Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

WP:AE
WP:ARE

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

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

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

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

Appealing user: Lima Bean Farmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by Lima Bean Farmer

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Dreamy Jazz

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

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

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

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

Result of the appeal by Lima Bean Farmer

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

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

WikiEditor1234567123

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

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

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

Request concerning WikiEditor1234567123

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: WikiEditor1234567123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBEE

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

@Seraphimblade Regarding the 4 month old deleted articles, they were only brought up as this user keeps doing the same as he did there (even though he admitted his mistake only after admins became involved). Wikieditor pushes nationalistic POV by using outdated folktales (note: only the ones that benefit him while he ignores the less complimentary folktales which are in the very same sources he uses.) to claim other people's historical figures or to glorify his nation. Surely this is against Wikipedia's policies and counts as WP:NATIONALIST? Not only does he overly rely on outdated folktales but he also like my 4th diff showed removes Chechen translations without explanations and replaces them with Ingush. The previously deleted articles were only included to demonstrate that he has a history of doing what he did 4-5 days ago in the Aldaman-Gheza article. As for if there should be a discussion on his sources i don't know, this report was more about him cherrypicking and pushing nationalistic POV by using outdated folktales, for example one of his sources like this shows that he cherrypicks outdated folktales when it comes to glorifying his own nation while ignoring parts that speak of folktales about Ingush slave clans, Ingush Semitic ancestry etc. As if this isn't enough his recent edit is a continuation of his series of edits on the Orstkhoy article where he includes Chechen-Orstkhoy/Karabulak conflicts [[7]] (Orstkhoy/Karabulaks is both a Chechen and Ingush tribe) while whitewashing Ingush history by either not including or removing Ingush-Orstkhoy/Karabulak conflicts such as [[8]]. If this isn't Nationalistic editing and pushing a POV then i don't know what it is, it is clearly not building an encyclopedia.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

WikiEditor1234567123

Discussion concerning WikiEditor1234567123

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

Statement by WikiEditor1234567123

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

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning WikiEditor1234567123

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

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

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

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk

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

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

Appealing user: InedibleHulk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Notification of that administrator: diff

Statement by InedibleHulk

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

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

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by InedibleHulk

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

Statement by DrewieStewie

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

Statement by Adoring nanny

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

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

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

Here are Hale's last known messages.[9] I am not going to quote the actual messages here, because doing so would itself violate the policy. But in the messages themselves, Hale uses both male and female names, and the last message with any name uses both. By the plain wording of the policy, Hale was using both names, and this is Hale's most recent expressed self-identification. Therefore, either would be OK. That's not the consensus that formed among the editors, and IH should have respected that consensus (much as one still respects a legal ruling that misapplies the law). I still see it as a mitigating factor. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Locke Cole

I have a few thoughts:

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

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

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

Statement by Thebiguglyalien

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

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

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

Statement by Valereee

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

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

Result of the appeal by InedibleHulk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prathamers

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

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

Request concerning Prathamers

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: 500/30 rule

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

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

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

03:34, 3 July 2023
08:08, 7 July 2023

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

was notified before his second revert.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Prathamers

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

Statement by Prathamers

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Prathamers

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

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

ජපස

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

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

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

Request concerning ජපස

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCOVIDDS

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

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

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

I alerted the user after the original attack, but before the final response
external link showing repeated participation by the user at this page

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[10]

Discussion concerning ජපස

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

Statement by ජපස

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

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

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

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

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

Kick them off.

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish (jps)

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Headbomb

All I have to add here is that jps is dropping threats of AE pseudoscience enforcement (also [11]) more than Trump complains about the deep state whenever they can't get their way in edit wars. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Viriditas

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

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

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

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

Statement by PaleoNeonate

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

Statement by PackMecEng

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

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

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

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

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

Statement by Springee

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by KoA

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

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

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

Statement by starship.paint

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

Statement by Horse Eye's Back

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

Statement by Novem Linguae

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

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

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

Result concerning ජපස

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

I disagree with Tryptofish in this not meriting sanctions, this case merits sanctions of the BOOMERANG variety, and we ought to topic ban Adoring nanny at minimum. Courcelles (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve indeffed Adoring nanny. It’s clear to me that at least a COVID and pseudoscience, as well as AP2 bans would be necessary, and we do not need to simply shift this POV pushing around to other areas. Logged as a COVID DS. Courcelles (talk) 13:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Springee, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:AbuseLog&wpSearchTitle=User+talk%3AAdoring+nanny. The breadth of topic areas covered and the number of notices are both of interest. This user was clearly aware of CTOPS, and has spent a lot of their time here stirring things up in CTOP areas. That they weren’t bought here, and instead came of their own volition with unclean hands is surprising. Maybe, @ScottishFinnishRadish, that’s how we should close this case, a general reminder (explicitly not a logged warning or anything such to @ජපස) to bring pro-FRINGE POV pushers here or another suitable noticeboard rather than engage in borderline incivility. Courcelles (talk) 16:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m in bed and on my phone now (it’s late here), so I’ll go over some more in the morning, including pulling out specific threads (linking is very hard on a small touchscreen). But, really, I did read a lot of their talk namespace contribs and the continuous impression one gets is someone who is SEALIONing constantly towards an agenda. That’s actually one of the reasons for the DS/CTOP regime in pseudoscience specifically is the endless civil arguments those with an agenda are willing to go through, and a solid pursuing of this editors talk namespace contribs show all the classic signs. Courcelles (talk) 02:07, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll enter into what I saw most was an active agenda being pushed, epitomized by things like [12] and the entire record on Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory. Going back tot he beginning, I am essentially certain this was not their first WP account. Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that a WP:BUNGEE situation is apparent. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NMW03

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]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13]

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.

Theheezy

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

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

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

Request concerning Theheezy

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBCOVIDDS among others

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

[14]
[15]
[16]

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

[17]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[18]

Discussion concerning Theheezy

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

Statement by Theheezy

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish (Theheezy)

I just commented about this in an AE thread above: [19], and didn't see this AE thread until after I had posted it. But yes, I think that there is quite a bit of WP:NOTHERE going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JPxG

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

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Theheezy

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

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

Raj208

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

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

Request concerning Raj208

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

User against whom enforcement is requested: Raj208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBAP2

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

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

Some diffs

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Discussion concerning Raj208

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

Statement by Raj208

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Raj208

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

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

Justito

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

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

Request concerning Justito

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

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

[20]
[21]
[22]

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

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

[23]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Justito

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

Statement by Justito

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

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Justito

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

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

Tombah

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, 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]

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 (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]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards