Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:36, 14 April 2023

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Marcelus

Pofka subject to a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus and given a final warning that any further misconduct will almost certainly result in a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 9 April 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 Marcelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Pofka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:52, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Marcelus (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/Enforcement/Archive316#TrangaBellam (administrator explanation regarding the most recent sanctioning (in Poland-related topic): It "applies in the mainspace and relates to all articles related to Eastern Europe. (...) This restriction is indefinite, but I will be willing to reconsider after three months with no violations and no edit warring in other topic areas." (diff).

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

23:52, 12 March 2023. A proposal discussion was started by user Amakuru regarding my request to change article name of a Lithuanian noble Paweł Holszański (member of Lithuanian Alšėniškiai noble family) from a Polish language version (Paweł Holszański) to a Lithuanian language version (Povilas Alšėniškis) because per Google search it is WP:COMMONNAME (see: screenshots) and he was a Lithuanian noble.
09:00, 13 March 2023. Soon the proposal was opposed by user Marcelus who provided links to the Google searches by purposefully selecting "Search pages in English only" and this way excluding all Lithuanian language sources (which use Povilas Alšėniškis). This, of course, dramatically affected numbers and Lithuanian version was presented as allegedly not the most common version (this is clearly very important for other voters and movers). Since Google Scholar (and Google books) have too few sources about this Lithuanian noble, I think such action was not Wikipedia:Assume good faith.
09:02, 13 March 2023. He clarified: "Strong oppose", so likely unwilling to WP:COMPROMISE.
18:11, 13 March 2023. Following my additional explanation why the renaming is necessary, Marcelus replied and inserted statement that "Paweł Holszański was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble". This is very strong argument how his name should be written, right? Nevertheless, I found no such information in WP:RS (that he was a Polish, not Lithuanian language speaker) and requested Marcelus to provide WP:VERIFIABLE WP:RS supporting his claims to prove that it is not his own WP:OR or to cross that out.
20:28, 14 March 2023. Marcelus replied, but ignored my request about WP:RS, so it began looking like WP:IDONTHEARYOU, non-WP:NPOV WP:POVPUSH WP:NATIONALISM (one of its examples: "Famous person is or is not a member of group").
20:59, 14 March 2023: again ignored my request.
19:20, 15 March 2023: again ignored my request.
18:44, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.
19:59, 16 March 2023: again ignored my request.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

22:08, 11 February 2023 for WP:EW in Lithuania, Poland topics.
01:21, 17 July 2022 for WP:EW in Lithuania, Poland topics.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see: archived discussion). Multiple users agreed that Marcelus violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:GRUDGE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:NOTHERE by trying to insert claims to the article that Zigmas Zinkevičius (personally described by Marcelus as "chauvinistic pig": 1, 2) is described as "anti-Polish", but Marcelus did not provide WP:RS describing him exactly as such. The report was flooded with text and eventually archived without a clear decision. For understanding what happened back then, I recommend reading statements by Cukrakalnis (reporter) and Turaids (initially uninvolved editor).

Since limited scope, time sanctions don't stop Marcelus, I think indefinite WP:TOPICBAN should be applied in Poland, Lithuania, Eastern Europe topics.

(moved; reply to Volunteer Marek) Hello, I lately discussed about the situation with an administrator at his talk page (diff) and I was suggested to file WP:AE. I think that persistently not providing WP:RS is not disagreement. Similar situation occurred to Cukrakalnis and Turaids as well (described above). -- Pofka (talk) 01:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: Hello, being recognized as one of only two finest editors in "Lithuania" topic myself and Wikipedia:Here to build an encyclopedia, I think it is unacceptable to use personal interpretations to prove POV/insert content and it raises concern about Reliability of Wikipedia.

As described in Cukrakalnis and Turaids situation recently, this is not the first time Marcelus act without providing WP:RS to support his actions in Lithuania, Poland, Eastern Europe topics. I did not participate in Cukrakalnis-Turaids-Marcelus dispute and only saw evidence provided about it at WP:AN, so I cannot describe these users statements here as well by having only 500 words. I pinged them with wiki links, so I think they could explain what happened back then themselves if it is necessary, but I think evidence provided at WP:AN also describe it well. WP:EV for which Marcelus was sanctioned was in the same topics as these concerns about his content-related actions are being made.

Usage of WP:EV, personal interpretations and ignoring good faith requests to WP:VERIFY them in the same topics seems like WP:NOTHERE to me and WP:IDONTHEARYOU is related with this. Or are we going to freely allow Marcelus to describe any Lithuanians as Polish-speakers, "chauvinistic pig" and anti-Polish without WP:RS/WP:VERIFY? -- Pofka (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus: Your expansion of the article do not prove that Povilas Alšėniškis was a Polish-speaking Lithuanian noble as you claimed (and by the way it was performed with offline sources when at talk page you persistently refused to WP:VERIFY your claim). Your sanction related with Zigmas Zinkevičius was applied after a later report when you continued your actions in the same article (see: HERE), so the initial report was really left without a clear decision. It is easy to check. Request to evaluate activity is not negative commenting. -- Pofka (talk) 09:44, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All I asked (six times) was WP:VERIFABLE WP:RS to ensure that he was a Polish-speaker. -- Pofka (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Marcelus

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 Marcelus

Pofka created WP:RMT ([2]) regarding the Paweł Holszański page, undoubtedly knowing that this is a controversial move that needs to be discussed, as it is not the first discussion about what name should be used in article about historical figure of similar background. I protested againt RMT by checking the results from Google Search and Scholar in English (per WP:COMMONNAME, in short: we use English sources) which were radically different ([3], [4]). When this was moved to WP:RM#C I reiterated this argument ([5]), I also gave a brief historical context as to why I think the Polish-sounding version of PH's name is so popular, then a bit later I also added results from Google Books ([6]). In the meantime, I expanded the article on the basis of the sources available to me ([7]) and told Pofka that he would find the answer to his question about the sources there ([8]).

On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me ([9]), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks ([10]). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported ([11]), Pofka declared: I learned from it, and I'll not negatively comment about other fellow editors.

Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - ~~I and Cukrakalnis were blocked for EW~~ [edit: ok, I confused the timeline, we were blocked after another report on me, link, nonetheless I wasn't sanctioned]. And it was flooded mainly by WP:EXHAUST by the other side (mainly the issue of the 'chauvinist pig', an epithet I used on the talk page and admitted I shouldn't have; in no version of the article was ZZ referred to as anti-Polish which I clarified: yes and he isn't called that in the article, only his policies are described as "nationalist" and "anti-Polish"). This the reason for my 0RR after the last AE. Pofka wants me to be penalized 3 times for the same thing.

Pofka also used my 0RR to get the upper hand in content discussions (1, 2,3. When I asked him to stop doing this, he simply deleted my question from his talk page). There were also some occassional WP:HOAX accusations ([12]), but these are thigns I used to when interacting with Pofka.

I reported this to HJ_Mitchell without asking for any sanctions on Pofka, because I think there is no problem for both of us to edit on Wikipedia, even more so in a topic where there are not many active users. I still hope so.

Pofka was an active participant in the discussion, which is easy to verify, moreover he incited other users against me (possible WP:CANVASS)Marcelus (talk) 09:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk · contribs) Please read: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Święciany_massacre_and_others; Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs) has been making disruptive changes in the WW2 in Eastern Europe space lately; responds to my pointing it out with an attack. I don't think I crossed the line in this case. I am one of the few users patrolling this space and able to spot these kinds of edits. You can check my edit history to see that I spend a lot of time calmly explaining why specific changes are wrong, especially since the last AE. Marcelus (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukrakalnis (talk · contribs), I check your edits from time to time, especially on controversial topics, but I don't stalk you. As for your examples of my alleged violation of 0RR, I cannot agree. The first one kept the Lithuanian names you added, I added the Polish ones, which was discussed on a t/p (Talk:Glinciszki massacre#Names of the towns). The second example is a restoration of Category:Waffen-SS divisions stores all SS divisions in numerical order, I wrote that in the description of the edit. There is no reason to remove it.Marcelus (talk) 13:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@El C (talk · contribs), many people suggest that my edits are "problematic", but few give specific examples. I agree that I have not always been 100% ok on t/p etc. But I would like to point out that this was evaluated in the last AE, I suffer the consequences. Punishing me a second time for the same thing would be excessive. Nonetheless I will defend my editing on main space (except for overusing revert).Marcelus (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Is there a revert here? The restriction on Marcelus is 0RR. But all the diffs provided by Pofka are ... talk page comments. This is just a complaint that Marcelus dares to disagree with Pofka (on talk pages, civilly). Pofka also, when referencing the restriction, quotes only irrelevant portions (that it's indefinite etc) but manages to omit what the restriction actually is. Maybe a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The exact comment from the admin on their talk page [13], made on March 14, was: " Your two posts between them are over a thousand words. If you want me to take any action, please make your point concisely. Preferably a tenth of that length. Otherwise you can file at WP:AE but note that walls of text are not accepted there either.". Volunteer Marek 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TB

There is nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That section is not really evidence of "battleground mentality", a word thrown around too carelessly these days. Editors are humans — not androids — and tempers flare; as long as things resolve, all's fair and fine. TrangaBellam (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shadow of the Starlit Sky

Hello, I am an editor who in uninvolved with these interactions between Marcelus and Pofka. However, I have collaborated with Pofka once before while WP:NPOV-ing Gediminas.

I would like to say that I have looked through Pofka's edit history, block log and global account log. It seems as if Pofka has been indef banned in other wikis in the past for incivility and ad hominem attacks ([14]).

And, Marcelus isn't immune to blame, either. This interaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcelus#Your_evidence) seems like an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. Not to mention his past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names somewhat suggests a WP:NATIONALIST mentality regarding this user too.

I think that an interaction ban between Pofka and Marcelus may be necessary at this point.

Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I look at the other Admins' responses, I think that maybe a one-way IBAN from preventing Pofka from interacting with Marcelus may be necessary. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 16:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just read what Pofka posted on @HJ Mitchell's talk page- I will look into that soon.Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But then, the thing I'm concerned about is that Pofka's made tons of constructive edits to Lithuania-related articles in the past, so banning him might greatly affect WikiProject Lithuania.

I still want Pofka to stop some of his WP:TENDENTIOUS editing at times, though, judging from the other admins' responses.

--Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(moved; in reply to Ppt91) THIS. Banning Pofka would greatly affect WikiProject Lithuania in a negative way, but Pofka seems to need to be reminded to WP:AGF. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle BelatoYes, I understand. Sorry for any inconviniences caused; I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia as I only joined 2 weeks ago. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (talk) 00:01, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles, @HJ Mitchell, @Isabelle Belato, @Ealdgyth, I still do think Marcelus should get a logged warning, though. He's been quite battleground-ey against another editor in the past (not Pofka)- User:Cukrakalnis. If you look at Cukrakalnis' talk page, you could see the comments under "Category:Non-German infantry divisions of the Waffen-SS" that Marcelus posted- they seem quite battleground-y and incivil at times (e.g. "That's your third attempt on pushing a WP:FRINGE theory")

However, in this situation, Cukrakalnis also seems to be in the wrong- he also seems to be using personal attacks against Marcelus by using statements such as "P.S. Marcelus, stop stalking everything that I do."

Furthermore, Marcelus and Cukrakalnis' incivility is not limited to the current situation is not limited to now; past talk page archives show other instances of Marcelus being incivil to Cukrakalnis and vice versa (e.g. see section "Kołyszko" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2021/November and section "ZZ" under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cukrakalnis/Archives/2023/February).

Again, I do believe Marcelus should get a logged warning to WP:AGF, but for different reasons- incivility towards Cukrakalnis (Cukrakalnis should also get the warning too, as he has used personal attacks against Marcelus before as well). Or, maybe, Marcelus and Cukrakalnis can get a 2 way IBAN due to their past history of stating personal attacks at each other. Either way, I just want CONSTRUCTIVE contributions to Lithuania/Poland-related topics by these editors (Pofka, Cukrakalnis, Marcelus, etc.) to continue and the personal attacks to end. -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 11:43, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcelus, I have looked at your past interactions with Cukrakalnis before. Although I appreciate your desire to collaborate with Cukrakalnis, unfortunately, some of your comments to Cukrakalnis seem to be incivil. Again, it is COMPLETELY FINE to disagree with Cukrakalnis' views, but it's not fine to insult Cukrakalnis about it.

@Cukrakalnis, This definitely sounds problematic on Marcelus' parts. However, I do believe that you could definitely be more civil towards Marcelus and avoid personal attacks in the future.

Because of this history of past bickering/personal attacks, I'd like to propose a 2 way IBAN between Cukrakalnis and Marcelus as well.

-- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 18:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles, @HJ Mitchell, @Isabelle Belato, @Ealdgyth, @El C, @Callanecc, would you mind if I took this to WP:RFCL? -- Shadow of the Starlit Sky 03:26, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ppt91

This case has little if any merit. In addition to what others have already said about Pofka misinterpreting the extent of/nature of the original sanction, I am also troubled by Pofka's overall framing of these spelling disputes which to me exhibits a degree of WP:RGW mentality. From the diffs presented, the most inappropriate and inflamed comment by Marcelus I see is the one including the term chauvinistic pig to describe a Lithuanian historian. Pofka's reasoning behind the RM thread, on the other hand, appeared combative from the outset, declaring that Polonization of a Lithuanian noble name here is absolutely unjustified followed by a flurry of charged responses to Marcellus and several other opposing authors which all felt like WP:BLUDGEON to prove a point. That said, I think that Pofka's contributions to Lithuanian subjects writ large are valuable, so I am not supportive of a boomerang that would restrict their work in an en-wiki area with few specialists. They might need to be reminded to be civil and WP:AGF before escalating an exchange with other editors it into an unnecessary dispute. Ppt91 ^talk 01:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GizzyCatBella

@Courcelles:, @HJ Mitchell:, @Isabelle Belato:, @Ealdgyth:

I'm noticing consensus tipping slightly towards the restoration of the topic ban among you admin folks. I understand that, and I understand that Pofka did precisely what they promised not to do in their Topic Ban appeal but can I ask you, admin folks, to offer Pofka another chance? A powerful logged warning + a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus for example? (with possibility of appeal in 6 months) Pursuing that particular editor (Marcelus) appears to be the cause of Pofka's problems. We have only a few editors interested in Lithuania's topic area (it's a small country), and I believe Pofka's contributions are important. In my humble opinion, if they stay away from Marcelus, that will be enough. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cukrakalnis

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky This is relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it. I myself asked for a one-way WP:IBAN, whereby Marcelus is banned from interacting with me due to his chronic and intractable hostile disposition towards me. This was already on 17 July 2022. Regarding P.S. Marcelus, stop stalking everything that I do., I will just say that Marcelus has said the following words to me: I am going through your edits persistently because I don't trust you as an editor on 16 July 2022. And his actions since only prove his "attention" towards me. In addition, Marcelus has broken the 0RR imposed on him in the following edits:

27 March 2023 Marcelus re-added Polish names for villages and tiny hamlets in Lithuania, thus reverting my 27 February 2023 edit.
23:07, 25 March 2023 Marcelus re-added a category I had removed on 22:21, 25 March 2023 (I removed it because it was a parent category of another more specific category already in the article).

Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Marcelus

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

This report is, quite frankly, hard to follow and rather a mess at the moment. We need diffs that show actual problems, and right now I’m not seeing it in this filing. Also, ever as the filer, please comment only in your own section. Courcelles (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After a longer, rested look, I think this needs a boomerang, either a logged warning or a little stronger response to Pofka for WP:TEND issues in their editing and conduct in this RM and this AE filing. No actual evidence of current wrongdoing has been issued agains Marcelus. Courcelles (talk) 15:35, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Final analysis, my opinion is to log a warning to Pofka for WP:TEND editing and close this with no other action. Courcelles (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The provided diffs appear to show a content dispute over a single page move nothing more. In addition, as Volunteer Marek pointed our, the sanction Pofka is seeking to enforce is one of WP:0RR, and not of a specific contentius topic violation. Pofka, I'd recommend you take HJ Mitchell's advice, here, to heart. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 01:32, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pofka: The only problematic thing I see in your report of Marcelus is their refusal to provide the sources you asked for. I see Marcelus has now clarified why he didn't do so, but I'd like to remind them that, if you do have the source, and it's easy to post it (apparently it was one of the sources they added to the article), then you should present them when requested, especially in a MR. On the other hand, it worries me that Pofka continuously use past sanctions against Marcelus as arguments to push during content discussion, the same battleground behaviour they were topic-banned for. Those supporting the removal of your topic ban were very clear that, if this behaviour repeated, sanctions would likely be imposed again. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:41, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcelus: you are slightly over the word limit count. Please trim your response, and a reminder you'll need to request an extension for further replies. Thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 12:47, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm allowing an extension of 200 words so that Marcelus can reply to the more recent statements. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky: Please keep your comments on your own section in the future, thanks. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shadow of the Starlit Sky: According to my count you are about 230 words over the limit. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that Pofka's reaction to my clarification of Marcelus's restriction, and my request to stop bringing it up where it wasn't relevant, was to dump 1,000 words of accusations on my talk page relating to a content dispute on one article, and then to file this request, where no uninvolved admin has seen any sanctionable misconduct by Marcelus. This is, in my opinion, suggestive of a battleground mentality. I would support a boomerang. I'm tempted by the idea of an interaction ban but I don't want to impede constructive discussion on article talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:11, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing sanctionable in Marcellus' behavior here. I'm not quite to a boomerang on Pofka, although at the very least they need to stop this battleground behavior. Good contributions in one area should not shield an editor and allow them to perpetuate battleground behavior. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell:, @Isabelle Belato:, @Ealdgyth:. This seems to have stalled. As I said above, I don't see much to do here besides log a warning to Pofka, but one way or another we should get moving towards how we want to close this. Courcelles (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- A logged warning is fine with me. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I feel that a warning is kicking the can down the road, there appears to be no desire to sanction Pofka, as they are a good contributor in the area. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a warning is sufficient, but I would not oppose it if nobody else sees a need for tangible action. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:44, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As my answer implies, I'd be in favor of restoring their tban, as, to me, it seems Pofka is doing exactly what they promised not to do in their unban request. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm seeing no further input from other editors, administrators, or otherwise, I'll close this soon with a consensus for a logged warning but no consensus for any form of sanction. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 20:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument in favor or restoring, actually. I’m not seeing quite enough to have imposed one de novo, but restoring one requires less rope be given. Courcelles (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm torn. Pofka contributes well in the mainspace. Much like I was loathe to topic ban Marcelus because the issue was with his edit-warring rather than his writing or discussion style, I'd prefer something with more finesse than a blanket topic ban. I could live with an absolute final warning accompanied by a a not-quite interaction ban with Marcelus (not to mention him, revert him, or directly reply to him but I don't want to ban Pofka from discussing content on the same talk page as Marcelus). I don't want to hamper good-faith discussion by just removing everyone from the topic area but the personalisation of disputes needs to stop. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Considering GizzyCatBella's statement, as well as yours, HJ Mitchell, I'm willing to give Pofka a bit more rope. I think a one-way IBAN is fine for the purposes you want, HJ, as it still allows both users to edit the same page and participate in discussions, as long as Pofka does not directly reply to Marcelus. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be satisfied with that as long as it was clear that Pofka can contribute to the same discussions as Marcelus (within reason). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not reviewed this report, like, at all. But as the admin who originally imposed the TBAN on Pofka, I should note that that TBAN was imposed after so many warnings (albeit informal, unlogged ones). I was away during their appeal, so didn't get to opine, but I'm not sure I'd have opposed since, on the face of it, it looks okay'ish and I'm all for 2nd chances. So FWIW. But on the other hand, my sense at least, is that Marcelus' overall editing in the topic area is likely no less problematic. I don't really have an opinion on what to do here, specifically, as __ is usually in the details, but I'd like to nevertheless stress that, recently, ArbCom did emphasize on robust enforcement as opposed to the much easier route of warning users with a problematic past. El_C 19:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see any option here other than restoring the topic ban. There is no rope left to give to an editor who has been warned and then topic banned and then appealed the topic ban on the premise that they'd learnt from it and so it's no longer necessary. One of the supporters of the appeal even said that Pofka should be given the opportunity to demonstrate that [Pofka] can edit in that topic area without commenting on other editors, another one that said Pofka needs to edit dispassionately and another three (that's all of them now) who mention or infer that lifting the TBAN is giving some rope. It's clear from this report, the admin discussion above, that Pofka is, in fact, unable to edit dispassionately without commenting on others and so has used up the rope that was given to them when the appeal was accepted. Given that the TBAN should be restored. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

InedibleHulk

InedibleHulk site banned for one year. No prejudice against any other admin adding an indef and/or topic ban(s) on top if desired. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 13 April 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 InedibleHulk

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

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

[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Despite the talk page consensus from 28 March, the FAQ at the top of the page, and being asked by multiple editors InedibleHulk continues to use Hale's deadname and misgender him throughout ongoing discussions. This is an outright refusal to follow Wikipedia's regular editorial process.
[21], [22] Implies that because of Hale's actions, we can disrespect his gender identity.
[23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] In many edit summaries, InedibleHulk makes comments that skirt the boundaries of what is acceptable in a CTOP article/talk page
[29] Edits a comment to describe Hale as an emotionally disturbed loner with a history of lying. As far as I know, I've not seen any reliable sources describe Hale as a person with a "history of lying".

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)

[30] GENSEX DS notice, 25 July 2022
[31] GENSEX and gun control CTOP notices, 5 April 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Many of InedibleHulk's talk page contributions are very likely WP:BLPTALK violations. While Hale died during the shooting, BLP continues to apply for some time after death.

This type of disruption has a serious impact upon other editors, and can lead to them disengaging from the article and talk page due to stress and aggrivation.

These diffs show a pattern of bludgeoning discussions, making unsubstantiated controversial claims about a recently deceased person, and making incivil comments from InedibleHulk, that have resulted in a massive disruption to the editing of 2023 Covenant School shooting and its talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: Take a look at the sixth diff I've linked above (current link number 19). InedibleHulk doesn't seem to recognise that Hale was transgender, or even self-identified as transgender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic bans, this is a complicated one as the article that lead us to this point falls under three or four; GENSEX, BLP, Gun Control, and depending on how you look at it post-1992 US Politics. The issues that I've seen and documented here mostly fall under the first two, GENSEX and BLP. I agree with Seraphimblade that a single topic ban wouldn't cover all of the issues raised. A dual GENSEX and BLP (in the sense that it includes recently deceased) TBAN would cover the majority of the problem, if InedibleHulk can recognise that this article and any with similar circumstances would be covered.

On a site block/indef. I was initially thinking that despite InedibleHulk's rather lengthy block log, a temporary or indef site block would have been too much, even with the wheelbarrow of TBANs being proposed. But, in the time that I was writing this reply, InedibleHulk has directed three edit summaries on his talk page to me. The first of these [32] is fair. But the second [33] and third [34] are crossing the line of unacceptable per the civility policy. So now I think a site block is warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[35]

