Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive331

OrcaLord

The matter is a content dispute, which AE does not decide. If the discussion has reached an impasse or become circular/repetitive, those involved should consider dispute resolution such as a request for comments. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
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 OrcaLord User who is submitting this request for enforcement Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested OrcaLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2 Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Talk:Elissa_Slotkin#Labor_Positions_and_the_2023_UAW_strike Further explanation below: This is the editor's first engagement on this article following a 3-month block for disruptive editing. The discussion shows continuing intent to insert an opinion which multiple experienced editors point out is attempting to not supported by mainstream reliable sources (only supported by Jacobin and Twitter user noted below) and refusal to drop the insistence to include their spin of living person's comments. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any July 2023 Warning re: original research on same article from Binksternet November 2023 90 day ban from article for disruptive editing from ScottishFinnishRadish 3 separate protections of page for disruptive editing in last 6 months If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Nov 18 2023 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on November 2020 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint Editor was previously blocked from editing this page for disruptive editing and edit warring as linked above. In their first return to the article, the editor has argued strenuously for inclusion of original research that violates biography of living persons policy refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in conjunction with suspected meatpuppetry organized on Twitter by repeated sockpuppet Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Has also discussed how to wikilawyering regarding this page on Twitter: "Sometimes there are small things in it that you can use to make your point/negate their point" which is more combative/warfare than collaboration to improve encyclopedia. Editor's contributions outside of this article are positive from what I can tell, however, they've previously been noted to be part of a group of "anti-Slotkin Twitter editors" who admin Muboshgu has noted are looking to influence the article with POV-pushing. Red-tailed hawk: I do think repeatedly making the same point to myself, Drmies, and XeCyranium rises to the level of bludgeoning. I'll try to put together difs tomorrow before work on Monday -- been super busy off-Wiki -- but I think that reading through the convo will lead you to the same conclusion… Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 00:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [1] Discussion concerning OrcaLord 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 OrcaLord WP:DROPTHESTICK is obviously not applicable here. This is an active discussion with no achieved consensus yet. Dcpoliticaljunkie has been a consistent aggressor on both the Elissa Slotkin talk page and in many other areas, often making destructive edits to the Elissa Slotkin page without consensus, as well as accusing anyone who disagrees with him of meatpuppetry. The fact that Dcpoliticaljunkie is bringing up my previous ban on the page for edit warring is just further evidence that this request is an attempt to silence my position on the talk page, as I have already committed to no longer editing the Elissa Slotkin article after the ban, instead solely focusing on the talk page. Regarding the mention of my tweet, Dcpoliticaljunkie is clearly misinterpreting what I meant. What I meant is that it is important to take all parts of a rule into account when determining how to deal with a situation. My goal in talking on the Elissa Slotkin talk page has always been to ensure what is best for the quality of the article, and I have never acted in bad faith on the talk page. If you look at my account history, I have consistently made positive edits to Wikipedia, including the addition of thousands of detailed maps to Wikipedia. Considering my history, it should be very clear that I have always intended to make a positive difference throughout Wikipedia, including on the Elissa Slotkin talk page. Statement by andrew.robbins If anyone needs to drop the stick here, its you, DCPJ. The suspected meatpuppetry you linked was archived without a ruling. Using it as evidence of violations is, ironically, bludgeoning. Mapping out viewpoints to sources is not OR. Arguing for the inclusion of a quote in the absence of consensus isn't POV pushing. DCPJ has been reporting any user that disagrees with their positions on that talk page. This has been going for over a week now and needs to stop. Statement by XeCyranium I'm just commenting here because I was pinged. I can't say whether or not Orcalord has broken rules on the talk page, only that they certainly haven't been arguing in good faith from a desire to improve the article. Their statements on the talk page are so obviously slanted towards trying to tarnish, however slightly, the reputation of the article subject regardless of what sources say that it's become a waste of time to keep engaging with them. Luckily nobody who wasn't an obvious meatpuppet with 13 total edits agreed with their POV-pushing, so I'm not sure how much damage they're doing. XeCyranium (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by JayBeeEll How many times can one person say the same thing? About once every day for two weeks, it seems: 3/16 3/18 3/19 3/19 3/20 3/20 3/21 3/21 3/22 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/26 3/27 3/27 3/27. OrcaLord has made six other posts in the same discussion since 3/16; they are all related to the same argument, but differ slightly in their emphasis from these. During that time period, all other editors combined have made fewer than 40 comments total. --JBL (talk) 22:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning OrcaLord This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I'm not seeing any edit warring, and this appears to primarily be a content dispute between two editors. I see someone recently suggested on the talk page that an RfC be used, and I think that, not AE, is the way to bring resolution to such a dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC) An RfC seems reasonable. There also appears to be a disupte as to the reliability of a particular source, so a WP:RSN thread might also be worthwhile. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC) Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close this as content dispute/no action, with recommendation of dispute resolution if necessary. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Sounds good to me. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:09, 30 March 2024 (UTC) I'm truly struggling to see how any edits made within the past month or so could plausibly be edit warring, though I do think that previous sanctions related to the same material are worth noting should the topic be a root cause of behavioral disruption from one user. Merely that an editor has moved from edit warring to bludgeoning a talk page discussion would not render a warning or prior block for edit warring wholly irrelevant. On that note, regarding bludgeoning, the ArbCom has noted that [e]ditors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Have individual editors been repeating the same point over and over in talk page discussions to such an extent that they have been dominating the discussion by sheer volume of comments? If so, an organized list of diffs showing this pattern of behavior would be very helpful in evaluating what's going on here. It's a bit hard to follow as-is, though I can try to go through the discussion diff-by-diff on my own if need be. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A Wider Lens

A Wider Lens blocked indefinitely (as a normal admin action) for WP:NOTHERE. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
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 A Wider Lens User who is submitting this request for enforcement Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested A Wider Lens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Slow Motion Edit Warring at Skoptic syndrome 09:03, 24 March 2024 Adds the statement , there was a mention of this fetisch in the DSM-VI under code 320.6-3: 'Persistent preoccupation with castration or penectomy without a desire to acquire the sex characteristics of the other sex'. This was omitted in the DSM-5 for unknown reasons (this is WP:OR, the DSM-VI lists that as an unspecified gender identity disorder but does not call it Skoptic syndrome anywhere in the text) 09:07, 24 March 2024 Adds the uncited WP:OR The Eunuch Archive is a website dedicated to the eunuch fetish. This website is cited by WPATH's SOC-8 as a source for their eunuch chapter. 12:51, 24 March 2024 Revert 1: Reverts an IP who had reverted both items 05:40, 26 March 2024 Revert 2: Another IP had partially reverted the first and fully reverted the second. AWS re-adds the content from item 2 05:42, 26 March 2024‎ Still revert 2: AWS re-adds the content from the first (the DSM-4 listed it in the section gender identity disorder asking if the IP is Euphemizing the phenomenon? 06:28, 27 March 2024‎ Revert 3: Undoes a cn tag placed in the lead by Sirfurboy 06:36, 27 March 2024 Revert 4: Re-adds the content from 2 cited to Genspect after it had been removed by Sirfurboy as unsourced 11:25, 31 March 2024 Revert 5: Today they re-added the text on the DSM-IV to the lead Personal attacks, forum rants, and disparaging comments about transgender people 15:52, 30 March 2024 The fact that you use words such as 'anti-trans activist' [in relation to Graham Linehan] and calling Genspect a conversion therapy lobby group exposes that you are highly TRA (activistic defending the WPATH-ideology). That is fine, I have a different opinion obviously. 02:47, 31 March 2024 Argues Linehan and Gluck's critics are just trans activist motivated people as they are not anti-trans but critical on the cultlike movement and on the iatrogenic aspects of the provided form of healthcare. (For reference, "Iatrogenic" in this case means a theory by Genspect members that giving kids hormones make cis kids trans) Also They consider trans kids unfortunate misled victims. Not Anti. They are anti dodgy people abusing the gender privileges (weird dudes on toilets that film themselves, infringement issues on women’s rights, prison issues, healthcare malpractice, etc). That was said in reply to me linking to our policies and explaining why they aren't reliable sources. 06:28, 26 March 2024 Tells an IP editor I see you are the same IP that erased relevant info on the Skoptic Syndrome page, trying to hide it's connection to Eunuch and WPATH and fetisch/gender identity disorder and states Please be aware of contributors that are trying to protect/hide the dark side of Eunuchism. Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any March 10 2024 This user was blocked on the Netherlands wiki from the pages Gender-affirming care, Misgendering, Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria, Transgender care in the Netherlands, Woman, TERF, Gender-critical feminism, Detransition, Anti-gender movement, and Hormome replacement therapy for 275 days. The reason was persistent problematic use of sources and a large amount of non-neutral content. Some google-translated quotes: A Wider Lens publishes texts (or entire articles) that are biased (see above) without any citation, texts that are sourced but where the source does not cover the content of the text, or texts that are based on sources without any authority., User has repeatedly indicated that he is not neutral about gender (not problematic in itself): many articles are created to serve as a stepping stone for 'gender criticism' (one issue); see for example Nullification , (the history of) Tavistock scandal . The personal non-neutrality becomes completely unacceptable when A Wider Lens incorporates these non-neutral *opinions* into articles as being facts, Despite quite a lot of requests, A Wider Lens continues to be both forum posts with lengthy explanations about his opinions, viewpoints, and ideas.. There had been a previous block request that was rejected referenced in the decision. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:48, 27 March 2024‎ (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint On the talk page me and Sirfurboy have attempted to explain to A Wider Lens that what they are doing is WP:OR. They have not sought consensus, but have ignored us. They state repeatedly that they are adding the DSM IV quote due to Graham Linehan making the connection between it and Skoptic syndrome on the talk page and have ignored us noting that's not a reliable source. The text they add to the article has so far only been 1) uncited, 2) cited to an unreliable source, or 3) cited to a source that doesn't support it. Upon reviewing their contributions, I realized that they had been given the Netherlands equivalent of a GENSEX ban for exactly the same behavior. Having checked out their articles on the Netherlands Wikipedia (as they frequently link to them on English Wikipedia as things to consider when updating ours), I cannot understate how terrifying it is how many of them rely on Genspect and other FRINGE advocacy groups as a source and editors are still working to undo the damage they've done. I believe this user is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and should be banned from GENSEX. They have continued the same POV-pushing, WP:OR, and WP:RGW that they were recently banned for, and I concur with those who weighed in at the Netherlands wiki that it is a waste of editor time to review all their edits due to their consistent misuse of sources and blatant desire to promote WP:FRINGE viewpoints in trans and/or trans healthcare related articles. On an additional note, their username may be a violation of our username policy, as it is the name of a Genspect podcast and on their talk page A Wider Lens stated this was because they were a fan. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC) @A Wider Lens for the record, I'm a woman. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you saw my Mastodon profile on my userpage without seeing the pronouns, venus symbol, userbox saying I'm a trans woman, the one saying I'm a lesbian, etc you had to scroll past to get there, and kindly ask you to update your comment. Otherwise, your comments he fanatically denies or tries to downplay the existence of autocastration/Skoptic syndrome/voluntary eunuchism with all problematic criminal bordering aspects involved, we are dealing with a fanatic TRA speak for themselves. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC) References Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified 13:04, 31 March 2024‎ Discussion concerning A Wider Lens 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 A Wider Lens (request for more than 500 words) I have indeed problems with what I estimate as TRAs (trans ideological motivated contributors) that act as guards on many Wikipedia topics. As is the case in my opinion on the Skoptic syndrome page. (Redacted) Here some links to better understand the seriousness of this topic: In the Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/mar/09/disturbing-leaks-from-us-gender-group-wpath-ring-alarm-bells-in-nhs (Redacted) Needless to say (Redacted) is not a site you cannot cite in the main text of Wikipedia, but it is currently the only website that has brought this explosive information and all that is mentioned there is perfectly sourced. Read it yourself and fine if you come to a different conclusion. If you prefer me to step back, fine by me. English is not my native language, so me too would prefer it other contributors merge relevant info on Wikipedia about this highly sensitive topic. But unfortunatelly not many contributors dare to dive into this topic. I have understanding for Your Friendly Neighborhood Society's contributions, but also have the feeling that he is a misled person on this topic, Sorry for saying that so bluntly. I have noticed gender critical arguments and sources are pushed away very easily on Wikipedia. (Genspect being a fringe org for instance and other down pushing of relevant experts. Genspect/Shellenberger published the WPATH Files and many of the Genspect board members were the main body that took down the Tavistock clinic). On the Dutch my critical contributions led to a temporary block indeed (on which I agreed to give them some air and time to really understand what a scandal is rolling out currently.) Hopefully this explanation clarifies something. Blocking me is not taking away the issues surrounding this medical scandal. It will only make the infection worse, if you don't cure it now by exposing the truth. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Please also look at the reverts YFNS did after I tried to improve the article with plenty of sources. It looks to me as if he fanatically denies or tries to downplay the existence of autocastration/Skoptic syndrome/voluntary eunuchism with all problematic criminal bordering aspects involved. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (Redacted) No need to block, you can simply tell me not to contribute to Skoptic syndrome and I leave it up to other contributors. I am just very concerned about the entire WPATH Files and the Eunuch Archive, but in case you are not, you are not and I rest my case. I expect others will come up in the future with identical concerns. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (Clerk note, original diff — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)) No need to start a fight on such things. I regard people biological male or female and had no intention to mis'gender' you on purpose. But since you express you are a trans person, male born, I uphold the freedom to not adapt it on the previous edits, but I will adapt my language on the future ones to not make an unnecesarry issue even though I consider pronouns claims a type of gas lighting and offensive towards people that don't believe in gender ideology. See the Maya Forstater case, or Jordan Peterson's schoolyard moment. A Wider Lens (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2024 (UTC) (Clerk note, original diff — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)) Statement by Sirfurboy AWS' responses here will speak for themselves. My only comment is to say that, based on talk page discussion at the article to date, I do not believe they have the competence required to edit an article such as this. They don't seem to understand sourcing requirements, nor even how to cite a source. I am not convinced they understand why secondary sources are required, and I don't think they are reading the sources. I note below that they may have talked themself into an indefinite block. However, if they can avert that, I would suggest that they may want to seek mentoring and a much less controversial topic to cut their teeth on, and where they can learn to edit. A TBAN would make sense until they are able to demonstrate editing competence. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning A Wider Lens This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Reading A Wider Lens's own submission here, a GENSEX ban is obviously the minimum indicated, but I don't see any issue with an NOTHERE indef either because they're clearly not here to improve any sort of encyclopedia, merely to push their own extreme philosophies. Black Kite (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2024 (UTC) And I've redacted and revision-deleted a whole lot of it, both because of BLP issues either implicitly stated or stated in the links. I will give it a short time, but if no-one else objects I will continue and block AWL indefinitely. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC) Given the latest comment ([2]), that's a pretty clear NOTHERE, not to mention the earlier outing and the like. Blocked indefinitely, as a normal admin sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Unless any uninvolved admins have any further input on the indefinite block within a day or so, I'll close this request as resolved. The blocked editor can of course appeal the block via the normal processes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Clerking note I've moved Special:Diff/1216559418 and Special:Diff/1216560043 to the section corresponding to respondent. I've added links to the original diffs, so that context for what comments they were responding to can be viewed with a click. For those of us who are newer here, we don't do threaded discussion at AE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:53, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Burrobert

