Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324

Scientelensia

Scientelensia is given a logged, only warning for disruption in the PIA topic area. Any further comments like the ones at issue here, or other PIA disruption, may lead to a topic ban, block, or other sanction without further warning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:35, 28 October 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 Scientelensia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Scientelensia (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/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions

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

Scientelensia has been accusing multiple users of bias/prejudice, which is uncivil and is very much against WP:AGF.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180168962 - “You may perhaps have a disconcerting bias in this regard.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180150707 - “Even if you do not like Palestinians, you must see that this scale of death, whoever caused it, is a tragedy. The image of the man shows that not all Israelis oppose Palestine. And also, what is wrong with being “ultra-Orthodox”? You sound like you may hold a prejudice in this regard; if so, please say why, if not, I issue my apologies.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180150468 - “You seem to have an anti-Palestinian bias.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180149986- “You seem to have a heavy bias.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180071513 - “I find your actions deeply troubling and also simply wrong.”

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180067500 -“Also, your opinion seems to be highly biased.”

I advised them to strike their comments, but Scientelensia ignored me and continued calling users biased.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180229378 - “I never objectively said that they had a bias, only that they ‘seemed’ biased, ‘perhaps’ had a bias or ‘may’ have held a bias. Thus, I am not stating 100% that these people are biased, because how would I know?”

And then resumed calling users biased

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180231991 -“People only removes the ones here because of their seemingly biased views.”

Edit: Re Iskandar323, I’m confused by your comment. You said I didn’t speak with Scientelensia, yet my conversation with them, where I advised them to strike their comments, as well as their response, is included in this filing. Not only that, you linked to it in your post where you tagged Nableezy.

Edit:Iskandar323, I recommend reading through that thread you’re linking to, as well as the admin warning of a boomerang.

Edit: Nableezy, can you explain why you’re linking to an outdated diff that was very quickly struck/clarified within about 10 minutes? Doing so is very misleading.Drsmoo (talk) 15:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scientelensia#c-Drsmoo-20231015173000-Notice_of_Arbitration_Enforcement_noticeboard_discussion

Discussion concerning Scientelensia

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 Scientelensia

You can see my innocence from the excerpts; I have tried to contribute positively but this user has brought me into a needless situation. I would in fact call into question the user (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Drsmoo_and_WP:BATTLEGROUND_behaviour) who reported me and their actions. Also, if you actually view the contents of the diffs, you can see that I am actually right although I know now I should not have said so. The stuff the opposing people on there were saying was much worse: I have been taken out of context (!).

Context will prove that I have only been trying to do good. See the talk page on the ‘genocide against Palestinians’ to see this. People are always going to argue on Wikipedia, but by impassioned discussion the best result can be produced.

I believe everyone has a bias, and if I can discern people’s I will say so. Once people overcome their prejudices editing is easier. I obviously have bias too as everyone does, so if they tell me it is only for my benefit, regardless of the way in which it is said.

I suspect that Drsmoo’s annoyance with me is the product of our different stances on how to run the page. Drsmoo has perhaps been engaging in off-putting and hypocritical editing for some time (e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikiquette_assistance/archive76), though this may be a significant stretch. Glances at the talk page and SJ’s talk page show that I have been acting in a good and productive manner. I take Seraphimblade’s comments and will learn from them.

On Kathy Hochul, user Muboshgu says I have a “pro-Palestinian bias”. Firstly, by the rules which have just been explained to me, one should not say these things. Secondly, I used a reliable source and this is what it said. Just because an affair in one side, does not always mean it is biased. In the source, there is nothing to say that Hochul said bad things about Israeli Americans: just because the sentence was not in favour of Israelis, does not mean that there was an unfair bias against them. That the content was re-added suggests that it was useful and relevant and unbiased and that a consensus was reached on this, and thus that the revert was unnecessary and even plain wrong.

I strongly reject the unfair characterisation that I am biased. Since I first saw the page on the alleged genocide, I have tried hard to maintain a stance of neutrality where others have not. For instance, I was the one who added these sourced sentences: “The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.”, “Some Israelis reject the characterization of genocide, saying such accusations are antisemitic.”. I also modified the phrase “Both Israel and Palestine frequently accuse the other of planning a scheme of genocide.” I also added a rejection of characterisation section which was removed. I have also made sure that it was clear that it was not an official genocide by using language such as ‘argues’, ‘claim’, ‘belief’, ‘characterisation’ and ‘seems’:

“Genocide against Palestinians is a characterization of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict which argues that Israel has carried out and/or is carrying out some kind of genocide against the Palestinian population, sometimes related to the view that Israel is a settler colonial state. The view also includes the belief that the system with which Israel governs the Palestinians is one of racial segregation and apartheid. The characterization has been rejected by many, but not all, Israelis.”

Neutrality has always been important to me, which is probably why I pointed out people’s biases, though this was wrong. My conduct on the talk pages may have been wrong on parts yet I am willing to make amends and I believe that I have never contributed badly or destructively in this topic. So while users such as User: Muboshgu will call me biased and others such as User:HJ Mitchell will find this concerning, I refute this strongly. If anything, I believe that throughout the page’s construction, others, possibly including the person who referred me here (hypocrite anyone https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1180084227?), have been acting very much worse than me with more one-sided edits and wild accusations such as ‘blood libel’ (can’t remember who that was) in the talk page. I feel that in receiving a punishment I am the victim of a collective punishment. This is wrong. I admit I was naive when I received a harsh (as admitted by the person who gave it to me) GENSEX ban, and it is in my opinion wrong to bring it into the result.

Please hear my case.

Edit: sorry if my statement is too long, this was not intended.

Fair enough on that. I take that point. Also, I invited you to read my statement which proves that I have considered my conduct and found some of it wanting. What you say is in part hurtful and not true, and I’d like you to consider how your message came across. Please read my full statement and do not let that one mistake of mine (my only defence is that I was driven to this by a harsh ban and was sad about how things turned out with this editor who seems to bear something against me despite their own questionable conduct which you have not addressed) make up your entire definition of me. Also, I’ve put so much time into this site, making a list of articles much better and more expansive as you can see on my talk page (User:Scientelensia). I have also created a good page. I’ve put so much effort into this that I would really be sad to be banned because of one desperate mistake when I am being the only one out of a collective group being punished :(

Yes, I have done some wrong but looking on the Genocide against Palestinians page you can see that others who are not being punished our doing much worse. I’m anxious of a result and quite unhappy as I believe I deserve another chance and believe that the user who referred me here may also be in the wrong (see all the statements above).

Please read my statement… Scientelensia (talk) 20:53, 17 October 2023 (UTC) Moved from uninvolved admins' section. Threaded discussion is not permitted at AE, please comment only in this section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:59, 17 October 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

First off, yes. Scientelensia would do well do curb their accusations of bias. We all have bias, we all know it (hopefully), and though this is plainly obvious, constantly accusing other editors of bias does not adhere to AGF or general principles of civility and is a distraction from the activity of actually editing. At the same time, I find it disheartening that Drsmoo would raise this AE just two months after being cautioned in an extremely similar filing Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321#Nishidani. Drsmoo also does not appear to have attempted to have a single conversation with the accused on their talk prior to this AE filing. It is worth noting that most of these comments by the accused come in the context of one of several fraught discussions at Talk:Genocide against Palestinians, where the editor that launched the thread spoke of "blatant Hamas propaganda", in which context it is rather obvious that the discussion is awash with bias, with hardly a need to mention it. As noted here by Nableezy, what Drsmoo has avoided mentioning is the rather extreme tone of the discussions on the page, with claims of antisemitism and blood libel letting fly in all directions. This does not mitigate the point that personal accusations of bias are to be avoided, but the context here is an exceptionally bias-fraught discussion. The user, who is relatively new, and I believe very new to the space, just needs to internalize their thoughts here and allow the transparent bias is such topic areas to speak for itself without the need to descend to commentary on individual editors. The issue here is a mundane behavioural one that could have been addressed at ANI and may require a slap on the wrist, but it does not rise to the level of an AE-worthy prosecution. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:53, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: I said on their talk page, which is usually the first port of call. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For other installments of Drsmoo's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, please see the dedicated ANI section that was opened a day before this AE thread, and this other attempt to prosecute other editors today through the abuse of the admin help template. The pattern that emerges from all of this is not a problem with other editors. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by nableezy

That entire talk page is full of accusations of racism, blood libel (!), antisemitism, and bias. Drsmoo said he did not see those instances, which kind of surprises me as he responded in a thread that opened with an accusation it was made (by Buidhe for the record) in "abuse of power in order to manipulate public opinion regarding current Israel-Hamas war. Raises serious concerns regarding potential political motives that seeks to legitimize Hamas actions against Israelis." All users should focus on the article content, but this selective outrage is just too much. Given something like this remains on the talk page with no admonishment to be found.

Oh and, eyeroll emoji. nableezy - 15:14, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You changed it to "ones biases", not sure I see anywhere that was struck. The point is accusations of bias are common, including occasionally by your good self. They dont necessitate running here when actual accusations of straight up racism and blood libel are being bandied about without an eyebrow being batted. nableezy - 16:00, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Muboshgu

I just reverted an edit by this user exhibiting their pro-Palestinian bias on Kathy Hochul.[1] They may not be able to participate in Israeli/Palestinian articles and discussions on Wikipedia. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:48, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge

To play devil's advocate, Scientelensia is a somewhat(?) new editor who made their first edit on November 13 of last year.[2] It's possible that they don't understand things like WP:AGF and that they should address article content, not editor's conduct or suspected motivations. Perhaps a warning and an explanation of why their conduct was lacking might be in order? (That's assuming that they are willing to listen and learn.) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

Less of the bias stuff would be good. Afaics, the edit referred to by Muboshgu has been reintroduced and is not something I would get overly excited about on its own. As for being provocative take a look at the filer here. A warning is sufficient I think. Selfstudier (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Scientelensia

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

The conduct here might merit a warning – but really, I think NOTFORUM is just being trampled on up and down the page. Just to spitball, is there something a consensus of admins here can do to enforce talk page standards? All the discussion around vague accusations of non-neutrality where no one is actually focused on proving it (by showing that the current set of sources constitute undue weight) seems to be making discussion of the article unproductive. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Ideally, we should just be removing junk comments as soon as they're posted and if necessary warning or sanctioning editors. We can create an edit notice for the talk page with {{notaforum}}. Quick and decisive action is the best way to keep it under control in my experience. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certainly concerned that Scientelensia seems to be stating that they intend to continue making the personalized remarks. I very much agree that they have not been the only offender in that regard, and that perhaps a more general solution for that talk page (maybe limiting each editor to a certain number of posts per discussion?) may also be necessary. But, Scientelensia, maybe you intend your "just sayin'" type remarks to be helpful in some way, but they are clearly not being received like that and will need to stop. I'm concerned that if you don't intend to do that, we'll very shortly find ourselves back here if we just issue a warning. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:24, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Muboshgu's diff is concerning. Casually labelling other editors "biased" while making blatantly one-sided edits like that shows either an intent to disrupt or a remarkable lack of self awareness, either of which is incompatible with editing in a contentious topic. I also note that Scientelensia is already subject to a GENSEX topic ban so they should be even more careful. An indef ARBPIA-wide topic ban might be a little over the top but I don't think we can wrap this up without some sort of tangible sanction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Scientelensia I'm very confused. How on Earth did you find a a nearly-fourteen-year old complaint about the filer at a noticeboard that hasn't existed for over a decade? And what do you think it proves, except possibly that your battleground mentality drives you to dig up ancient dirt on your opponents instead of considering that there may be issues with your own conduct? If you really can't see the problem with the content you added to a biography of a living person, then I question not just whether you should be editing the Arab-Israeli topic area but whether you should be editing Wikipedia at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and @Seraphimblade FYI, I've brought this back from the archive. As I said on my talk page, if we're not going to get a consensus among us for anything more than a logged warning then I'll support that, but I do feel the conduct here rises to the level that some sort of action is necessary, especially considering that Scientelensia has been sanctioned in another contentious topic already. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will not object to something like a topic ban from the area, or at least a section of it. I was quite unimpressed by the initial response here, which basically amounted to "Well, I'll keep doing it anyway", and with that on top of already having received one sanction, I don't think a lot of leeway is called for. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was also rather dismayed by the conduct I saw here. If you want to put down a topic ban, I think that's reasonable. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:07, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell: Do you intend to TBAN here? It seems that no one else objects, but also no one else is inclined to pull the trigger themself. If you've changed your mind, I think this can close as a logged only-warning. Up to you. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:06, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tamzin I hope Scientelensia has seen the error of their ways. I've been mulling this over for a couple of days. I can live with a final/only warning if we're clear that strong sanctions are the next step. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Zanahary

Withdrawn

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 Zanahary

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Zanahary (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

17:53, 1 November 2023 source misrepresentation
18:13, 1 November 2023 personal attack in response to my saying why I did not simply revert their misrepresentation
20:39, 1 November 2023 declining to correct the issue

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

Notified of the sanctions on 19 October, removed and assumed read shortly after, with later acknowledgment of understanding of the policies

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The user is misrepresenting a source, which specifically says violence was carried out against suspected collaborators, and another user agreed was correct. Instead of correcting the issue, the user is engaged in OR (again) and personal attacks (linked above). I assumed good faith that they would correct an issue when brought to their attention, they have declined to do so. Source misrepresentation is not a content issue, it is a behavioral one as this board has previously found. nableezy - 20:47, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere in the cited source does it mention any resistance whatsoever. It is a blatant misrepresentation, and it is misrepresented further here. Here is the source. Search for the word resistance. Every instance of "resistance" in the full report is a quote about those doing the executing, not the executed. Nowhere does it say anything like torture and execute alleged members of Palestinian resistance. It is a straight forward misrepresentation of the source. nableezy - 21:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As they have now corrected the issue, despite continuing the protesting about the issue even existing, Im fine withdrawing this. nableezy - 21:05, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead Zanahary (talk) 21:17, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Zanahary

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 Zanahary

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zanahary

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

GWA88

Retaliatory filing without merit. Filer Carter00000 indeffed by theleekycauldron as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:32, 3 November 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 GWA88

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Carter00000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: GWA88 (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4; Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

Under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

General

25 October Undid revert of edit made by IP per WP:ARBECR, claiming unjustified content removal. Despite content being malformed and over-linked, did not recognize or correct after re-adding.
18 October Incorrectly marked content change as minor edit. This occurs frequently, with many edits which are not minor marked as minor.
16 October Removed content claiming it was covered in the previous day, when had not been covered.
15 October Removed slightly misspelt content, claiming wording for entire entry was nonsensical.

Diffs for two individual incidents are presented:

Incident 1

10 October Edit-warred over merging a entry which was originally added by user as a second part.
11 October WP:BATTLEGROUND wording when opening discussion on article talk after being reverted again. Made accusations of clearly misleading readers, issues with historical accuracy, and asking how is this even an issue? when consensus was against user per WP:EDITCON.
11 October WP:IDHT after warning over WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior and WP:EDITCON.
11 October WP:BLUDGEONING discussion, repeating augments and claiming WP:EDITCON consensus was invalid ..general practice or not the fact remains...

Incident 2

10 October Added WP:OR not supported by source, asserting militant groups were led by Hamas. Article makes no mention of other militant groups other than Hamas.
10 October Edit-warred over revert of assertion, violating 1RR restriction under WP:CT/A-I. Adds new source which still does not support assertion.
10 October Adds a third source, which still does not support assertion. While source mentioned groups working together, no reference was made to being led by Hamas.

Under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

19 October Incorrectly marked content change as minor edit.
18 October Edit-warred on entry in contentious topic, after being blocked for edit-warring on topic.
6 September Makes a frivolous request to WP:RFPP claiming edit-warring between me and an IP, when I was enforcing WP:ARBECR under WP:GSRUSUKR. IP was blocked independently by an admin and noted on the RFPP request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any:

9 July Blocked from the Portal Namespace for 2 weeks for edit-warring as a WP:BOOMRANG result of WP:AN3 report filed against me. I was also blocked.

User continued to edit-war as per diffs above. In another incident, User displayed WP:IDHT when warned, refusing to admit edit warring, despite warning in the result of the AN3 Report try to convince others to re-add it for you through pure discussion, not a single revert.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): WP:CT/A-I (Notice); WP:CT/EE (Notice)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint: User has persistent WP:CIR issues, not understanding basic concepts, despite almost 9,000 edits over nine years.

User also does not understand the basics of WP consensus, preferring to edit-war in content disputes, despite being blocked and warned multiple times. User has:

Claimed that consensus is needed to remove content [3], [4].
Failed to understand WP:NOCONSENSUS.
Claimed only 3RR counts as edit-warring.
Claimed that including rationale in edit summary exempts discussion.

The user primarily edits in pages on current events, frequently overlapping with contentious topics. This is of special concern, given the issues presented above.

@Black Kite & Tamzin, To clarify, both myself and GWA88 were blocked by ToBeFree in early July as a result of a 3RR filing. The recent block was an independent action by HJ Mitchell and did not involve GWA88.

I don't think it's appropriate to consider this filing retaliatory, given that almost four months had gone by with no further action from me, and that we were both sanctioned equally in the block. I further note that both prior to and after the initial block, I've made my concerns with GWA88's editing clear with warnings and discussions when issues arose. Carter00000 (talk) 08:05, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Iskandar323, I was the second user [5] to make that revert, and despite an active talk page, no one replied on the discussion to oppose the revert.

Standard practice is to group together events that are closely related into a single entry. For example, on January 1, 3, and 27, we use only one entry for multiple/preceding milestones.

The purpose of the page is to present a high-level overview of world events; if excessively granular entries are used, it will become lengthy and unfocused. Carter00000 (talk) 08:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning GWA88

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 GWA88

I'm sorry but this seems like blatant WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour from an editor who is known to try and get people blocked he has had issues with. Since that original block in July (my one and only block over a 9 year period of editing), I have not been blocked once, whereas Carter00000 has been blocked from the portal again for "edit-warring on P:CE subpages" and making "controversial re-writes to blurbs and enforce your preferred wording.". To be honest, I did expect this to happen as soon as his most recent block ended. He has also left passive aggressive templates on my talk page, introducing me to topics I've made hundreds of edits on over the years and he knows it. I hope admins can see my contributions to the Current Events: Portal are positive and that no else aside from Carter00000 seems to have an issue with me editing there. Thanks. GWA88 (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I would just like any admin seeing this to take a look at my overall contributions, and not just the diffs cited. You can see I'm just an editor who has made thousands of good faith edits over a decade, and I've always tried to steer clear of drama on Wikipedia and stick to my hobby of editing, which is why I rarely if ever leave messages on user's talkpages. And with regards to dispruting Wikipedia, I've had very few disputes in this last year, and the only notable one was with Carter00000, the author of this request. I'll admit, I'm not as savvy at Wikilawyering as Carter00000, but I always try my best to stick to the general guidelines. I hope you close this without a sanction as I do believe this is also motivated by some sort of personal grudge against me. Thank you. GWA88 (talk) 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323 (uninvolved)

I inspected this filing, and upon looking at "Incident 1" what jumped out at me was how absolutely correct GWA88 was, in A) correctly placing events in their verifiable chronological setting, and B) clearly outlining the undeniable logic of it (presumably when prompted) - that the OP thinks these edits are problematic, and indeed, reverted this fix, in defiance of any obvious common sense when editing a timeline of dated events, well, this hints more at WP:CIR issues on the OP's part than anything else. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning GWA88

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

This appears to be to be a retaliatory filing after the filer was previously blocked from the Portal namespace; note that all the "evidence" above is from that area. Pinging HJ Mitchell as the previous administrator involved. Black Kite (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen this but haven't had time to look into it properly yet. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:20, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this looks retaliatory—a grab-bag of flyspecking over minor issues, as payback for getting him blocked. I'm inclined to reinstate Carter's p-block from portalspace indefinitely, and would be open to an IBAN as well. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:09, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will grant that this isn't payback for the most recent dispute. It being merely payback for an older dispute doesn't hugely move the needle, though. Might make me a bit less interested in IBANning. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 17:29, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Carter00000 has a history of abusing of user-conduct processes in retaliation against detractors; I've blocked them indefinitely. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:56, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with TLC's block for disruptive editing. Carter00000 has a history of fraught interactions with other editors and making mountains out of molehills and has unfortunately become a bit of a timesink. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 14:02, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by ghostlystatic

Appeal declined. Contentious topics require more than playing the NPOV game. Johnuniq (talk) 08:09, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appealing user: ghostlystatic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Ghostlystatic (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: General ban

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

Notification of that administrator: Yeah I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ghostlystatic

I am a Jewish person and I said some uncivil things to people who I believed wanted to hide the 10/07 attacks from the Pogrom page because they wanted to downplay what happened. I didn't mean to be uncivil, but I can only play the NPOV game for so long, especially when there are some editors on here that complain that they openly can't support Palestinian terrorist groups. Kind of biased and NPOV as it is. I like this encyclopedia. If you decide to ban me, I won't stop liking it. Ghostlystatic (talk) 04:24, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by scottishfinnishradish

Use your discretion they said. Certainly it won't create even more time sinks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:39, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by ghostlystatic

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by ghostlystatic

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

This one's more clear-cut than the above. Willful ECR violations through non-constructive edits after being notified of the restriction, consistently combative tone. Decline, and given the timewasting nature of this combative appeal, disallow new appeals for at least 2 months. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 04:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restored from archive; if no one else has anything to say I'll close this in a day or two. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Calling people antisemites isn't exactly conducive to collaborative editing. Agree with Tamzin. Galobtter (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Infinity Knight

Appeal declined. Contentious topics require an ability to engage with other editors with more than debating techniques. Johnuniq (talk) 08:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: Infinity Knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Infinity Knight (talk) 06:41, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.

You have been sanctioned because you have repeatedly attempted to weaponize administrative processes within the topic area, after a previous warning:

Attempt to sanction topic-area opponent for policy-compliant edit (I AGF on this one, but presented for context)
Warned by Bishonen for civil POV-pushing in an attempt to sanction a topic-area opponent
Attempt to sanction the same opponent as in (1), under the same misapplication of policy, for conduct that was even less objectionable than the first time.
More selective misapplication of policy, this time against the admin who told you that you were wrong in (3)

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

Notification of that administrator : [6]

Statement by Infinity Knight

Regarding (1) & (3), I visited Tamzin's talk page under sub-section titled Inquiry I used the phrase "Are there any concerns related to original research? Your input is appreciated" It is important to note that my intention did not involve advocating for any sanctions against another user.
Regarding (4), I acknowledge that exercised poor judgment in relation to (4). I am fully aware that the comment "Is this like a regular thing they do?" was unwarranted. However, it is essential to emphasize that I did not endeavor to "misrepresent policy".

Galobtter, I wish to bring to your attention the comment by Riposte97 appears to hold relevance. Infinity Knight (talk) 05:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

Keeping in mind that (1) is presented on background, we have three cases here of attempting to weaponize Wikipedia processes in opposition to topic-area opponents or, in the last case, an administrator they perceive as one. I can AGF that Infinity Knight is not actively trying to use the system to promote their preferred POV, but even if that is the case, they've shown that they lack the ability to participate in administrative processes about this topic area with due detachment. (I did briefly consider a TBAN only from admin processes regarding ARBPIA, but deemed that unworkable.) I think Bishonen's warning was exceptionally generous, and I wish Infinity Knight would have borne more in mind the comic that Bish linked. Comments like It is important to note that my intention did not involve advocating for any sanctions against another user, regarding a message on an admin's talk page raising a potential policy violation by a user the admin has previously sanctioned, are a continuation of the behavior that Bishonen described. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 07:45, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity Knight

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 Riposte97

I initially made this comment on Infinity Knight's talk page, prior to this appeal. It struck me as unfair that a person apparently genuinely trying to adhere to policy should be sanctioned. I reproduce it here:

@Tamzin - I have some concerns about this action.

It seems to me that reasons (1) and (3) ought more properly to be construed as asking for advice/comment, not asking you to take some kind of action against another editor. The quoted text under reason (4) says that the administrator in question might seem to be doing certain things. It's a conditional statement which I'd hardly call a wilful misrepresentation of policy. Ironically, it may just be uncivil.

We are also potentially stretching the meaning of 'uninvolved administrator' when the user's comments in (1) and (3) were directed to you, and you participated in the conversation in (4) in opposition to the opinion offered by @Infinity Knight.

Finally, there is a real question about whether any of the four reasons cited actually fall within Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#Definition of the "area of conflict". To my reading they do not, though granted, I am relatively new here.

Riposte97 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight

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

I encountered Infinity Knight in July 2021 at User talk:Infinity Knight#A-I discretionary sanctions notification and the immediately following User talk:Infinity Knight#Talk:Mondoweiss section. There has been too much wasted time dealing with this user and an indefinite block might be appropriate. At any rate, I would decline the current appeal. Johnuniq (talk) 08:53, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Decline the appeal, per my previous comment already endorsing the block. Galobtter (talk) 00:53, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Jaydoggmarco

Appeal declined. The appeal does not address the issue that edit warring over a WP:BLP issue is not permitted. Johnuniq (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sanction being appealed: Two-week block under BLP CTOP procedure

Administrator imposing the sanction: HJ Mitchell (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. I am aware. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jaydoggmarco

I didn't violate an arbitration decision on Zoe McLellan because the noticeboard discussion on whether or not to include the info of her child abduction case has not made a decision or reached a consensus to include or not include the information. Jaydoggmarco (talk) 11:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from talk page HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by HJ Mitchell

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

By my count Jaydoggmarco made nine reverts on this page in well under 12 hours: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Even if this weren't a contentious topic, any admin would be well within their discretion to block here. Whether or not a consensus had or had not been reached, there's no justification for reverting nine times in the face of edits by four different editors. They clearly know about the rules on editwarring: they invoked it at WP:BLPN#Zoe McLellan in their initial post! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Jaydoggmarco

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Jaydoggmarco

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

This is plainly a reasonable sanction. Edit warring against multiple other editors over contentious BLP material in the face of WP:BLPRESTORE is clearly sanctionable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time the appellant was blocked for edit warring, so it is fair enough to have a longer block of two weeks. The appeal does not indicate that the reasons for the block will not happen again. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by AtypicalPhantom

Block endorsed, largely per rationale of ScottishFinnishRadish (blocking admin). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:26, 3 November 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: AtypicalPhantom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) –

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite block for frequent ECR violations, WP:NOTAFORUM violations [16]

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

Notification of that administrator: I know, I copied this over for them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by AtypicalPhantom

Hello. It seems I have been permanently banned from editing Wikipedia because of my conduct in the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I am not sure what got me banned specifically, but I would like some transparency if possible. I don't make inflammatory comments, and my last comment was to 0300 objective. I was merely adding context to his comment which in of itself was pretty inflammatory. I see multiple users on that talk page, specifically 0300 objective, who are openly pushing their agenda rather harshly, and I obviously have a pro-Israel lean, but I am respectful with my comments. Having a nuanced discussion is integral to Wikipedia. My comment was to shed light on what was a misunderstanding. With that said, if anything I have said is overtly disallowed, I accept that, and I apologize. I can still contribute meaningfully to Wikipedia and I can exclude myself from the Israel-Hamas conflict page. I would like for the adjudicators to reevaluate my ban. If you come to the same conclusion after reevaluating my activity, you can ban me from discussing this topic, but at least grant me the opportunity to contribute to other articles.AtypicalPhantom (talk) 00:23, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from their talk page per their request here and here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is possible to reply to the admin, I want to say that it isn't true that I am not here to create an encyclopedia. My account is recent, but it predates 10/7. I have niche interests and I had a plan to create several new scientific articles. It's just that the recent conflict sucked up most of my time. AtypicalPhantom (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I probably could have gone with a NOTHERE block and avoided this, but since most of the edits were in ARBPIA I went with that. [17] [18] shows the caliber of edits we're dealing with. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Knight, in the past 6 hours there have been 7 non-ec editors, one of which is already blocked as a sock, who have edited Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. How much time should be spent on each of these editors to help them learn to edit a topic area they are prohibited from editing? At this point there is far too much unconstructive editing by non-ec accounts to attempt to mentor each of them. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 3#At wit's end is the finding of fact that led to these draconian sanctions. Rampant socking and uncontrollable disruptive editing have led to this point. I would love to try spend the time to help these editors, but given the opportunity cost I think preventing disruption by enforcing the existing sanction is the best bet. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:10, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not comment on the use of the image. I commented on the applicability of an argument when discussing the use of an image and the venue to discuss the use of an image. Per WP:INVOLVED, One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits that do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator involved. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000 (involved?)

Only commenting as I was mentioned by the appealing user. I endorse the block. But I personally don’t have a problem with an A-I TBan for AtypicalPhantom, perhaps after a cooling off period and assuming they see the problem. I say this despite their comment: specifically 0300 objective, who are openly pushing their agenda rather harshly which is interesting considering my Jewish heritage. My agenda is follow WP policies. I like the idea of a Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Edit requests page if ECPing the TP is not implemented. Never seen so many one edit users enter a discussion. And I thought AP2 was bad. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@AtypicalPhantom: I realize that you are new but I should add that if you reference someone at AE, particularly in a less than complimentary fashion, you should ping them. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

I’m not familiar with the most recent discussions on this article page, but I briefly edited the article, which has lots of problems. Notwithstanding the disorderly process on that page, this AE individual's appeal should not be the place to discuss the larger need for improvements to the page restriction or AE process, which should proceed in their own space.

Looking at some of appellant’s edits, I see various good-faith content views that are reasonable but which would be strengthened by documentation and source links. I also see some personalized comments that are clearly off-limits for article talk, that undermine the appellant’s content arguments, and that merit an AE sanction.

Per WP:NOTHERENORMS, I do not see any basis for the blocking Admin to ‘’ex post’’ escalate the complaint against the appellant by insinuating that they are NOTHERE. That sounds like casual disparagement, suggesting that they’re lucky to have gotten the lesser sanction they received. This good faith NOTHERE surmise could be the examined in a separate AE thread, but it’s not helpful to the appeal of the current sanction.

I don’t see that Appellant’s edit here, while poorly worded, is so disruptive as to be deleted by another user or Admin. It would help a new editor to improve their talk page conduct to know exactly why certain of their edits is not allowed. All in, I would favor a TBAN of a week or two during which I hope Admins or others would advise the appellant as to WP:TPG, WP:V, edit summaries, etc. and other things that new editors in contentious areas often do not understand. That plus WP:ROPE should address the conduct problem.

P.S. While it's true for each individual Admin that time spent on tutoring and support of new users does take away from time spent on enforcement or other Admin roles - opportunity cost - this is not true for the Admin corps as a whole. There are hundreds of Admins who are not actively day-to-day engaged in patrolling AE or vandalism whose time may not be fully occupied on those tasks.

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by AtypicalPhantom

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor Infinity Knight)

Was pointed to this discussion here. When it comes to the dilemma of viewing newcomers as a "waste of editors' time," my preference is for administrators to give the "let's provide them with guidance" approach a shot. If we start seeing new editors as a time sink, how's the topic area ever gonna draw in any new contributors? Infinity Knight (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reply. I hopped into this discussion after I spotted an IP contributor who provided a valuable reference, but later, the IP was struck out. I get that the current approach saves time, but it makes me wonder how the topic area will ever attract new contributors. Infinity Knight (talk) 20:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So, the admin who's doing the blocking might seem to be commenting on both how folks are behaving and whether the content, like using a certain image, is cool or not. Is this like a regular thing they do? It kind of looks like the way things are going right now might be eating up a lot of the community's time instead of just helping out newcomers. Infinity Knight (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hemiauchenia

I endorse the block and I don't think the appeal is enough to remove it. While the disruption by non-autoconfirmed and to a lesser extent non ECP users is significantly reduced than it was when the 7 day semi-protection was implemented on the 16 October, largely due to the decrease in viewers as the war progresses, I wouldn't oppose semi-protecting the page again, especially if there is an uptick in commenters following the Israel ground offensive. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Infinity Knight's repeated attempts to insinuate wrongdoing or bias have become disruptive. They were given some useful advice by Bishonen here, it appears that has gone unheeded. Add to the generally obtuse and obstructive editing in such sections as this in which they repeatedly reverted against an obvious consensus, with their contributions to the discussion being a series of not really without ever addressing the content, and I would suggest that the negative in net negative has been met several times over. nableezy - 15:42, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

I don't feel the appeal is sufficient. I note in particular this comment 'With that said, if anything I have said is overtly disallowed, I accept that, and I apologize'. AtypicalPhantom may be sincere but the problem is you need to understand where your comments are crossing the line what than just "if" you did. I appreciate this is a lot more difficult if you cannot engage because you're indefinitely blocked but I do think a better understanding of where you went wrong is required for any appeal. Perhaps this partly explains User:Aoidh's obvervation. I'd also add that especially in an CT area, editors really should aim to stay well away from the line rather than just avoiding stuff that is over the line ("overtly disallowed"). And in fact the nature of WP:Civility etc is even if a singular comment isn't over the line repeated questionable comments may push your behaviour past the bounds of what's allowed. Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 5)