Discussion concerning InedibleHulk

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

Statement by InedibleHulk

Police, old friends and Audrey Hale's mother seem to believe she was a woman, and though she seems to have perhaps denied this implicitly by preferring male pronouns online, she also has a reliably sourced history of lying offline. It doesn't seem like misgendering to agree with the majority of those who knew and cared for her. It seems like gendering. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Considering BDP only applies to material with implications (presumably meaning negative) for living friends and relatives, I think telling a woman who told ABC News "I think I lost my daughter today" her daughter was a man (if she reads that page) is probably erring on the side of least caution (and contradicting her teammates, who one said were "like a family", second least). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Sideswipe, both of this BDP's living parents' opinions are "highly suspect". That's even worse than slinging mud at the dead, by my understanding of how sensitivity works. I'm not the judge here, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I haven't been disrupting editing by any of my comments, the page is locked (I've probably edit-conflicted a few people by making minor followups, and I'm sorry for that, as always). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind, too, trusting a dead mass murderer (not even always the kind who kill children at random) when he, she or they seem to be the only one who ever shared an opinion on a matter is a slippery slope toward all kinds of fringe bullshit being treated as the opposite of fringe. Even if it's only applied to "Aiden", for some reason, there's still a lot of manifesto to leak or be released. Will we be so sympathetic if the coward blames Christianity? Bullies? The American educational system? A living Tennessee politician or two? TV? Straight people who just don't understand? The victims? God? Living relatives police say she may have also planned to kill? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm supposed to ping Maddy or what, but: "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." The "person" in question is not in a phase of life nor legally recognized as a person. The accusations of transphobia against these particular parents (who are people) were made by an anonymous source to The Daily Mail and propped up by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm here, I may as well challenge anyone to find an edit which even hints at an anti-trans sentiment from me since 2006. I'm only in this mess because this article started off as one about the next big shooting, which is my bag here, historically. If it weren't the mountain of evidence that nobody alive today with firsthand experience seems to believe Audrey Hale was a man, even after learning she disagreed, I'd appreciate how this is misgendering. I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun on a colleague once or twice, and made sure enough to not do it again, out of common human decency. I don't edit articles about trans people or topics very often at all, not through any active avoidance, but just through their scarcity. I think the idea of switching gender identities is cool. But the dead have no identities, including gender-related. I've always known this, it just hasn't needed explaining to so many people yet, by chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, Feathers, I'm not confused. "This" refers to the preceding guideline and "holds for any phase of the person's life" pretty clearly implies it does not hold beyond that point. And yes, Hale did have a life, and this would have applied to it then, while she was a person. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since my opinion on this particular former person is broadly (though wrongly) construed as something against every single trans person, current or former, I can see how keeping my voices away from that subject might seem warranted. But banning me from all gun, living people and American politic articles would be too much, given the reported problem here. And rebanning someone for previously having served a ban would be a double jeopardy in the real world. It would be more (but still not) reasonable to keep me away from churches, schools and Nashville. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, that "pop culture banality" diff should be taken to mean don't let your children grow up to be mass murderers, not don't let them question or answer their genders (that goes for other living relatives, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of Sideswipe's latest diffs refers to them, the next two to the content. I also find it disturbing how closely they still watch my page, after I asked them to unwatch already. For what, laying in wait? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I quit. Those who don't trust me can do whatever on top of it. Those who do, thanks again. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Maddy from Celeste

It isn't a BLP violation to point out that parents often misgender their children, and that only the subject's own identification counts for MOS:GID. InedibleHulk, on the other hand, has been consistently incivil in his edit summaries and comments on that page. Also, the more he comments, the more I feel he is opposed to the MOS:GID guideline and will make that everyone's problem. his current arguments about the shooter's credibility, for example, seem like a useless distraction from our established practice of not misgendering people. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf: I'm not actually certain if "transgender people, broadly construed" is a subset of "gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people". Sure, you could interpret all trans people as inherently associated with gender-related disputes and controversies, but that is overbroad in my opinion. I would much rather require a person to be associated with a specific controversy, rather than just painting all trans people, even those not personally involved in any notable controversies, as "associated with disputes and controversies". Now in my opinion GENSEX itself is also extremely ill-defined, so I'd propose a ban from just one topic which arbcom specifically states falls thereunder: any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Funcrunch: I think he was undeniably self-identifying as transgender, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Re Swideswipe and Crunch, I don't see anything denying that Hale self-identified as trans, only denying the validity of his identity. And if such a claim does exist or come into existence, that would not be a GENSEX problem, but a reading comprehension problem. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

IH, are you genuinely confused about GID? Hale did have a life, and GID applies to every part of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to hold InedibleHulk in high esteem. He's one of those editors who I frequently disagree with but find to be incisive and likely to present the hardest to counter arguments. I'm surprised not to be seeing that at all here, and I do wonder if he should be encouraged or required to edit in other topic areas. IH, I'd be happy to talk more with you at one of our talk pages about how MOS:BIOGRAPHY applies to people even when they're dead; I worry doing so here would exacerbate your overage on the word count limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Funcrunch

Based on our initial interactions on the 2023 Covenant School shooting talk page, as well as on my own talk page, I believed that InedibleHulk was acting in good faith. But his continued, insistent, deliberate misgendering of Hale with she/her pronouns has made it very stressful for me as a transmasculine editor to continue participating in the discussion, the outcome of which I believe has important implications for this encyclopedia. As I said in a comment on one of the page's RFCs, I am saddened when contributors do not take into account the emotional well-being of Wikipedia's trans and non-binary editors. (ETA: I now see that Sideswipe9th linked to this comment of mine in the original arbitration request as well.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: Not to be pedantic, but a potential problem with the suggested wording of your topic ban is that InedibleHulk apparently does not acknowledge that Hale was, in fact, transgender. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Maddy from Celeste: You and I find that undeniable, but InedibleHulk does not. And that stance might extend to other subjects in the future. So I think it might be safer to focus a topic ban on gender-related controversies rather than, or perhaps in addition to, trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@InedibleHulk: I'm transmasculine but also agender. My pronouns are they/them, not he/him, as noted on my user profile. Funcrunch (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting for the record that my edit above was in response to this edit which was later amended and subsequently removed. Funcrunch (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by FormalDude

The biggest problem I see here is that IH continues to use she/her pronouns for Hale numerous times well after a consensus was developed that Hale takes he/him pronouns. Having been informed of this multiple times, I don't know how it can be construed as anything other than intentional misgendering. Obviously that is not compatible with editing in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: Looking at their block log, it does seem to be a broader issue. He was blocked for his edits to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018. He was blocked in December 2020 by Valereee for BLP violations, and got unblocked with an AP tban. He then violated that a month later in January 2021, and then a second time in February 2021, causing him to be blocked both times by EvergreenFir.

That was all before I became an active editor, but here is some of the problematic behavior I have seen from IH more recently in these types of articles:

––FormalDude (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think a site ban is most appropriate. Given his history, he should be well aware of the standards that are required for editing in CT, but has chosen to edit the way he does anyways. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LilianaUwU

I'll have to echo FormalDude's statement here: the constant misgendering of Aiden Hale despite being asked multiple times not to do so is unacceptable, and incompatible with Wikipedia editing. So is being very aggressive in edit summaries. This reminds me of the Athaenara situation, but I'd say this is worse: InedibleHulk has repeatedly posted that type of comments, and they're much more blatant than Athaenara's comment (the use of she to refer to a trans man is constant across IH's messages). LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Kcmastrpc Excuse me, but repeatedly misgendering someone would be worth an indef in my book, let alone a TBAN. Any rando who had just created an account would've been indeffed with no questions asked, no AE, nothing; the only reason we're here to discuss it is because it's an estabilished editor. A TBAN is not only appropriate, but I'd say it's not enough. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 04:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc, with due respect, with how often IH misgendered Aiden Hale (more use of she than on ship pages!), I feel like a TBAN from GENSEX is also, or instead, in order. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 05:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Silverseren

I think this diff given by Sideswipe9th originally above is really exemplary of the issue here. To quote the two comments therein:

Anyone looks like a shitty person if you misquote them. I didn't mean I'd only disrespect a trans bin Laden, but would still disrespect him (for his murders). And I never said anything like this bullshit "policy" you've ascribed to me.

and

I don't consider it misgendering, I honestly believe she was a woman.

It seems pretty clear that InedibleHulk has no intention of editing neutrally in this contentious topic area and is quite open about that. Silver seren^C 21:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kcmastrpc

I believe a TBAN is inappropriate in this instance. This is an unusually charged issue that I suspect anyone involved with editing has some emotional feelings towards, additionally, we have a large number of reliable sources who continue to use Hales birth name further aggravating the situation and creating what some might argue is a conflict with wikipedia principles. Perhaps we should ask IH to step away from editing this article in general and show grace for everyone involved (assuming he agrees to step away)? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zaathras

Observations. One, in Sideswipe9th's 3rd listed point, InedibleHulk's commentary-via-edit-summary is their modus operandi. Ranging from antagonistic to pop culture banality, it is honestly becoming un-collegial. Two, this is reminiscent of GooDday's AE. If one cannot be respectful of the gender of Wikipedia editors and/or subjects of Wikipedia articles, they really do not belong in the topic area. A topic ban is most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaathras (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

To me it seems like at most a transgender topic ban. Anything else is stale and/or not that serious. starship .paint (exalt) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

A site ban???? Ok, so we have a topic that for whatever noble reasons has this established carve out from our normal rules on sources and due weight, but to edit in opposition to that carve out is now cause for a site ban? Yall wildin. nableezy - 17:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And an edit summary on his own talk page is what seals that for one admin? Boggles the mind a bit. nableezy - 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, wait a minute, AE cant do an indefinite block, or a site ban, it can do an indefinite block that is downgraded to a normal admin action block after a year. It takes a lot more than an admin or three to site ban an editor from the English Wikipedia. nableezy - 21:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by EvergreenFir

I have blocked EH in the past so I thought I should chime in. I think a topic ban (or bans) is appropriate given the conduct. I am honestly a bit fond of EH, though I understand he can be disruptive. InedibleHulk's does not seem to be maliciously or tendentiously disruptive, just annoyingly so in most cases. I'd rather not indef block this user as I don't think he is a harm to the project as a whole. But it is clear he needs to be restricted from certain areas. IMO, he's a WikiPossum; makes a mess of your trash and bothers folks at times, but is not generally harmful. Just my 2 cents.

Statement by (username)

Result concerning InedibleHulk

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

My first impression is that this is a very clear and repeated violation of WP:GENSEX (and BLP in general in some cases), and the doubling down despite advice and warnings from multiple other editors does tend tend to suggest that a topic ban would be appropriate. A topic ban obviously needs a scope, based on the evidence presented here (at least so far) I think "transgender people, broadly interpreted" would cover everything problematic without being too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith I don't see how this is an unusual circumstance at all or how there is any scope for different interpretations of the policy. Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. [...] Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification. covers this exact situation.

Regarding the topic ban scope, I've read the comments but I want to think on them further before reaffirming, amending or withdrawing my suggestion - all three options remain firmly on the table (with the British English meaning of that idiom). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Courcelles in that I think we're going to need three topic bans, and at least a warning about civility and not misusing edit summaries. In isolation the event that precipitated this report doesn't justify a site ban, but considering their other actions and that previous topic bans have not successfully dealt with the disruption it does at the minimum justify active consideration of whether someone is worth the volunteer time and energy required to manage them, and the time and expertise that other volunteers choose not to contribute to the project because of them. I don't know whether I would support a site ban at this point, but I'm certainly not far off doing so and if one isn't imposed here it will be if their behaviour brings them back to this board. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The recent edit summaries noted by Sideswipe9th, particularly this one have removed all the doubts I had about a site ban. If your behaviour and civility is being examined that is the time to show yourself at your best, but this is not acceptable let alone best. It's always a shame when someone who clearly can make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia chooses to do the exact opposite, but there simply is no space in a collaborative environment for them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It may well be that a topic ban is appropriate, but this case is a little unusual because not only is IH confused about how to refer to the subject, our reliable sources themselves are confused about how to do so and we have good sources using both sets of names and pronouns. I haven't examined every diff yet (will try to do so later tonight), but so far I don't see malice or intent to cause harm. It seems more like a disagreement about how to interpret policy in an unusual circumstance. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into the issue further, I'm leaning towards the behavior being enough of an issue that a topic ban of some sort would be the right move here. I'm just unsure which of the several scopes proposed would be the best a containing the problem. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk's behavior in this noticeboard has been less than ideal. That, in conjunction with the provided diffs, makes me think a topic ban is appropriate. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like HJ's suggestion of and support a one year site ban in conjunction with an AP2 and GS topic ban. This isn't IH's first rodeo with topic bans and they should know we expect better behaviour from editors in contentious areas. Isabelle Belato ^{🏴‍☠️} 17:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would be interested in seeing evidence, if any exists, of problems within either the GENSEX or BLP areas beyond the recent mass shooting before opining on a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My point is I wonder if we are looking at a AP2/BLP problem being presented as a GENSEX one. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, looking over everything I think we have a messy situation that is going to take at least three CTOP actions to contain the disruption. 1) A GENSEX topic ban from making any edits relating to the gender identity of any person. 2) A ban on articles about mass shootings. 3) An AP2 topic ban. Here's the problem, IH has previously treated an AP2 topic ban with a rather cavalier attitude, being blocked twice for violating a three-month topic ban. And incivility is a running concern throughout the various CTOP areas being discussed here. Courcelles (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from Courcelles' point, looking at InedibleHulk's block log and the links from Formal Dude I'm thinking rather than rather than dealing with this under GENSEX CTOP, a topic ban from mass shootings, broadly construed, under gun control as well as TBAN under AP2 (not sure whether to go all post-1992 or narrower yet) might be more effective and targetted at the topic area where problems lie. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Courcelles and Callanecc—this isn't a case where just saying "Topic ban from GENSEX" completely addresses the issue. I still would topic ban from GENSEX, given how poor IndelibleHulk's behavior has been in that area as demonstrated here, and would also topic ban from AP2. Given how political the issue of mass shootings has become, I think any articles about American mass shootings after 1992 can already be considered covered under AP2, and so a separate topic ban on those specifically is not needed. And though not formally, I'd warn that if this type of behavior continues on in other areas, I'd strongly be considering an indef next time. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I was on the committee, if I felt the need to propose this many topic bans in a PD, a site ban would be included in the PD to at least be voted on. I would not oppose one here given how significant the disruption is. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I know I am supposed to stay out of AE as a current arb, but I can recuse if this comes to the committee. Seeing the block log, my first choice would be an indef block with my second being the wheelbarrow of topic bans suggested above. -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 16:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's enough here to support either or both of a site ban or indef, so if that's what's agreed to, I don't object to that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a one-year site ban as the maximum we can impose at AE (with an indef on top as a regular admin action). My first thought was there IH had some semblance of a point that the shooter had been inconsistent about their gender identity but when I see that there's a talk page consensus on the matter, it starts to look like tendentious editing. Add in the tone of talk page contributions and the edit summaries and I start to think this isn't someone who should be editing controversial topics. With the recidivism, based on the block log, this clearly isn't the first time and it's clearly not limited to one topic area so a site ban seems the appropriate response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not averse to the topic bans. I slightly favour the site ban because there seem to have been a variety of issues with IH's editing in a variety of topic areas going back years. If it's to be a site ban, I would have no issue with it being a one-year finite duration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support the one-year ban at this point followed up by the topic bans, due to their history of violating topic bans and their edit summaries referring to SS9th today. Initially I was thinking that the topic bans would likely be sufficient to stop the disruption here, but looking over their block log, and seeing incivility in the their edit summaries (something else they've been blocked for) makes me think that something a bit broader than just the topic bans will likely be necessary. I would not be opposed to just the topic bans if there is a reasonable belief that they'll abide by them and adjust their behavior in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

JCJC777

Indef blocked, 1st year as AE action.

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 JCJC777

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: JCJC777 (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

Specifically (emphasis mine): Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines... follow editorial and behavioural best practice...refrain from gaming the system....You should err on the side of caution...

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

10:47, 12 April 2023 Editing against consensus, whitewashing POV, repeated content blanking, see also: [36][37][38][39][40][41]
13:11, 13 April 2023 Repeated mis-representation of sources, or only deriving the most favorable POV from sources: [42] [43]
10:09, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of low quality news-org and WP:PRIMARY sourcing to make claims of medical efficacy. See also: [44] [45] [46] [47][48] This is also not the first time this user has been warned about this: DocJames and Jytdog and Donlago and many multiple users across their talk page
10:47, 12 April 2023 [49][50][51][52] Repeatedly uses bare URLs despite being warned about this 16 times, even saying others should clean up their mess "Hi Doniago, I know with your brilliance and your love for making Wiki maximally rich, that you'll find the ref. Go well":[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68]
12:00, 8 April 2023 Repeated tagging of content already sourced in the body, or in the same sentence as "citation needed" despite multiple talk page discussions about this. e.g. WP:IDHT. See also: [69]
04:35, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of wikipedia links as sources. See also: [70] Been warned about this before ([71] as far back as 2012)

Violation of our policies on edit warring (repeatedly reinserted material over several days without engaging meaningfully on talk, and broke 3RR)

07:00, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
21:02, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
19:57, 11 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
03:37, 12 April 2023 Re-adding, whitewashing, and re-interpreting and cherry-picking a source (Cuijpers 2020) in the lead and elsewhere (as was also done on 4 April: [72])
10:47, 12 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV (same passages as #1)
11:13, 12 April 2023 Again removing content from section/ converting "is" to "was". Similar to #1 and #4.

The above diffs 3-6 demonstrate 4 reverts in a 24 hour period which restore this user's preferred version.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

11:15, 19 November 2021 Indef'd from Multiple Sclerosis for many of the same behaviors as above (using poor quality sources, disruptive edits, edit warring, repeatedly not listening to others about bare URLs)

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

Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).[reply]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In summary, this user is doing basically the same thing here at Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing as they were previously doing at Multiple Sclerosis, behaviors which got them indefinitely blocked from editing that page. (using poor quality non-MEDRS sources to make medical claims e.g. PRIMARY, news-org, using bare URLs, disregarding advice from editors on the talk page, disruptively blanking, edit warring, etc.) When they were confronted about these issues on their talk page, they simply replied "many thanks" before disrupting some more ([73][74]) and then adding the Retired template to their talk. This is a common behavioral pattern for this user (having similarly gone "dormant" right before they were blocked in 2021). Perusing their talk page, they always just respond "many thanks" or similar before repeating the same disruptive pro-FRINGE behaviors dozens more times.

I see no reason why this behavior should be tolerated at a contentious topic page when it was so clearly not tolerated at a featured article. This user very clearly has a WP:IDHT/WP:CIR problem. They apparently cannot simply format their own citations, follow MEDRS, or understand the consequences of a contentious topic. The time-sink they provide on these articles is reason enough to sanction.