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 Burrobert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Burrobert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

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

1. 06:30, 7 April 2024, re-implementing 20:04, 6 April 2024 on Julian Assange

There are two specific changes here that are disputed and per the "consensus required" restriction applied to this article, require consensus:

1. A recent RfC found a consensus that we should include the claim that Assange said informants "deserve to die", attributed in line to David Leigh, Declan Walsh, and Luke Harding. This change removes this attribution, instead saying that Walsh and Harding said that Leigh said that Assange said the quote.
2. It re-adds a statement from Goetz denying that Assange made the statement.

There is a discussion on the talk page about this, and Burrobert says that this establishes consensus for his changes, but I disagree:

1. For the attribution, only Burrobert and NadVolum supported the change. This is insufficient to establish a consensus even in the absence of the existing consensus.
2. For the Goetz statement, Burrobert, NadVolum, and - only after the initial request to self-revert was made and refused - Cambial Yellowing support it. While closer to consensus than the attribution, I don't see a consensus here.

For both, I am the only editor opposing in the current discussion. I have requested they self-revert and they have refused.

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)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 16:03, 9 March 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Regarding BM had previously disputed its inclusion but did not participate in the discussion until after the consensus about Goetz' statment was implemented on 7 April, I did not have time for Wikipedia between the 1st and the 7th. BilledMammal (talk) 14:19, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure whose time sheet you are looking at, but I made no edits on the 2nd. However, I don't think it matters - the point is that you can't claim a consensus solely based on two editors agreeing, even if there is a week between opposition to those editors position. BilledMammal (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The edits you link were made on the first; are you using the "Time Offset" feature to give your local time rather than UTC? BilledMammal (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@NadVolum: Can you clarify what you are insinuating with your last two sentences? BilledMammal (talk) 08:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

You claim that, a month after my discussion with FortunateSons, I came to an article that you hadn't edited in three months for the purpose of "trying to find ways to cause trouble for [you]"?

It's an absurd claim - an WP:ASPERSION based on assumptions of bad faith - and I ask that you strike it. The real reason I came to the article was because I read an article in the New York Times. BilledMammal (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

13:34, 7 April 2024

Discussion concerning Burrobert

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 Burrobert

Here is my interpretation of the sequence of events:

• An RfC determined that Julian Assange's bio should include an alleged quote. The closing editor stated that "there is consensus to include the quote alongside appropriate context, inline attribution (not in wikivoice), and Assange's denial". The closing editor did not say what attribution to use when presenting the quote to readers, although BM did include a suggested attribution in the statement of the RfC. My interpretation of the closing statement is that details of the attribution should be discussed as part of the "appropriate context".
• BilledMammal started a talk page section entitled Removal of Nick Davies on 27 March. As part of that discussion editors talked about how they should attribute the quote. A consensus formed that it should be presented along the lines: "In their book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange's War on Secrecy they say Declan Walsh heard Assange say at a dinner when asked about redaction "Well, they’re informants ... ". After their initial comment, BM did not participate in the discussion until after consensus was implemented. NadVolum implemented the consensus on 7 April. BM reverted NadVolum's edit within a few hours and I reverted BM's reversion because I believed BM was editing against consensus.
• Goetz' statement was not part of the RfC but was discussed within the talk page section "Removal_of_Nick_Davies". The only editors who mentioned the statement (me and NadVolum) believed it should be included. BM had previously disputed its inclusion but did not participate in the discussion until after the consensus about Goetz' statment was implemented on 7 April.
• BM started a discussion on my talk page after I reverted their edit. Some of the above points are covered there. Burrobert (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It does not matter why BM did not participate in the discussion which led to a consensus. BM's editing history does show some extensive editing on 2 April, by which time editors had already started discussing the inclusion of Goetz' statement and the error in attributing the alleged quote to Leigh, Harding and Walsh. Burrobert (talk) 14:54, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

The edits made by BM on 2 April start at [3] and end at [4]. There are around 25 edits on that date. There was an 11 day gap between when the discussion was opened on 27 March and when a consensus was implemented on 7 April. The discussion involved three editors, me NadVolum and Jack_Upland. Jack did say at one stage "We could say they reported it". On 4 April, I said "Yes, we should say that the claim about what Walsh said is from Leigh and Harding, possibly mentioning their book". I suggested that we use something like "Leigh and Harding wrote that Walsh told them Assange said ""Well, they’re informants ..." and said "Unless someone comes up with an objection, I will make an attempt at improving the way in which this anecdote is related to the reader". Jack responded "You don't need permission to edit the page, comrade". Jack is more than capable of speaking for himself, but my interpretation of Jack's comment is that he did not object to my suggested change. As it turned out, NadVolum implemented the suggestion before me. Burrobert (talk) 15:36, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Statement by NadVolum

