continual complaining about me "refactoring" replies of mine, which have not yet been replied to by others, is unwarrented. As I said in the edit summary, edit my reply. Sticking to the point of this RFA, which is not Wikipedia content, but my comments, which I think is to be commended, rather than chastised. Miner Editor (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The dispute @Random person no 362478479: refers to was here and also involved the editor who categorized my editorial position as "grave dancing", and to whom I then called "unfit". Miner Editor (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

Minor Editor comes off as angry and aggressive. Regardless of whatever the complaints or disagreements, that only makes things worse. Their tone in response to the current complaint reflects the dysfunctional mode of their engagement. SPECIFICO talk 18:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Random person no 362478479

I won't comment on the recent dispute between Miner Editor and FormalDude. But I was involved in the second (older) dispute that FormalDude brought up (although not as the target of the linked remarks). In that dispute Miner Editor argued with me and another editor over whether to use quotes by RFK Jr. about LGBTQ+ issues or whether to paraphrase them. Unfortunately the other editor was a bit too passionate on the issue and flung quite extreme allegations against Miner Editor. His responses were actually quite measured given the context. And I found that once that other editor ceased participating in the discussion. Miner Editor argued his point in a perfectly civil and rational way. We managed to resolve the dispute without further ugliness. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Miner Editor

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

I procedurally closed the initial ANI report when Formal Dude withdrew his complaint. Black Kite re-opened it to allow the discussion to continue further. In terms of behavioural standards, in terms of the diffs presented by Formal Dude, Miner Editor has crossed the line with respect to uncivil statements and personal attacks. His repetitive usage of these words against Formal Dude constitutes plain harassment and bludgeoning of discussion. Miner Editor's statement out here is laid out with some spots, where they have continued their uncivil statements. This is prohibited. Lourdes 05:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless others feel significiantly differently given the persistent incivil harassing comments towards Formal Dude I'm intending to topic ban Miner Editor from anything to do with Robert F. Kennedy with a warning that anything further will result in more robust sanctions. I'd consider a broader topic ban, a block and/or a topic ban but as this issue seems to be primarily related to Robert F. Kennedy I'm hopeful that my more specific topic ban remove Miner Editor from this area where things are more heated without needing to use more severe sanctions. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:13, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. But as this report has been raised by FormalDude on uncivil comments directed at FormalDude, it would be prudent to impose an additional one-way interaction ban so Miner Editor cannot hound FD again. Thanks, Lourdes 08:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I re-opened the thread as it was clear it hadn't reached a conclusion. When ME called FD a "disgrace" I posted this which I hoped might de-escalate the issue (it didn't), and then this pointing out that, despite their complaints about FD, ME was the only person in the room being uncivil. This clearly didn't work either, as all the diffs provided in this filing apart from the first one happened afterwards. I think the TBAN as proposed by Callanecc is the minimum here. ~~I'm not sure if the IBAN is necessary as it only seems to have been on this article that the issues have occurred (unless I've missed something) though I suppose it can't hurt.~~ Black Kite (talk) 08:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: I've just seen this (which ME has since reverted). If they can't behave properly in an AE filing I don't have much hope that they can do so in a collaborative environment. So yeah, TBAN/IBAN minimum. Black Kite (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Miner Editor "My edits to the article are not under question here, it is my interaction with FD that is." Yes, exactly. I haven't even looked as to who is "right" in the content dispute, my comments are merely based on your comments on the talk page and here. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ME needs to be removed from Ampol, not just RFK. Quite frankly, these comments are so vitriolic I would not oppose just indeffing them. Courcelles (talk) 12:30, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. Lourdes 15:15, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a bureaucratic rule against indeffing per discretionary sanctions (or is it supposed to be "per contentious topics" now? Per AE, anyway), but any admin can indef as a regular admin action, and I'm all for that in this case. I don't believe in topic bans for users who behave like this. Bishonen | tålk 15:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC).[reply]
My understanding is that, per the WP:CTOP changes, one can indef as an AE action—and an AE consensus can even impose a siteban—but it becomes a standard-admin block after a year. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 18:11, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct. The block loses AE’s “overturn this at risk of desysop” protection, but is still an in-force block. Courcelles (talk) 18:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I indefed due to the beyond the pale conduct. If they appeal to arbcom, I will recuse -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]