Result of the appeal by AtypicalPhantom

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

Non-constructive comments are not covered by the talkpage exception to ARBECR, and several of AP's comments were non-constructive, so this is a valid exercise of admin discretion. It's harsh, but that talkpage is a nightmare and this user is clearly NOTHERE, so, harsh but valid.
On that note, I think we're overdue for elevated sanctions on Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war. I'm tempted to ECP it for a few months, but there's some helpful edit requests coming in. Maybe ECP it but create a Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war/Edit requests, where non-EC users are confined to their own sections? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:25, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think many users would find that page easily, even if linked. In my experience most get to the edit request through trying to edit the page, and I don't know if we can redirect that workflow. Perhaps a large notice that any non-constructive edits or NOTAFORUM violations will result in an immediate one month block from the talk page? No one will read it, but at least we'll have tried. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, after a moment of reconsideration, maybe that would help separate the wheat from the chaff. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's sort of my thinking. Some less-motivated non-ECs failing to find the request page would probably be a net-positive. That said, the workflow could be redirected if we wanted by adding a special case option to line 57 of Special:Edit/Template:Protected page text. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 03:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That talk page is a dumpster fire, but the dumpster fire isn't going anywhere. It'll die down when the conflict does and reignite somewhere else later. The Arab-Israeli conflict on Wikipedia heats and cools with the real-life conflict; you can correlate headline-grabbing moments in the conflict's history almost exactly with the AE log. I remember having similar conversation around the Gaza flotilla raid in 2010 and that's just history now. We may just have to ride out the storm and deal with the inevitable disruption case by case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think a big difference between these situations is the project-wide extended-confirmed restriction in place now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's partly my point. ECP didn't exist back then, or during the many flare-ups between then and ARBPIA4, and yet Wikipedia is still here. It's tempting to think that the immediate situation is intractable, but everything becomes history eventually. I'm not opposing more draconian measures per se, just urging caution and perspective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe the situation is intractable, rather that the current situation with the sanction as with isn't working as intended. If we want it to work as intended we'll have to take further steps. The point is to avoid flare-ups and ARBPIA5. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support ECPing it. Looking at the new editor contributions, they generally seem to rehash discussions and add more heat to a topic that doesn't need it. Anything to make this page more manageable.. Galobtter (talk) 00:19, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as clearly an appropriate action; I saw the immediate cause unfold on my watchlist and was considering similar action myself but SFR beat me to it. Given what sounds like a sincere appeal and an inexperienced editor, I wouldn't lose sleep over a conditional unblock with an ARBPIA topic ban (indefinite but reviewable in a few months once the current escalation is not so immediate). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page ECP protected. I don't see any clear disagreement amongst admins, and if this is the quality of comments we're getting from unregistered or newly-registered users, then as SFR says, we might as well separate the wheat from the chaff. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:28, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Ritchie. Looks like {{Protected page text}} detects that the talk page is also protected and directs people to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Edit. Hopefully that page doesn't get too much bad requests. Galobtter (talk) 14:22, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Making WP:BATTLEGROUND comments in your appeal is not going to get you very far. Endorse the block, especially since the edits outside of WP:ARBPIA (e.g. [19]) look similarly problematic. Galobtter (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't made the connection that Infinity Knight—who's now twice come to my talkpage to try to get the same topic-area opponent sanctioned for WP:NOR, even after I explained that that policy did not apply, and now is alleging vague misconduct against ScottishFinnishRadish, who explained it the second time—was the same person that Bishonen warned at AN/I. Enough. I have indef-TBANned them from PIA as an individual admin action. This can be discussed in a separate thread if they appeal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 16:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You beat me to it - I was just writing a comment about how Infinity Knight obliquely attacking ScottishFinnishRadish for doing their (difficult) job admining Talk:2023 Israel–Hamas war has to be the last straw, and a TBAN seems necessary. I have to say, their accusations of incivility here are so far off the mark and so evocative of the last panel of sealioning that I would fully urge them again to read that comic. Fully endorse this sanction. Galobtter (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
AtypicalPhantom says in their statement above that I am respectful with my comments but this is not respectful of other editors. Their statement not only doesn't acknowledge that this is problematic behavior, but suggests that there is no such issue with their behavior. I have to endorse the block for this reason. - Aoidh (talk) 08:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by HumilatedGoan

Appeal declined. There is consensus among uninvolved administrators to decline this appeal at this time as it does not adequately address the reason for/substance of the block and how appellant will avoid the issue in future. I would recommend the appellant review WP:AAB. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 00:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite block for violating WP:ARBECR in the WP:PIA topic area, after recent block for same

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

Notification of that administrator: Special:Diff/1183199439

Statement by HumilatedGoan

I want to acknowledge my mistakes in violating Wikipedia:ARBECR, and I sincerely apologize for the trouble i caused. i assure you that I have learned from my mistakes and i am committed to avoiding them in the future. please consider unblocking my account. HumilatedGoan (talk) 16:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC) copied from Special:Diff/1183168077 Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ivanvector

I have copied the user's statement from their talk page as requested. I also must report that the user is believed to have a second account; please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BlueFreee. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also was distracted by the SPI after mostly filling this out, and saved before I realized that 331dot already declined the appeal on the user's talk page. I'm going to leave it to a reviewer to decide what to do about that. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:09, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

HG was warned to stop doing this, kept doing this without changing their behavior, and then sent me an appeal by email that was obviously written by AI. (If they dispute this characterization, I am happy to share the email with other admins.) This appeal does not, to me, show any understanding of what was wrong with what they did, or of why we can trust the issue won't recur. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 01:00, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HumilatedGoan

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by HumilatedGoan

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

I agree with 331dot that this appeal is inadequate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, although there is an apology, there is nothing to show the appellant understands what the problem was, or how they will avoid it in the future. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the result of the SPI and after looking at some of the contributions I don't think this is a block that cannot be successfully appealed, but I do think that the unblock statement that is given is insufficient. - Aoidh (talk) 09:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The appeal and the associated apology are perfunctory and fail to address the substance of the problematic behavior. Tamzin's report that some AI thingie was used to write an email is of great concern. We do not need glib idiot robots interfering in our administrative procedures. Cullen328 (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ecrusized

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 Ecrusized

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Ecrusized (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/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:

Move warring over the title of 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:

General 1RR violations:

21:12, 2 November 2023 - Removed Wagner group from infobox
08:11, 2 November 2023 - Restored "Current extent of the Israeli invasion of Gaza" to the infobox, as part of a broader reinstatement of the live map
20:35, 1 November 2023 - Changed "1,000+ militants killed" to "1,000+ killed"
11:56, 1 November 2023 - Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox
09:50, 1 November 2023 - Removed citations from the restored inclusion of Houthi's in the infobox
18:24, 31 October 2023 - Removed Houthis from the infobox

These are all comparatively minor, and I wouldn't have come here except for the fact that when I approached Ecrusized about the issue they declined to self-revert or address the issue in any way, instead removing my comment saying Stop leaving me talk page messages please. I had previously approached them about some minor canvassing issues in the topic area; they also removed that comment, saying Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages.

There are also some WP:ONUS issues, restoring the live map despite an ongoing dispute about whether it is verifiable and no affirmative consensus to do so. However, the edit to restore the map was not a 1RR violation.

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 12:04, 4 November 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one Ecrusized, I left you four notices. It was after the third that you asked me to "Stop leaving me talk page messages please":

Alerting you of ARBPIA
Warning you about canvassing
Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert
Notifying you of this discussion.

Per our policies, you are able to ban me from your talk page yourself, with the exception of required notifications such as #1 and #4, and if this is what you want please say. However, this is a double edged sword; any issues, even if they are as minor as a single 1RR violation (for a post-report example, this revert is a 1RR violation), must be taken to a forum like this one rather than being resolvable through a talk page conversation. I would recommend against this, but it is your choice. 14:10, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Over two years ago I was blocked for 48 hours for overreacting to someone accusing me of being a sockpuppet. Regarding the current situation, I inspected your edits after you reverted me and engaged in canvassing. I would have preferred to resolve the identified issues on your talk page as I have with others. However, that stopped being an option when you declined to discuss the issue - although I believe this can still be resolved without sanction if you recognize your violation of 1RR and commit to doing better in the future. 14:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: May I have 200 words to reply to your comment? BilledMammal (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal Certainly. Use what you need but try to be concise. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, although Levivich beat me to it - and probably did a better job of it, too.

What we have here are minor behavioral issues - canvassing and 1RR violations - that become serious when they refused to communicate about them. Further, they reacted this way immediately; message one and two were left together, and were the first messages I have ever left on their talk page. They immediately reverted them, with the edit summary Do not leave blank template warnings on user accounts talk pages - which makes me wonder if they even read the messages I left, as the warning about canvassing included a custom note.

I agree with Levivich that what needs to be done here is ensure that they are clued in about the requirements to communicate and to respond to valid behavioral concerns. Perhaps a trouting would be sufficient for this, although given their response on this page - throwing accusations of WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE for bringing up these issues - makes me wonder if a formal warning is required to get it through to them that this behavior won't be tolerated in the future. BilledMammal (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

12:47, 4 November 2023

Discussion concerning Ecrusized

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 Ecrusized

User BilledMammal has been harassing me on my talk page since yesterday morning over a single revert I made which they did not agree on. They left me 4 separate blank warning templates on my talk page regarding this, despite me telling them to stop bothering me after each one. They then resolved to examining my contributions from the previous week in an effort to find violation that they might use against me (in bad faith). Hence they've opened this notice in an effort to have me blocked. Again edits here are wholly unrelated to the dispute they've had with me. I wished to stay away from this notice entirely in the hope that the user would go away. I have no further comments and do not wish to be involved in this at all. Ecrusized (talk) 11:18, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User @Veggies: have told them to take a breather because of the battleground behavior they've shown in the same said dispute they've had with me. It might be appropriate to give them a temporary topic ban from the said article. I would also like to have them blocked from editing my talk page because of their constant harrasment. Ecrusized (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did not considers the edits of excessive citation cleanups as individual reverts. Rest of those reverts were made in coordination with users at the talk page.Edit warring over whether aspects of the infobox should be collapsed at 2023 Israel–Hamas war:,

Removed "Clashes erupt at the Israeli–Lebanese border" from the infobox (moved to location). Ecrusized (talk) 12:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Informing you that you had violated 1RR and asking you to self-revert This is blatantly false. You can only notify someone on 1RR's or 3RR's within 24 hours after that post. You decided to report my alleged violations from 2 days ago. Ecrusized (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BilledMammal: Are you going to comment on anything about you deciding to inspect my edits all the sudden, within minutes after entering into a dispute with me? It seems that you were previously blocked for abusing the Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement just like you are right now. This is clearly WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:NOTHERE behavior. You are attempting to get users who disagree with you blocked by gaming the Wikipedia system WP:GAME. Since you were previously blocked for the same issue, it might be appropriate to have you permanently blocked. Ecrusized (talk) 14:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If @ScottishFinnishRadish: is satisfied with my statement, I have no further comments on this issue. I will pay more attention to 1RR from now on, notably if they are regarding removal/change of citations, and/or single word reverts, for which I was not paying enough attention prior to this notice. Ecrusized (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the new statement my @Levivich: (who is an editor involved in the same said dispute I previously mention having had with @BilledMammal:).:

I did not consider non controversial edits, such as excessive citation cleanups as reverts, as @HJ Mitchell: states. Such as this one. Nor this one, where another user had restored a file, but forgotten to restore it's legend. So I restored the legend as not to leave it incorrectly in the article in its current form, Levivich considers this another 1RR violation...

As far as I know, non controversial moves do not require a move discussion. I moved, the title "ground operations" to "invasion" considering it a non controversial one. (Which might as well be since the article was moved to the said title with 15 support and 0 oppose under 24 hours in the subsequent discussion.) Something else to note here is that the moves listed 13-14 October are regarding a different article than the one following 27 October. Which is when the large scale ground incursion in Gaza began but the prior article was regarding limited raids. Hence the previous naming disputes. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding @ScottishFinnishRadish:'s concern regarding my unwillingness to discuss this issue at my talk page with BilledMammal on Saturday, when this notice was opened.