It's strange this was brought againt Burrobert since I made the more recent changes. I only found this because I was mentioned above. As far as I can see the changes I made all follow the RfC. Exactly how long are editors on Wikipedia supposed to hang around waiting for BilledMammal to show up again in a discussion or to complain about their edits being changed - and more concerningly for me I notice BilledMammal turned up at the article on Assange after User talk:BilledMammal#Hey, I am looking for a second opinion on a user we both have encountered, could you (as a more experienced person editor who already interacted with them) take a quick look whether their actions have reached the point of warranting more substantive actions being taken? which is about me. The two in that discussion are major contributors to a proxy Israel-Hamas war at WP:RSN. NadVolum (talk) 08:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

In reply to BilledMammal my feeling is that after you fixed up an AE request on me in preparation and "Instead, I would recommend sitting back and seeing how they behave, and if there are further issues then bringing the whole lot to AE" you followed me to the Julian Assange article with the intent of trying to find ways to cause trouble for me on Wikipedia. NadVolum (talk) 09:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I see they posted the change on the article page before my contribution and my last contribution was eight days previously to the talk page so I accept they got there from reading about in NYT. My apologies. There's lots of people who feel deeply about the business so they'd put in something damningg about Assange but remove a witness saying otherwise. NadVolum (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

To FortunateSons I made no aspersions against you except in so far as I said you are a major contributor to a lot of the current discussion at FTN on material favorable to or against one side or the other in the Israel-Hamas war, that is what I see as the background of your request to BilledMammal. NadVolum (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TarnishedPath

I was involved in that RfC and I can't for the life of me see any wrongdoing by Burrobert. BM has not presented any diffs that show any editing that is not in line with the RfC close. Unless there's additional diffs to be presented which show anything else I don't see that there's anything to be answered here. TarnishedPath^talk 09:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Statement by FortunateSons

I was uninvolved in the original dispute, but got added here because I (in my opinion, appropriately) requested the assistance of a more experienced user in addition to an admin when encountering a conduct-dispute. As I did not edit the disputed articles here and chose not to file the request, I see no relationship between me and the action at hand and would kindly request clarification from NadVolum what exactly my request regarding him has to do with this, as well as to strike any aspersions against me. In particular, now as I gained more experience, I still believe that the comments made by BilledMammal are both appropriate and deescalatory. FortunateSons (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for striking your claim, including of me being a major contributor[s] to a proxy Israel-Hamas war at WP:RSN. FortunateSons (talk) 11:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Burrobert

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

Jaymailsays

There is consensus for an indefinite block of Jaymailsays. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
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 Jaymailsays User who is submitting this request for enforcement Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Jaymailsays (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/The Troubles Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 19:46, March 27, 2024 Adds blatant WP:SYNTHESIS 15:30, March 29, 2024 Repeats previous edit in violation of WP:ONUS despite discussion at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Synthesis and false narrative Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any Blocked for edit-warring at 18:25, February 16, 2024 If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Notified at 18:19, March 10, 2024 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Largely based on this BBC article (and earlier articles in the Belfast Telegraph and Newsletter), the editor is attempting to relitigate the lengthy Bloody Sunday Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972). None of the sources in any way suggest this verdict should be in any way looked at again, so additions such as "the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled" and "based on the evidence available at the time" are totally unacceptable, since it should be blatantly obvious that a video of someome in March 1972 isn't evidence of what they were doing on a particular date in January 1972. Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Jaymailsays 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 Jaymailsays Unfortunately the complainant has now broken the 3 revert rule without consensus or suggesting an edit, on the Martin McGuinness page by removing BBC content, because it doesn't fit in with their personal view, instead of adopting a neutral encyclopaedic edit. Request that a neutral administrator reinstates edit. The complainant reinstated 14 killed during Bloody Sunday, when the citation linked to the official report states 13 and not 14. The complainant is acting as if they own the article instead of collaborating with editors to gain consensus. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Mandruss At the risk of hijacking an AE complaint—this comment is not about The Troubles, but Seraphimblade has already opened this door below—their brief participation at Talk:Donald Trump has been... unimpressive, disappointing.[5][6][7][8] They were asked to strike the PA in that last one,[9] but have so far ignored that (in my view, that constitutes doubling down on the PA, which is even more serious). If they were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't miss them. But at least they didn't edit war, credit where credit's due. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by IgnatiusofLondon Echoing Seraphimblade and Mandruss, I believe there is a WP:CIR issue that extends beyond the scope of AE. I interacted with the editor at Where is Kate?, a BLP article, where the editor continually added WP:UNDUE content (1, 2), extensive citations of routine statements/comments (3, 4, 5), which sometimes broke the prose's grammar (6, 7), and generally unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) or sources of unknown reliability that likely violate WP:BLPGOSSIP (8, 9, 10, 11). A minority of their contributions to the article were uncontested. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Jaymailsays This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. This editor's talk page is quite the mountain of warnings for OR, poor use of references, and the like, and I see even more of that in these edits. I also note that now they seem to want to needlessly snark at other editors, while there's an AE request open about them: [10]. Jaymailsays, I'd be open to hearing your side, but at this point I'm giving a lot of thought to whether you ought to continue editing at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Still considering what to do here, primarily between a TBAN and indef. If anyone else has any input, would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC) Given the wide range of topics that Jaymailsays edits, I support an indef. RegentsPark (comment) 17:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Zilch-nada