On that day, I made a revert and entered into a content dispute with user BilledMammal. Subsequently they left me 2 large blank template warnings on my talk page. This is despite them being aware of the fact that I was away from my PC, and having a busy Saturday. So I reverted their warnings from my talk page, which I found to be retaliatory filings for making a revert they did not condone. Afterwards, 2 more warnings, the one regarding the ECP disputes here were left on my talk page. Again, I considered these retaliatory filings by BilledMammal, noting the previous 2 warnings and reverted them. --- Had the ECP warnings been filed by BilledMammal prior to the previous 2 warnings preceding them or not being followed by the content dispute they've had with me, I would be more than willing to discuss it in my talk page. However, under this context, I automatically assumed it to be a retaliatory filing. As Levivich has stated, this is the first time I am participating in a Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement dispute, furthermore the Israel-Hamas war article is the first ECP article I have been extensively editing. Ecrusized (talk) 09:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I've learned about the rules of Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement, I will engage in dialogue, including with users whom I may be in dispute with from now on. Ecrusized (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

Ecrusized is WP:AWARE of "arbitration enforcement Israel Palestine" a/o Oct 17 Special:Diff/1180609306, Special:Diff/1180609996. Levivich (talk) 20:22, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*adjusts spectacles*

At 2023 Israel–Hamas war:

addition by editor 1, 18:24 Oct 31 first revert by Ecrusized - that's Ecrusized's 1RR for the day
addition by editor 2 (CB cite expansion), 09:50 Nov 1 revert - that's a 1RR violation, 2nd revert in 24hrs
addition by editor 3, 11:56 Nov 1 revert - 2nd 1RR violation, 3rd revert in 24hrs
"militants killed" and Israelis "abducted" had been in the article for at least 3 weeks (Oct 10), 20:35 Nov 1 revert removing "militants" and changing "abducted" to "captured," which is POV-ish, but also the 3rd 1RR violation, as this is the 3rd revert in the preceding 24hrs (09:50 Nov 1, and 11:56 Nov 1, are the other two)
an edit by me, 08:11 Nov 2 revert, 4th 1RR violation, and 3rd revert in preceding 24hrs (11:56 Nov 1 and 20:35 Nov 1 are the other two)
addition by editor 4, 21:12 Nov 2 revert, technically not a 1RR violation because the prior revert was 24hrs and 37 minutes prior.

All of the above reverts are over infobox parameters.

At 2023 Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip:

Editor 1 moves from "invasion" to "ground operations" (Oct 13)
Editor 2 from "ground operations" to "ground operation" (Oct 14)
Editor 3 from "ground operation" back to "invasion" (Oct 14)
Editor 1 from "invasion" back to "ground operations" (Oct 14)
Ecrusized moves "ground operations" back to "invasion" (Oct 30) - no edit summary, but it's a revert
Editor 4 moves back to "ground operations" (Oct 30)
Ecrusized moves from "ground operations" to "ground offensive" (Oct 30) - 1RR violation, 2nd revert that day. Edit summary "Looking for a concise name until discussion is opened." which is odd because it's not any more concise than the previous title, but the rest of the edit summary, "Title should clarify a single ops for the time being.", which shows intent to revert the move to "ground operations" (plural)
Ecrusized opens RM a few minutes later proposing a move from "offensive" to "invasion".

Plain-old move warring, also moving a title from A to B, then opening an RM proposing a move from B to C, is kind of WP:GAMEy (because you'll get consensus for either B or C, with A not considered unless someone else notices and brings it up). It should have stayed at A and the proposal should have been from A to C. The RM ended up being SNOW-moved to C anyhow.

Here is how Ecrusized describes this AE at the article talk page, which I think gives a window into the mindset. Infobox parameter edit warring and move warring are disruptive, but these examples aren't that disruptive and there are other good edits besides. I think as it's a first trip to AE for a relatively inexperienced editor, just needs to be clued in to expectations about these sorts of things in this topic are. Take 1RR seriously, especially invitations to self-revert. Don't blow them off. Levivich (talk) 04:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Ecrusized

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

Unless I'm missing something, the actions complained about took place on or before 2 November but they weren't alerted to CTOP until today (about 40 minutes before this request was made)? If so then there isn't anything to do here. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Requesting CTOP sanctions demonstrates that they're clearly aware of the CTOP sanctions. I'm interested to read their statement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized, you have no statement on why you've broken 1RR multiple times? This isn't really an "ignore it and it goes away" situation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ecrusized, please do not comment in other editors' sections. All replies should be in your own section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A lot seems to hinge on how we define a revert here. By a strict definition, any removal of content could be a revert. Are there diffs of the edits that were reverted here? Especially as no two of the edits are the same. It doesn't seem like Ecrusized has been edit warring over the inclusion of exclusion of particular content. I'd also be interested in any evidence that these edits are disruptive in and of themselves if anyone wants to present any. Otherwise I'm not sure anything here is actionable, at least not beyond the level of words of advice from an admin about the 1RR and general expectations in CTOP areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
courtesy ping @Levivich and BilledMammal:. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My biggest concern is the unwillingness to engage on their talk page. Editors must be able to engage when dealing with CTOPs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if they might be more willing to take advice from an uninvolved admin than from an editor they perceive as badgering them? If we can solve the problem with education and advice rather than enforcement, that would be my preference; which is not to say that we can't use the stick if the carrot is ineffective. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:55, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't always an involved administrator handy, and I've always thought it best when things can be solved without admin intervention. I think an assurance from Ecrusized that they're going to engage when issues are brought up, even by those who disagree with them on content, and an informal warning to keep an eye on 1rr is sufficient here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Infinity Knight #2

Appeal declined. Infinity Knight is cautioned that further appeals made prior to six months from today's date are likely to be considered disruptive and lead to further sanctions, up to and including an indefinite block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appealing user: Infinity Knight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Infinity Knight (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: You are indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed.; You have been sanctioned because you have repeatedly attempted to weaponize administrative processes within the topic area, after a previous warning:

Attempt to sanction topic-area opponent for policy-compliant edit (I AGF on this one, but presented for context)
Warned by Bishonen for civil POV-pushing in an attempt to sanction a topic-area opponent
Attempt to sanction the same opponent as in (1), under the same misapplication of policy, for conduct that was even less objectionable than the first time.
More selective misapplication of policy, this time against the admin who told you that you were wrong in (3)

Previous appeal

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive324#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Infinity_Knight

Administrator imposing the sanction

Tamzin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Johnuniq (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrators :

[20]
[21]

Statement by Infinity Knight

Regarding (1) & (3), I visited Tamzin's talk page under sub-section titled Inquiry I used the phrase "Are there any concerns related to original research? Your input is appreciated". I did not support or recommend imposing sanctions on another user.

Regarding (4), I acknowledge that exercised poor judgment in relation to (4). Tamzin mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. Nevertheless, I hold the view that administrators should be accountable to the community. It is essential to emphasize that I did not endeavor to "misrepresent policy".

Tamzin mentioned that my involvement in administrative processes related to this topic area lacked the necessary detachment. I was directed to the AE discussions by ScottishFinnishRadish here, the idea of "draconian" measures caught my interest. As a WikiKnight, my main objective is to foster a positive and harmonious editing environment on Wikipedia while upholding the platform's fundamental content policies, such as neutrality, verifiability, and reliability.

Finally, I will abstain from commenting during AE discussions unless an administrator requests my input.

Having been part of this community for some time, I would value an impartial assessment of the provided diffs. Infinity Knight (talk) 04:08, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Didnt we just do this? nableezy - 19:56, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

This catches me midway through my drive to WikiConference North America, so I can't respond at length, but I think my response to last week's appeal still applies. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 20:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

I don't see how this materially differs from the previous appeal. As Johnuniq said in the that appeal: There has been too much wasted time dealing with this user….[22] I suggest they appeal after several months of editing in other areas. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Infinity Knight

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

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Infinity Knight

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

This is the same appeal as the one declined last week. @Infinity Knight: unless you have substantive new material to provide this will at best be closed with no action. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unless some significant new information is provided in the next day or so this should be speedily declined. I would also suggest requiring a minimum of six months quality editing in unrelated areas before the next appeal. Thryduulf (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doing this over again after a week is pretty disruptive and shows blatant disregard for the time and patience of other editors. I strongly support Thryduulf's suggestion of six months of quality editing in unrelated areas, and/or in the sister projects, before the next appeal. At least. A block for disruptive editing isn't off the table either, AFAIC. Bishonen | tålk 20:50, 10 November 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Brandmeister

Brandmeister is topic-banned from all Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-related articles, broadly construed. Number 5 7 15:04, 14 November 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 Brandmeister

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Brandmeister (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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

19:43, 7 November 2023 under the excuse of "rimming excessive details", Brandmeister removes any mention of Melikdoms of Karabakh, Siege of Stepanakert, and the Shusha massacre from the lead

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

23 October 2023 Page ban for 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh and its associated subpages by Vanamonde

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

A broad TBAN for Armenia-Azerbaijan articles was considered in the discussion for Brandmeister's page ban and Brandmeister linked the AA3 page when asking about the page ban's scope

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Last month, Brandmeister was given a page ban for an Armenia-Azerbaijan article, for making offensive statements (comparing ethnic cleansing victims to economic migrants), misciting sources to push a POV, forum shopping, and boomerang after reciving a logged warning.[23][24] The consensus of the previous AE discussion was that another warning would be insufficent, but a broad indef topic ban would be too much at that point.

And now, a few weeks later, Brandmeister made a huge POV pushing edit on the Battle of Shusha (2020) article lead just in time for it to appear on the main page for "on this day". Brandmeister claimed to be removing excessive details, but the edit didn't even do that because the article still has the same 6 paragraphs when it should be 4 at most (MOS:LEADLENGTH). In actuality, Brandmeister's edit removed mention of Melikdoms of Karabakh, Siege of Stepanakert, and the Shusha massacre from the lead, but lines like "Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population" were kept in the lead. It would've been one thing if this were a true trimming edit that condensed the background of the lead, but Brandmeister removed the massacre of Armenians in 1920 and the siege in 1991-92 that are directly relevant to the conflict, while keeping that the city was considered so special by Azerbaijanis in 1800. This is very clear POV pushing. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[25]

Discussion concerning Brandmeister

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 Brandmeister

Regarding the edit in question MOS:INTRO says clearly that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article" and that "Editors should avoid [...] overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Here quite clearly melikdoms of Karabakh, siege of Stepanakert and the Shusha massacre are not directly related to the 2020 battle itself and belong to the Shusha article itself. From a NPOV point too, it's better to explain such details within relevant context rather than in the succinct summary style of the lead section. All three topics are already mentioned below in the article anyway, so if anything, this should be discussed at article's talkpage rather than bringing the issue here. Brandmeister^talk 00:03, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron, for the record, the wording "self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh" is not my introduced change, it was already present in the article's previous version as edited by KhndzorUtogh. The Republic of Artsakh article itself defines it as a breakaway state. Brandmeister^talk 11:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron, HJ Mitchell, I provided an edit summary for my edit, particularly citing WP:DETAIL. On a general note, it strikes me that a single edit after which I dropped the issue is suddenly considered a sanctionable POV pushing. WP:POVPUSH has been clear on that: "the aggressive presentation of a particular point of view", with an italic emphasis on the word "aggressive". Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3#Tendentious editing also describes it as "sustained aggressive point-of-view editing". Personally I've never reported a user over a single edit during my 10+ years of editing. Brandmeister^talk 20:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Grandmaster

I don't think that trimming of excessive background information from the lede by Brandmeister was selective. He removed the details that had no direct relation to the 2020 event, but left the part that said: Until the middle of the 19th century, the city was considered the cultural and political centre of the regional Azerbaijani population, as well as one of the two main cities of the Transcaucasus for Armenians. As one can see, significance for both Azerbaijani and Armenian population remained briefly mentioned after the edit by Brandmeister. The lede is not supposed to contain too much information on the history of the conflict, which I believe was the purpose of Brandmeister's edit. Grandmaster 09:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "self-declared / self-proclaimed" is a regular term used to describe this entity by the mainstream international media, for example CNN: [26], BBC: [27], Al Jazeera: [28], Reuters: [29], The Financial Times: [30], The Washington Post: [31], etc. Grandmaster 14:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Brandmeister

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

The selective removal of information of information on ethnic cleansing from the third paragraph (removing reference to ethnic cleansing of Armenians but retaining the details of it happening to Azerbaijanis) is pretty clear POV pushing and shouldn't be tolerated. I'd support widening the topic ban to all Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-related articles. Number 5 7 01:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Number 57 hits it on the head, plus they changed Artsakh to self-proclaimed Republic of Artsakh for not much reason. Support topic ban. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Brandmeister: Sure, but why add in another reference to Artsakh being "self-proclaimed"? Does it need to be qualified at every mention? Your statement seems to boil down to "this was a completely neutral edit, nothing to see here", but I don't know that I buy that (despite some of the changes being uncontroversially positive). Why did you remove the references to the Shusha massacre of Armenians, but not the 1992 expulsion of Azeris? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with my esteemed colleagues and fellow root vegetable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The edit itself doesn't raise any eyebrows for me. Pruning lead sections is a normal part of the editorial process. But making an edit you know is likely to be controversial, at a time when the article is about to increase in visibility, and when your conduct in the topic area is already under scrutiny strikes me as poor judgement at best and tendentious editing at worst. I'd be willing to listen to a defence but so far I see a good case for the proposed topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Number57, not acceptable - topic ban from the whole AA area. Enough is enough, I think. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the other admins above - topic ban from the entire area seems sensible at this point. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SamwiseGSix

Tgeorgescu is hereby warned for disruptive editing in the form of battleground behaviour and incivility in the area of pseudoscience; continued battleground behaviour will result in further sanctions. It is suggested to SamwiseGSix that their editing abilities might be better used elsewhere. Both SamwiseGSix and Tgeorgescu are warned to follow/respect the conduct rules related to the AE venue. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:30, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning SamwiseGSix

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:ARBPS

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

[32] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI;
[33] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI;
[34] 13 November 2023—whitewashing contrary to WP:PSCI.

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 [35] 29 October 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

If Anthroposophy cannot be called pseudoscience and quackery, then nothing can.

@Theleekycauldron: I have posted at WP:FTN and WP:RSN about it, but most people don't seem to care.

Administrator note Un-commented-out as caeciliusinhorto replied to this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And the point of my mockery is not mocking them as a person, but showing that their POV is so utterly absurd for those from the reality-based community that it is highly incompatible with Wikipedia (see WP:LUNATICS for details). Yup, Anthroposophists perceive Wikipedia as unjust and me as Mr. Injustice, but there is no way Wikipedia could write articles about Anthroposophy which they would like. I'm simply human, and the failure to get the point time after time wears my patience down. And that's what they did: they politely refused to get the point each and every time. "You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic." Robert A. Heinlein.

They want to insert a wedge between WP:PSCI and WP:NPOV. All their edits are like asking a Catholic church to preach Salafism, or asking a Baptist church to preach Santeria. In the end, Wikipedia has a POV, and that POV is WP:MAINSTREAM.

About [36]: for me it is crystal-clear that they consider the guideline WP:FRINGE as an affront to Anthroposophy. My remark was making them clear that they cannot eat their cake and still have it. E.g., I don't like the article abortion. But since I'm not editing it, I don't create troubles in respect to such topic.

Have you read "Why Does Wikipedia Want to Destroy Deepak Chopra?" If Anthroposophists don't complain that Wikipedia wants to destroy Rudolf Steiner, we are doing a bad job. If anything can be said about the two men is that Chopra is considerably less fringe than Steiner. Chopra never belonged to völkisch Wagner clubs, and has never claimed to be a clairvoyant.

"but not specifically warned against mentioning x-risk yet " ([37])? See [38]. This farce has gone too far.

I'm not mocking a living person, but a guru who died almost a century ago.

Administrator note Un-commented-out as I replied to this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JPxG: They have toned down their initial proposal. What I objected is that they wanted Wikipedia to endorse the ontology and the epistemology of Anthroposophy, and I consider their wish totally not done. What others have objected is that their proposed edits fail WP:V. Full context is: And if you are here to deny atomic theory in the name of Goethean science: go away, don't waste ~~out~~ our time with such nonsense. I consider their idea bad enough, but nobody else seems to care. I mean: denying atomic theory in the talk pages should not happen at Wikipedia, but at Uncyclopedia. I got offended by their wish to accept such claims within the pages of Wikipedia. Again, that's stuff for Uncyclopedia and I'm not going to tolerate it inside Wikipedia. There is https://www.freewiki.eu which is more accepting of their views. I know they mean it, since the founder of Anthroposophy was an enemy of the atomic theory. Source: [39]. Diff: [40]: I don't know what they meant, but they seem to imply that anti-atomism is a credible scientific theory.

Bona fide offer: [41]. I talk too much, so restricting the number of words is a good idea.

@Tamzin: There is a lot of vitriol in fringe/pseudoscience topics. I'm by far not the worst offender, many others go unnoticed. Sometimes I do feel offended by what other editors say about what should be included. Of course, that's not an excuse for mocking their POVs, but some POVs really do not belong at Wikipedia. And I don't have a neat solution for telling them that their POV is unwelcome.

@Theleekycauldron: I don't beat around the bush: I know that some POVs are unwelcome. I don't know how to make this clear to those having those POVs. Maybe they simply cannot get this point. I think the very attempt to persuade them they're Wikipedically wrong is fundamentally wrong. Yes, I did employ irony, but it was an attempt at persuasion. Perhaps persuasion is wrong. I think this is the lesson from WP:AE: I should not try to persuade them. That's a sad truth about human rationality. It seems that my whole approach based upon rational persuasion is flat-out wrong.

I was wrong: some people don't want to learn that their POVs are unwelcome, nor what WP:FRINGE means, nor how to WP:CITE WP:RS which do WP:V their claims ([42]). Formerly at WP:CIR used to be a section about biased-based failures to comply with our rules. So, I don't say that SamwiseGSix is irrational, but they simply cannot get the point due to their own bias. I wasn't even trying to persuade them they are wrong in the real-objective world, but simply wrong according to Wikipedia.

My mistake is thinking that every newbie is eager to learn how to edit Wikipedia according to the WP:RULES. But many newbies simply want a quick fix to a PR issue.

@Ealdgyth: I do recognize that my approach was wrong. Although I did not do it out of bad faith.

It was wrong for me to try to convince them they're mistaken.

I should have used dispute resolution instead of trying to convince them they're wrong.

I realize now that asking an antivaxxer or germ theory denialist to understand that their POV is doomed according to WP:NPOV is too much to ask. Their whole worldview prevents them from learning that WP:NPOV does not endorse their POV, instead it dooms it. Failing to notice this was a big mistake on my behalf.

I can get the point that my POV is unwelcome at abortion, other people can't.

racist pseudoscience wasn't my edit, but a result of a talk page discussion wherein several editors have participated. So, yeah, I would like to get the credit for that edit, but it wasn't in fact mine.

I'm not baiting the other party. I was simply explaining that my attempt to convince people of things they are not prepared to understand was wrong. I told them real facts about Wikipedia, but they cannot comprehend those facts. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[43] 13 November 2023.

Discussion concerning SamwiseGSix

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 SamwiseGSix

Hello everyone - simply seeking a rational and reasonably balanced NPOV here leveraging mainstream academic research, as the first intro sentence of the second paragraph is currently classifying the topic of the article flatly and comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience' despite the founder's many leading anti-racist statements for his time, as both academic critics and proponents acknowledge. A more balanced WP:NPOV with fair recognition of WP:PSCI would arguably concede classifications of pseudoscience in many areas ('much of Anthroposophy is pseudoscientific') as currently written in the first intro paragraph, but avoid a comprehensive classification of 'racist pseudoscience' [period .] as currently written in 2nd which would be ignoring the academic research; much of which highlights the many leading anti-racist statements for the founder's time, often well ahead of his contemporaries/predecessors (President Wilson, K. Marx/Engalls et al on race etc) often still cited academically today. This flat/comprehensive classification results in unfair spin, arguably not adhering with the WP:NPOV standard for the Encyclopedia. I hope this makes sense overall? Not seeking to flout any rules or 'whitewash' (this term generally implies the coverup of a scandal or crime of some kind, right) in any way but rather simply seeking to bring a reasonable, balanced NPOV standard into play including in intro of second paragraph.

In considering the science, a significant amount of peer reviewed academic research has been published empirically measuring the positive affects of applying these insights in fields including education (3000 Waldorf Schools around the world, NYTimes and Independent.co.uk coverage etc), environmental conservation (Rachel Carson 'Silent Spring' impact w/ Marjorie Spock et al), banking (economists co-published with admins at central banks etc) and more. Although some of the related ideas from the movement are classifiable as 'pseudoscientific' by today's standards (as the intro paragraph does) there are many aspects of the body of work here that are scientifically measurable by our academic standards and significant minority opinions today. The comprehensive and wholesale classification of the entire movement and body of knowledge as just flatly 'racist psuedoscience' [.] is then arguably very unfair, and very arguably does not adhere to Wikipedia's very important WP:NPOV community standard. Please do let me know what your thoughts are - I do very much hope to be able to continue contributing constructively to Wikipedia including on this important page, which also deserves the treatment of a fair NPOV standard, thank you for your time and consideration. (I had not denied atomic theory or sought to drive any implications in this area - neither had I requested a sweeping endorsement of all ontology or epistemology. I had however been as a new editor consistently mocked/insulted and quite constantly subjected to highly inappropriate and disruptive battleground conduct etc though by the filing editor - hopefully this would be addressed with logged warning as discussed and actively prevented including with reasonable possible restrictions going forward as well)

I consistently WP:CITE extensive WP:RS for WP:V and WP:NPOV without bias in accordance with the WP:RULES. As quick final supplement this journal article helps highlight the anti-racist statements and also underscores through deep rationality the importance of a fair NPOV for this page in this pivotal time/moment, including helping solve for human 'x-risk' which I thought I'd not been warned against mentioning as a keyword specifically, and which is also very arguably directly relevant/critical still to improving the article: "The Urgency of Social Threefolding in a World Still at War with Itself".. https://cosmosandhistory.org/index.php/journal/article/view/1069/1723 SamwiseGSix (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not anti-vax nor am I here to discuss germ theory, abortion, atomic theory, or any of the other unrelated subjects the filing editor continues seeking to bring up, a practice which those reviewing have already raised concerns about - yes this does appear to be a baiting attempt of some kind. I am here to address the misapplication of NPOV standard the filing editor has attempted to enforce on this page in seeking to classify the entire body of knowledge around page topic flatly/comprehensively as 'racist pseudoscience', despite the many academic sources demonstrating the contrary including through a vast body of documented anti-racist statements, generally far ahead of contemporaries/predecessors including US President W. Wilson and K Marx/Engels et al.

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

tgeorgescu says I have posted at WP:FTN and WP:RSN about it, but most people don't seem to care. I will note that I saw a couple of those threads but didn't engage. This one from RSN illustrates the issue nicely, I think. To open that thread, tgeorgescu linked to an ongoing discussion at Talk:Anthroposophy#Epistemology, Ontology etc, which at the time looked like this: 45kb wikitext, nearly 5000 words, 100+ comments almost exclusively of back-and-forth between tgeorgescu and SamwiseGSix. It isn't difficult to see why most editors did not want to engage in this. The point at which a talkpage discussion between two people who do not agree becomes unproductive is way before they've each made fifty comments. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SamwiseGSix

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

I recognize that keeping the pseudoscientists out is probably one of the longest standing aspects of Wikipedia subculture, but boy do I not like the conduct of either party at Talk:Anthroposophy. I'm not going to deny that a large extent of SamwiseGSix's contribs seem to be POV pushing against the scientific consensus (although, as one user noted in the RSN thread, they're doing so with what at a glance look to be rather reputable sources) – but goodness, tgeorgescu, an editor of your experience should know better than to spend that much time and ink mocking a new user's beliefs and throwing every template you can find at them (and apparently the contents of a whole essay). Stuff like this isn't exactly helpful, either. If you think you've found a troublemaker, and you can clearly see that talk page discussion isn't going to turn up positive results, post to a noticeboard or find an admin on your own. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna write out a whole thing, but Tamzin said it better. Tgeorgescu could've easily walked away from this whole situation with strong consensus for his version and maybe even sanctions for SamwiseGSix, depending on how unwilling they were to abide by that consensus. But instead, they bludgeoned their way through talk, RSN, and FTN, with a clear tone of disrespect and sometimes incivility – and then they doubled down on all of it here. A logged warning to the filer would be appropriate, and the polite suggestion seems reasonable given that there's not much of a case for something stronger. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:10, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@tgeorgescu: Going forward, I'd recommend leafing through WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and picking the options you think are best. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go along with leeky here - when things start going around in circles in a discussion, the best thing to do is to get outside input. Frankly, I don't care enough to dig further into the details about what Anthroposophy IS to figure out if it is really fringe or not - not an area where I care to invest my time. But the way this dispute has been laid out, it doesn't make it easy for me to see that either editor is "wrong" enough to sanction. Frankly, tgeorgescu, your way to setting out the dispute is unhelpful. Why are you constantly quoting other editors - the use of quotes of other editors just serves to obscfurcate the issue rather than ellucidating it. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with a logged warning at the least. I could also go with a topic ban from the whole topic area of pseudoscience, but even if it's just a logged warning, I'd like for tgeorgescu to take on board that they need to stop the battleground approach to this topic area (that of pseudoscience broadly speaking) - we should not be mocking editors or subjects, no matter how wrong they are. If you think that mocking is needed, you've probably gotten into a battleground mindset and should step back until you don't feel the need to mock. 20:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
Can I ask that both editors stop fidgeting with their statements, please? It's ... not helpful and it makes it hard to keep track of what's being said when it's constantly under flux. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Samwise - you need to stop making comments such as "If he is indeed whitewashing for such truly fascist and anti-human activity" or "which seems to make the filing editor uncomfortable" which is just as battlegroundy as the editor who filed this. A very good rule for editing conflicts is to NOT comment on the other editor or speculate on their motivations. We're not here to "win" a debate/battle/whatever. Given this - I'm inclined to warn both editors for battleground behavior. Please stop commenting on the other editor and stick to the sources. If you reach an sticking point - the steps/advice at WP:DISPUTE are helpful and good steps to take. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Your comment that you are "not mocking a living person, but a guru who died almost a century ago" is illustrative of the disconnect here. We're not here to mock anyone. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Sometimes that involves debunking pseudoscience, in mainspace and on talkpages, sometimes in ways that would offend the purveyors of that pseudoscience, but Wikipedia is not a debate club or a skeptics' subreddit. As Ealdgyth says, if you're talking in circles, you should get feedback then, not after 5,000 words of debate. You don't get any points for "winning" the argument. Samwise suggested getting a third opinion on 30 October, and you responded by linking to two blog posts rather than taking them up on that.
My overall take here is that this is a content dispute, and that, if discussion continues, both parties should be encouraged to seriously moderate the amount they write. Keep comments short and to the matter under discussion: "I think source X supports statement Y because Z"; "I think source X is actually unreliable because W". If one wants to debate the philosophical underpinnings of anthroposophy, or the failure of organic agriculture in Sri Lanka or whether arguments at Waldorf schools are the result of gnomes, there are plenty of forums online for that, but a Wikipedia talkpage is not one. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 02:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: It really seems like you're treating this like a battleground. There's some CTOPs where that perception might be inevitable, but I don't think this is one of them. The community is overwhelmingly anti-pseudoscience, and there is no organized effort to promote this particular fringe viewpoint on-wiki, as far as I can tell. (The related Waldorf education discretionary sanctions were repealed almost 2 years ago, having not been used since 2014.) Rather, this just reads like you brow-beating someone for being Wrong, jumping through tangentially related topics in order to score points, in a way that does not relate to building an encyclopedia. And it continues, in this thread! Where does atomic theory come into this? You're the one who brought that up, on three separate occasions now, which just seems like bait. The fact that you're continuing to argue all of this here, as I and others tell you that such conduct is unhelpful, is concerning. And I'm not saying Samwise's conduct is great, but it's hard to follow the logic for sanctions when it comes draped in layers of superiority. At this point I'm inclined to close this with a logged warning to you for disruptive editing in the form of excessive arguing and battleground conduct, and a polite suggestion to Samwise that their editing abilities may be better-suited elsewhere. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Re your offer on my talk, I think such a sanction would be only, essentially, treating the symptoms. The issue isn't that you have extraordinarily strong feelings about anthroposophy. We have a broad but shallow issue here, not a deep but narrow one. Broad because it covers all of fringe/pseudoscience topics, shallow because this is something you can fix on your own without a need for any formal sanctions. And I guess I'll add a third, dimension: complex. Word count is only a proxy for the problem, and an imperfect one at that: There can be constructive discussions that run 5k+ words, and disruptive discussions that run only a few comments. The issue is how you are treating your peers, no more, no less. You are an experienced editor and I'm hoping that an AE warning could serve as a wake-up call that fighting pseudoscience is not an exception from our user conduct policies. You are still expected to have civil discussions on article talkpages built around what should or should not be in the article (not built on whether another user's actual or perceived POV is stupid, nor what other things they might believe), and to seek dispute resolution in a timely, civil, and non-bludgeoning fashion if you reach an impasse. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 19:33, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@SamwiseGSix: Ealdgyth already asked you to stop editing your comments after they've been replied to, and yet you continue [44] [45] [46]. If you keep doing so, I will block you from editing this page. (In the spirit of even-handedness, I'll put @Tgeorgescu on notice about this too, but I respect that he has not made any such edits since Ealdgyth's request, and appreciate this.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 01:43, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, @SamwiseGSix and @Tgeorgescu, you're both well past your word count. Enough. Please don't comment again (including in response to this message) unless asked a direct question by an uninvolved admin. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 18:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am uncomfortable with the amount of hostility in comments like the ones linked above, as well as "go away, don't waste our time with such nonsense" (at Talk:Anthroposophy). If someone is really so bad that they deserve comments like this, they're bad enough to warrant escalating the dispute, so why just sit there on the talk page and insult them? jp×g 🗯️ 06:06, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

82.45.48.180

82.45.48.180 hard blocked for 3 months. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning 82.45.48.180

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:00, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: 82.45.48.180 (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

19:04, 23 October 2023 States as fact in Patrick Ryan (Irish priest) that he was a "terrorist", he is also a living person
14:39, 30 October 2023 Repeats previous edit
14:40, 30 October 2023 Repeats previous edit
17:22, 13 November 2023 Repeats previous edit

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked on 03:21, March 31, 2023

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

Notifed at 14:44, October 30, 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor has been using a variety of IP addresses since February 2023, including 82.46.125.57 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 81.141.173.209 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and 109.158.169.88 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have created a page at User:Kathleen's bike/IPs that shows the editing similarites between the IPs, a sockpuppetry report would achieve little at preseent since people are allowed to use different IPs. However it does demonstrate the long history of disruption from this editor. They have been directed to WP:LABEL/WP:TERRORIST three occasions by three different editors, on 13:05, April 30, 2023, 14:58, May 11, 2023 and 14:44, October 30, 2023. Their user talk page messages of 09:46, April 30, 2023 and 14:58, May 11, 2023 show they receive messages, so there can be no excuse of being unaware of the objections to their edits. The history of the four known IPs show this disruptive editing has been going on for a long time, and in my opinion needs to be curtailed.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here

Discussion concerning 82.45.48.180

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 82.45.48.180

Statement by (username)

Result concerning 82.45.48.180

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

This is a long history of nationalist POV-pushing across several IPs. A particularly troubling detail is that it's the same few kinds of edits each time (viz. terrorism-labeling, nationality-warring, and the fringe view that "British rule" is an inaccurate way to describe pre-Republic Ireland), showing that this editor is not taking the hint from reverts, nor from Ad Orientem's block in March. I am inclined to block the IP for 3 months, with the understanding that that should be treated as an indef against the editor behind the IP—but will hold back at least briefly to give them a chance to explain why such a sanction is not necessary to prevent disruption. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|she) 05:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Tamzin here - unless the editor-behind-the-IP weighs in with something super-contrite-and-game-changing, a three month (or more) block seems sound. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:21, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree fully with my colleagues above; and I'd add that although I don't currently see a range block that would fix anything, that is an option we should keep in mind if further IPs pop up. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based guyy

Based guyy blocked by Rosguill for 1 week for ARBPIA violations, notified about ARBEE. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request concerning Based guyy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pppery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:44, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Based guyy (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:ARBPIA4

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

21:06, 16 November 2023 They make an edit to an Arab-Isreali conflict page despite not being extended-confirmed, although they aren't aware at this point
17:08, 17 November 2023 They reinstate the edits after my revert
21:17, 17 November 2023 They reinstate the edits again (also violating 1RR)

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 02:41, 17 November 2023‎ (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This may be a WP:THEYCANTHEARYOU issue. But on the other hand their edit summaries clearly show they are aware of the fact that someone reverted them.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

User talk:Based guyy#Notice of Arbitration Enforcement noticeboard discussion

Discussion concerning Based guyy

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 Based guyy

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Based guyy

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

Blocked one week for the clear-cut ARBPIA violations. I also notice they've devoted a fair amount of attention to Balkan conflict topics and have issued an ARBEE warning as well, although I have not examined these edits in depth. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vaikunda Raja

No action necessary. RegentsPark (comment) 18:32, 21 November 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 Vaikunda Raja

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Robert McClenon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation

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

Vaikunda Raja requests Deletion Review of Annamalai Kuppusamy. This is not disruptive at this point: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183108503&oldid=1183086709

A lengthy reply which ends I would like to suggest experienced users here to act responsibly., perhaps implying that declining the request is irresponsible: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183153859&oldid=1183141620

Another call to act responsibly: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183155615&oldid=1183153859

A rambling post that says nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183335678&oldid=1183256322

Admits that their lack of command of English may contribute to excessive length of posts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183486377&oldid=1183485221

Another reply, which is by this point in bludgeon territory: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1183782213&oldid=1183656692

A long argument with Daniel, who had said to leave the article deleted rather than restore it: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADeletion_review%2FLog%2F2023_November_2&diff=1185845826&oldid=1185776564

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

None to the best of my knowledge

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 15 February 2023:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1139453247&oldid=1134585236

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This editor is bludgeoning a Deletion Review about an article on an Indian politician, and has been cautioned by multiple editors that their posts are too long, and are not useful. They have replied to the effect that their English is limited, and this requires them to use more words. This raises competence issues, as well as the battleground nature of replying to almost every post.