Zilch-nada is warned to assume good faith and maintain civility in discussions, and to better listen to other editors during discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
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 Zilch-nada User who is submitting this request for enforcement JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Zilch-nada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Longstanding and systematic use of dismissive and belittling tone towards other editors: 2 July 2023 2 July 2023 27 September 2023 15 December 2023 12 March 2024 13 March 2024 (a response to a request to retract a personal attack) 13 March 2024 14 March 2024 14 March 2024 (a third party requests that they retract a personal attack; they decline) 1 February 2024 1 February 2024 7 February 2024 Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus, and battleground behavior: I'm not exactly sure how to show this in diffs, but they've made roughly a dozen comments on Talk:Sarah Jeong and about twice that many at Talk:Gender, rehashing longstanding settled questions, taking a heavily argumentative (rather than consensus-building) approach, and not desisting despite the evident failure of their efforts to draw any support. Here's a sampling to try to illustrate the basic tenor of their contributions: March 14 at Talk:Gender March 13 at Talk:Gender March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above). Additional comments by editor filing complaint Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC) I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Thanks, Seraphimblade. Indeed, I would greatly appreciate input from some more administrators so that this could reach some conclusion (whatever it may be). --JBL (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [11] Discussion concerning Zilch-nada Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Zilch-nada (I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.) As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations. I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors. Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick". Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC) Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion. Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Response to Aquilion: how do they speak for themselves if my logic employed also followed that of abundantly sourced reliable media? Zilch-nada (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Let me specify; what I said was my opinion, and indeed not a relevant one. But upon merely using "scare quotes" I was pushed to elaborate upon a notion of illegitimacy. I agree that that was irrelevant for the talk, but it was an opinion that was asked for. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Response to Beccaynr: I demanded a response from no one. I have considered opening up the talk on gender; that is why I have ceased editing it; it's clear it's getting nowhere. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC) JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Sangdeboeuf I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC) See also Zilch-nada's WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions in the archives of Talk:Reverse racism, which is within the American politics topic area. They are often the sole voice pushing for a contentious change to the article, e.g. Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9#Reverted edit, where they display a lack of WP:CIVILITY as well as a failure to WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC) For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that have had already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Beccaynr On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [12], [13], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [14] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [15] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism. Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [16]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [17], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction. I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC) There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [18]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC) I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question.; 01:00, 15 December 2023; 01:04, 15 December 2023; 01:10, 15 December 2023. Another example of referring to participants as "you people" is at 05:02, 15 December 2023. Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Aquillion Some relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case: [19]: "prior to her transition": yes, when "she" was a man. Jesus Christ. When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things: [20] Weird accusation. The article uses "she"; that's fine. But I'm not respecting a rapist in talk - I have mostly used the term "they" -, nor am I even remotely suggesting to misgender the average trans person. Nonsense. When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things: [21] Not all "transitions" deserve equal respect - a view clearly espoused by the police, the prisons, politicians like Sturgeon, etc. etc.; that's how I'll refer to this "person" in talk. Is me putting scare quotes around "person" insulting all "persons"? Give it a break. I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Zilch-nada This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I haven't gone through every one of the diffs yet, but so far it's a mixed bag. Some of them I'm struggling to see the incivility in. Others, particularly those shown by Aquillion, are clearly inappropriate. I should be able to finish reading through everything tomorrow, I'm just commenting now because I noticed this hasn't received any admin attention yet. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC) After looking into this deeper, there does appear to be a civility and WP:IDHT problem here. I do see that Zilch-nada has apologized for the poor language and immaturity. I'm on the fence about what should be done about it. Leaning slightly towards a logged warning for now, with the understanding that if we end up back here a topic ban is very likely. I'm open to arguments either way. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC) Note: I've dearchived this request as it is incomplete, and it looks like discussion was still in process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) On going through the diffs (and some of Zilch-nada's other posts) it does seem that their tone is rather brusque and dismissive. That said, none of it is actually beyond the pale and therefore I think a logged warning, a mild one that reminds them to AGF in discussions, is likely the best way to close this. RegentsPark (comment) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC) Sounds reasonable enough to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bakbik1234

Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
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 Bakbik1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Sanction being appealed Topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict. Administrator imposing the sanction Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notification of that administrator The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification. Statement by Bakbik1234 I'm ethnically Jewish but it doesn't mean that my coverage of the conflict can't be neutral. I write everything from a neutral point of view that would be described as "liberal" by both neo-Zionists and neo-antisemites. Statement by Doug Weller Statement by 331dot Doug Weller I thought you issued the ban. I think I just pointed it out later. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 2) Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Bakbik1234 Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks. Statement by Jéské Couriano Your personal POV is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not a topic-ban is justified; what matters is your behaviour in the topic area. It isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. This appeal completely misses the forest for the trees. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2) Result of the appeal by Bakbik1234 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Ban aside, Bakbik1234 has not reached extended-confirmed and thus is not allowed to edit topics related to I/P broadly construed regardless. The ban is not meaningless, in that it will have an effect once Bakbik1234 reaches extended-confirmed, but it's wholly inappropriate to be appealing it at this time. Demonstrate that you understand how to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, demonstrate that you understand the extent of additional restrictions that apply to this topic, reach 500 edits, and only then consider appealing the ban. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Concur strongly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Bakbik1234 continues to violate their ban and non ECP status. I warned them and said I’d give them a pass, but they’ve continued. A few minutes after filing this appeal they asked if they were still banned. I don’t think they are competent enough to edit within the constraints of the ban. It was User:331dot who gave them the ban. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC) Oops. I wasa bout to write that I wasn't sure if I should be posting in this section as I was the one who banned them, had a moment of doubt, looked at their talk page history and saw 331dot's name so deleted that and added their name. Embarassing to say the least! Doug Weller talk 06:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Kashmiri

Kashmiri topic banned for one week by Callanecc. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
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 Kashmiri User who is submitting this request for enforcement BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it Violated WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza: 21:06, 3 April 2024 20:24, 3 April 2024 Refused to self-revert. 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) Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 14:13, 5 March 2024 Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 19:50, 16 February 2024 Additional comments by editor filing complaint Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 07:18, 11 April 2024 Discussion concerning Kashmiri 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 Kashmiri @Callanecc It would be polite to let the accused respond. There's no urgency (alleged breach took place more than a week ago), and closing the discussion two hours after filling, no other editor having had a chance to participate, is a tad out of process. — kashmīrī TALK 07:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Kashmiri This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. I've topic banned Kashmiri for a week for the 1RR breach and not reverting after being notified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Kashmiri I had originally intended to comment and encourage you to self-revert and explain until I saw that you had effectively been given that opportunity a few days ago. I have, however, left this thread open so that you, and others, can comment. That might include presenting a case that the sanction is unnecessary. Further, on 'out of process', any uninvolved admin can apply any sanction at any stage. The purpose of this board is to report potential breaches and then allow admins to discuss potential responses if they need to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Rp2006

As ArbCom has stated they have private evidence relevant to this request, it will be moved to WP:ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
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 Rp2006 User who is submitting this request for enforcement ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2), indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 15 April 2022, an edit about at Havana syndrome about Robert Bartholomew, he writes for several newspapers and journals on sociological and fringe science topics, including Psychology Today, Skeptical Inquirer, and British magazines The Skeptic and Fortean Times. 15 April 2022, explicitly warned about edits about Bartholomew at Havana syndrome on their talk page, clarification of topic ban provided. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive306#Rp2006, 12 June 2022, Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken following a technical violation. 21 January 2023, an edit about a living person of interest to the skeptic community. 27-28 January 2023, warned about violations on their talk page. 1 March 2023, topic ban violation at David Paulides. 4 March 2023, warning about that violation. Special:Undelete/User:Rp2006/sandbox/Biddle, 20 December 2023, 17 July 2023, 30 September 2022, admin-only, page since deleted, edits about Kenneth "Kenny" Biddle, an author, skeptical investigator of paranormal claims. 6 February 2024, adding Wikiproject Skepticism to a BLP. 6-7 February 2024, talk page warnings about violations 2 April 2024, an edit about Robert Bartholomew at Havana syndrome. If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics) Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above. Additional comments by editor filing complaint After at least 5 warnings, both on their talk page and at AE, topic ban violations continue. I've been wearing kid's gloves with my handling of this, but after years of violations and warnings I think we've reached the point where something more concrete should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC) Disagreeing with a sanction from Arbcom is not a reason to ignore it. The not understanding the limits doesn't really wash after it's been explained by multiple editors multiple times. We expect all editors who are topic banned to stay away from the edges of their bans, and to ask questions if they're unsure. The diffs above are also not the only violations. Taking a look through there are more that pop up, like [22]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Just dropping a note that I have sent evidence of COI editing to Arbcom as well. I'll provide the evidence to any admin who requests it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Notified Discussion concerning Rp2006 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 Rp2006 My understanding was - due the perceived violation of rules on two BLPs of two people of interest to the skeptic community - one a self-professed medium, and another a science communicator who renounced the title skeptic) that the ban's intention was to prevent two things. One being me putting negative material (although true) on BLPs of those investigated or debunked by skeptics (such as the aforementioned "medium"), and the other to avoid promoting skeptics on their own BLPs. I have avoided doing either in the years since the ban was initiated. It was my impression from the start that the ban was over-reaching, and even worse, vague -- and so I was likely to unintentionally violate it if I kept editing Wikipedia at all. And as my goal is still to improve the encyclopedia, that is just what happened as I keep editing. In some cases I just wasn't thinking - as in the Paulides case where I added some citations I think. After being warned I gladly reverted saying: "Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert!" Most of the other violations were also things I had not considered relevant... discussion on talk pages and the like, and mentioning a person on a topic page. Most recently this adding relevant information on Havana Syndrome's Talk (an article I have edited almost since its creation) regarding discussing an actual scientist's perspective (he does not call himself a skeptic) on his area of expertise. IMHO, the ban wording "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is confusingly broad. This could - I suppose - depending on POV, include everyone from Trump, to RFK Jr., to Taylor Swift (there are conspiracies about her), and also include every living scientist, politician, medical professions, outspoken celebrity, etc... Who in this day and age is NOT of interest to scientific skepticism? What topic? It’s virtually impossible to write on any topic I am interested in (science) and not have someone claim I violated my ban. I was frankly surprised that I’ve written or greatly expanded many new articles (no BLPs, but all mention people “of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed”) since the ban and no one -- not even SFR -- claimed these were a violation. These include (King of Clones, Virulent: The Vaccine War, How to Become a Cult Leader, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, Waco: American Apocalypse, The Phenomenon, Satan Wants You. This vague ban gives me (or someone similarly affected) no clear way to know where the lines are, and the likelihood of crossing lines unintentionally is high. That this ban even included, according to SFR, updating an existing and outdated BLP article (someone has since published one) in my own sandbox (with a minor note), and adding a WikiProject banner on a BLP Talk page, is beyond insane. That anyone should assume such edits are included in such a ban is unreasonable, and that he even thought to list these here shows his state of mind. This ban's vagueness gives wide ranging power to anyone wanting to slap me down. I believe this applies to SFR who was one of the two editors who essentially prosecuted the case against me, and since becoming an admin, has pursued his animosity towards me with at every turn, despite the "kid's gloves" claim just made here. Let me close by stating that I believe I have not made any edits anywhere near close to the few edits that caused my ban in the first place in all the time that has passed since, and THAT should be what is considered now. My goal is and always has been to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a list of "gotchas" from SFR as a reason to extend or deepen the ban seems unfair. In fact, if it is agreed that I am correct in that assessment, the ban should be lifted at this point. Rp2006 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by tgeorgescu If they want to be judged by ARBCOM, admins should oblige. Note that I don't think that it is wise to want be judged by ARBCOM, just that it is a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Rp2006 This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. There's only so many times we can say "Hey, stop doing that" before we conclude that an editor is either unable or unwilling to follow an editing restriction. Rp2006, I'd like to hear from you, because the alternative at that point is normally a lengthy or indefinite block. I'm willing to hear you out, especially because that's certainly not something I'm happy about, but there's a fair chance that's what we'd be looking at here. You've had a lot more chances than most get before blocks start to be imposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC) I've got to say, the response here does not fill me with confidence that this will not be an ongoing occurrence. To begin with, since you were topic banned directly by ArbCom, we can't lift the topic ban. Only ArbCom could do that. And the fact that you have repeatedly not adhered to it will not work in your favor if you want to request that. If someone is interested in editing about science, there are tons of articles which would not risk crossing over that line. Just a couple days ago, I happened to look through the article on Le Chatelier's principle, a rather important concept in chemistry, and well—it's rather a mess. You could work on articles like that with no problems whatsoever. If that doesn't strike you as worthwhile, there are tons of other articles on scientific principles and the like which wouldn't be anywhere close to the ban's subject. I suppose I could go with DWF on this; a formal logged warning indicating that this is the absolute last time, and that next time the line gets crossed (even if clearly technical and possibly inadvertent), blocks are going to result from it. The expectation of a topic banned editor is to stay well away from anything that might violate the ban, not to keep walking right up to the line and sticking their toe over it from time to time. That applies whether you think the ban was fair or not. Until and unless ArbCom lifts it, you must adhere to it, or the result will ultimately be you not editing anything at all. That's not an outcome I hope to see, but that's why I think it's very important to be clear that right now, that's the direction you're headed in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC) If the private evidence is concerning enough for ArbCom to ask to let them handle it, I'm inclined to do exactly that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I'll close this request and open one at ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC) Rp2006's response above makes me believe that a block is necessary the next time they violate the restriction. They clearly will never accept they were sanctioned for a good reason, and this is not a hard sanction to understand (and they could ask for clarification, but of course they aren't going to, because they'd rather pretend like the sanction doesn't exist.) SFR has treated them with kid gloves, because the fair and reasonable thing would be to block the editor repeatedly violating the arbitration finding against them, not just keep warning them away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC) The Arbitration Committee has received private information related to Rp2006. As such, an uninvolved administrator (or rough consensus of uninvolved administrators) could refer this case to ARCA for the Committee to handle. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)