The DRV is at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Annamalai_Kuppusamy.

The AFD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Annamalai (I.P.S).

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AVaikunda_Raja&diff=1185934338&oldid=1171460010

Discussion concerning Vaikunda Raja

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 Vaikunda Raja

Statement by Cryptic

As the user directly being bludgeoned at in some of the diffs above - and having just stumbled across this quite by accident - I advise leniency. This didn't directly affect any articles, it was well within DRV participants' ability to handle, and part of the fault was mine: since I read DRV mostly in diffs, I didn't immediately recognize the google links in the initial drv request as attempts to link to coverage in specific news sources and so was more dismissive than I ought to have been in my first response. The second diff above (the first of two Robert labels "act responsibly") was their first edit to the page after that response. —Cryptic 10:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Vaikunda Raja

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

Closing with no action per Cryptic's comment and the fact that the DRV is closed.RegentsPark (comment) 18:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster

No action taken, but a reminder to watch the tone of edit summaries and discussions. We're dealing with articles about real people and real suffering. Please keep that in mind. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:23, 22 November 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 Wee Curry Monster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wee Curry Monster (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 (1RR)

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

11:20, 21 November 2023 revert of this
11:25, 20 November 2023 revert of this

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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

reported a user for 1RR
Notified of the CT designation

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I would have left this unreported, but the user declined to self revert and simply removed the notification on their user talk of the violation. Additionally, the second revert listed here was removed on such spurious grounds that had there already been an ARBPIA notification prior to it I think it would have merited sanctions by itself, with a user claiming a video that the NYTimes says they conducted extensive independent verification of was obviously faked ... appallingly bad acting. But regardless of that, this is a 1RR violation that the user has declined to correct.

asking that you stop repeating the offensive claims that Palestinians are faking their suffering and that nothing they report can be trusted isn’t baiting, it’s asking you to stop providing your personal opinions on talk pages. nableezy - 21:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

im fine with that too. nableezy - 23:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Wee Curry Monster

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 Wee Curry Monster

I didn't believe I'd violated the 1RR restriction. As far as editing goes, I have long maintained a personal policy of sticking to 1RR in general. The only exception is to revert obvious vandalism.

[47] I removed what I genuinely believed were fake videos, that were self-published on Instagram and appeared to be a violation of WP:SPS. I was somewhat surprised to be reverted, so took to the talk page. After I received an explanation for their presence with reference to the NYT article I remain sceptical but accepted the explanation and was quite prepared to leave it at that point.

This was clearly a WP:BOLD edit following by WP:BRD and its more than a stretch to claim I was revert warring. I accepted Iskandar323's explanation; you might wish to note I thanked [48] Iskandar323 for their help.

I was then subjected to personal attacks eg [49] by the person making this report. These seem to be an attempt to bait me, so after I initially responded I disengaged leaving Nableezy to have the WP:LASTWORD, which they duly did [50]. I'm not the only person to have felt the tone of the discussion directed at me was unnecessary and unhelpful [51].

It is also untrue that I was continuing to make a non-policy based argument for removal. I made no further argument for removal, I was responding to comments, which I now recognise was a mistake. I also further clarified this morning I was not arguing for removal or intending to make a case for removal. [52]. I invite AE to make their own conclusion why my comments are being misrepresented

[53] yes this is a revert, 1RR. I have no intention of making further reverts per my personal policy. I also note that it misrepresents what the person said by omitting crucial context.

I also clarified my misunderstanding of 1RR with Cryptic this morning, because I made a 1RR report after 3 of my edits were reverted by another editor in 3 consecutive edits. I acknowledge that in my report my understanding of 1RR was flawed. And I'll be honest I didn't look at the diffs, presuming they referred to 2 consecutive edits I made at the time.

On my talk page, I have long had a policy of removing notices, I don't tend to archive them, there is a clear message on my page to that effect.

“

If I've deleted your message, basically that means I've read it and nothing else. I do tend to delete what I regard as niff naff and trivia.

”

I drew attention to this in my edit summary [54] rm per my normal policy.

If I were to acknowledge a mistake here, which is worthy of a WP:TROUT, is that I should have ignored the niggling and remained disengaged. I'm not going to put AE into an awkward position, so I'll reluctantly restore what I know is misleading. Hopefully an editor in good standing will remove it. W C M_email 21:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To amplify my statement, I realise that 1RR is interpreted strictly by AE in this area, understand the reasons for the restriction and why it is enforced rigorously. I'll also acknowledge my intention to review warnings with more care in future and to fully abide by the ARBPIA restrictions. I'll also be much more careful in future to make sure I don't inadvertently cross a line. I already take a strict view on reversions, with a personal restriction to 1RR that I've maintained for nearly 10 years, I will be doubly wary in future. W C M_email 22:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Wee Curry Monster

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

@Wee Curry Monster: Technically, Nableezy is correct, you violated the 1RR. It may not be the same content and I would believe that you had no intention of violating it. We perhaps take a stricter definition of it in ARBPIA than other areas. Now that you know that, and now that it's been pointed out that the video has been verified by a reliable source, would you care to revise your statement? Given that this is your first trip here related to ARBPIA, I'd be happy to chalk this up to a misunderstanding as long as I can be sure that the misunderstanding is resolved. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:29, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given WCM's additional statement (which just hit the top of my watchlist, hence the very quick response), I don't see a need for formal action here. They seem to have got the point and there's nothing to stop anyone re-reporting if necessary in the future. I'll leave it open overnight (UTC) in case any other admin wants to comment but I intend to close with no action if there are no objections. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with HJ Mitchell's proposed resolution. While there was a violation, it appears to have been quite unintentional, and now that it's been made clear I don't think there will be a repeat. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with HJ Mitchell's proposed resolution as well. --TheSandDoctor ^Talk 23:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're going to close this without action, though fault was found--I'm sure Wee Curry Monster will be more careful next time. I will say this: I have no doubt that some of the tone by Nableezy and perhaps others can be explained by what seems to me to be a rather callous and offhand remark: "they're obvious fakes". Apparently they're not fakes, and there's nothing obvious about it, and these are videos (well, I only looked at the first one) of human beings suffering. WCM would do well to consider that their edit summary likely set the tone for later comments, and to learn from this. Drmies (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by 89.206.112.10

Appeal declined. This is the wrong venue to ask ArbCom to clarify something. 89.206.112.10 is advised that the WP:ECR restriction is indeed generally interpreted so as to ban almost all non-EC editing of talk pages. Galobtter (talk) 03:25, 23 November 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: 89.206.112.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Extended confirmed restriction procedure interpreted in a way that results in a complete talk page ban of all non-EC users.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Example (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 89.206.112.10

I an attempt to comply with a Request for Comment, I was notified that when an article is subject to extended confirmed restriction, all non-EC editors are banned not only from editing the article, but from contributing to the talk pages as well.

I therefore ask the Committee to clarify its intened ruling with regards to the extended confirmed restriction procedure insofar as it states that

Non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace only to make edit requests related to articles.

This is a classic example of an amibiguous prepositional phrase, that can be understood to either mean in the "Talk:" namespace, nothing other than an edit request may be made or edit requests may not be made anywhere else than in the "Talk:" namespace.

In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are banned from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose this to be made clearly visible on the Request for Comments' entry of such topics, before effort is wasted to make a constructive contribution even though it was prohibited from the onset anyway.

In case that this ruling is meant to mean that non-EC users are allowd from participating in the discussion of any decreed topic area, I propose the procedure to be clarified with instructions on how to contribute constructively when the talk page is protected. 89.206.112.10 (talk) 09:01, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {{{User imposing the sanction}}}

Statement by Grandmaster

I don't think it makes much sense to allow IPs to vote in RFCs/AFDs on contentions topics. It opens doors to votestacking, canvassing, etc, as anyone can use an anonymous IP account to participate in a voting. The RFCs should be reserved for established users with a minimum of 500 edits history, which I understand was the idea behind this decision. Grandmaster 15:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by 89.206.112.10

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 Selfstudier

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 125#Clarification request: Extended confirmed restriction refers. The revised wording of is clear that the talk page can only be used for edit requests although previously, there was a specified list that included RFCs. Suggested best practice is to remove any contravening edits with an edit summary that at a minimum points to WP:ARBECR. Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C: Before it was clear that non ECs could not participate in any formal discussion, including AfDs, etcetera. Now it is a little less clear and relies on editorial judgement/admin action to enforce that while there is an implication that there may be some room for such participation, although I have a hard time seeing what that might usefully be. Whether that was intentional, I couldn't say, at one or two such non talk page discussions an admin has arrived and EC protected the page. Selfstudier (talk) 10:12, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: A bit of a tweak might be just the thing, make that the focus, rather than the talk page only.Selfstudier (talk) 16:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

I think that the ARBCOM motion was highly unsatisfactory and a case at ARCA is needed. As well as re-opening the door to anon/new editor disruption at AfDs and noticeboards, the part about article talk pages is poorly written and unworkable. The OP correctly noted an ambiguity, and also the definition of what is allowed is unclear. The link to WP:Edit requests suggests that only template-driven "change X to Y" requests are allowed, but good-faith new editors should be allowed to note a problem and leave it to experienced editors to decide how to fix it. If the strict definition of WP:Edit requests is not intended, then pretty much anything related to article content can be called an edit request. Zero^talk 11:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand this request, it is about participation in an RfC on an article talk page in ARBPIA. That was forbidden to IPs both before and after the recent rule changes so the appeal should be denied. Zero^talk 12:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor)

Result of the appeal by 89.206.112.10

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

I think it's fairly clear what was meant (the first of your two possibilities), but ultimately if you want to ask the Committee to clarify something, the place for that is WP:ARCA, not here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the restriction is indeed intended to ban almost all non-EC participation in those topic areas. Galobtter (talk) 00:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking through the latest motion, but I'm confused. Are non-EC users allowed to participate in talk pages of topic area process venues, or not? Surely, they cannot make edit requests to WT:AfD entries, etc., but that is not made expressly clear in the motion, as it did prior. Selfstudier, what's your take? Beyond that, as mentioned, this is obviously the wrong venue — the correct one is WP:ARCA (i.e. AE admins can't speak for the Committee). El_C 03:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Selfstudier, I knew it didn't make sense. El_C 12:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ECR says that all edits and pages related to the topic area are prohibited. The sole substantive exception is making edit requests on talk pages. @Zero0000: I'm open to copyediting it to make it more clear; please feel free to let me know on my talk page if you have suggestions. In any event, I would decline 89.206.112.10's appeal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]