I recommend a page-block from Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing at a minimum, TBAN from pseudoscience~~at a maximum~~ as a reasonable next step.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC) (added diffs 23:48, 13 April 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Clarification 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC): I am not opposed to a site-wide indef, it just isn't my first choice in this particular situation. I wish this user could get the message that these behaviors are not okay, and resume their past editing in less-contentious areas, with more knowledge of the PAGs. But I also acknowledge that has not been their response at every previous juncture.— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

18:52, 13 April 2023

Also pinging other involved users: User:MrOllie, User:LokiTheLiar, User:Bon courage, User:Cedar777, User:Roxy the dog, User:Firefangledfeathers, User:Feoffer, User:XOR'easter, User:Darknipples, User:Bakkster Man, User:fiveby— Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning JCJC777

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 JCJC777

I've retired, so outcome of this immaterial and I'd suggest you good people don't waste your energy ahd time on it.

As I've said before elsewhere on wiki, I think the wiki editor role should be split. If you look at a music band, a sports team or an investment bank team, there will be some people with some skills, interests and passions and some with others. The current wiki system demands all editors have all skills.

Imagine what a massive increase in wiki editing resources could occur if we enabled - those who want to to play offence (spotting wiki articles that are hurting people out there by being wrong, proposing good new content, proposing elimination of bad content) and - those who want to to play central midfield (gatekeeping on wiki rules, maintaining disciplines ahd standards, mopping up errors). Arguably that might work by the offence people proposing content on the article Talk page, but that seems a slow way of moving. The offence people (Loki they're probably often Chaotic Good alignment) will lose interest and go. Wiki needs to encourage them and help them operate.

Statement by LokiTheLiar

I oppose this action on two grounds. First of all, all of the linked edits have been on the page for EMDR. While there are a few sources that call parts of EMDR pseudoscientific, the overwhelming consensus of the field as shown by the WP:MEDORG sources is that EMDR is an evidence-based treatment for PTSD, and that's especially true in more recent sources. As such, I don't believe that the PS contentious topic area fits here.

Second and probably more important is that if JCJC777 has been edit warring, so has every other editor on the page, including the filer. The following diffs are all reverts made by Shibbolethink on EMDR since the beginning of April:

Reverting several tags from the lead questioning phrasing issues
Reverting a large edit to the lead which contained significant noncontroversial material
Reverting a previous edit of mine that questioned whether a claim was properly sourced
Reverting a big edit originally by JCJC that added quite a lot of sources to the article.
Again reverting a large edit to the lead, this time by an IP.
Reverting a bunch of direct quotations in the medical guidelines that tend to support the idea that EMDR is evidence-based. This one in particular includes restoring a direct misreading of one source, the NHMRC source, which is quoted as conditionally recommending EMDR off the basis of a side comment when its main recommendation recommends EMDR for PTSD in adults with its highest grade of evidence.

And he's not even the worst offender; several other editors on the page have made a habit of mass reverting the page to their preferred version. Many of them characterize these mass reverts against "whitewashing", as the filer does above, when they are instead often reverting the addition of high quality sources (like, again, the NHMRC source above) that simply don't support their POV. (To clarify, like I say on the talk page, I don't really agree that anyone involved is edit warring at the current time. Most edits to the page have been building on top of edits of editors opposing them in the underlying topic dispute rather than reverting them. But also there have been a lot of unjustified reverts, and JCJC777 has not really been a major offender here, in my view.)

Just in general, the state of the article is not good and this is not JCJC777's fault. JCJC777 certainly is a clumsy editor, but he's also added a bunch of sources that really are valuable and WP:MEDRS quality in some of these edits, only to have the entire edit mass reverted. Loki (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MrOllie: I'll give you that the GPT comment was very weird, but it was pretty harmless all things considered. I'll also agree that studies themselves are not the WP:BESTSOURCES in the topic area (while also lightly pushing back on the idea that they are so weak that they deserve to be mass reverted). I don't think JCJC is the strongest editor in this topic area but I do think that despite that he has a better idea of the overall consensus in the field than many of the other editors here.

I disagree strongly, as you know, with the idea that the several highly reliable sources from big professional organizations saying that EMDR is an evidence-based therapy for PTSD in those words do not bear strongly on the issue of whether EMDR is pseudoscientific. WP:FRINGE/QS only requires a "reasonable amount of academic debate" for a theory to be unsuitable for description as pseudoscience, and the sourcing we have is way past that. Loki (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, much as I hate to admit it, BC is right that I didn't evaluate all the sources in that edit I reverted with sufficient rigor. I saw that most of them were to what seemed to me to be fairly standard studies and assumed that all of them were.

I still object to the characterization of JCJC's edits as WP:PROFRINGE, though. Loki (talk) 04:17, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MrOllie

Pseudoscience absolutely applies here. As has been extensively discussed on the talk page, the MEDORG sources Loki cites don't actually comment on whether the topic is pseudoscience or not. But even leaving that aside, the common thread of JCJC777's editing is to remove or downplay statements to the effect that EMDR is pseudoscientific, so the case obviously applies.

Also, contrary to Loki's statement above, the majority of JCJC777's citations do not meet WP:MEDRS - they are primary sources - single studies, as well as cites to other Wikipedia articles. Here they added an essay written by GPT to the talk page - the reasoning is unclear, but they seemed to think it supported their position before walking that back in the face of criticism.

JCJC777's editing really is disruptive, and IMO worse than anyone else editing the article on either side of the argument. I may be a shade biased on that, though, since JCJC777 did come by my user talk page to make personal attacks ([75] and [76]).

- MrOllie (talk) 03:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that despite that he has a better idea of the overall consensus in the field than many of the other editors here. Funny how we all think that the editors who agree with us have the best grasp on the field. MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon Courage

This is a fairly obvious case of an editor blanking 'negative' content and attempting to POV-skew an article in a WP:PROFRINGE manner, almost to the extent where it seems deliberately provocative. With the earlier problems at Multiple sclerosis it looks to me like JCJC777 is not helping to build the encyclopedia. Bon courage (talk) 03:50, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add, by-by-by, that ‎JCJC777 is not the only problem editor here. By restoring[77] ‎JCJC777's entire huge edit, and invoking "MEDRS quality sources" in the edit summary when in fact the sources are - yes - "the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia" (and a predatory journal also), LokiTheLiar is acting as an enabler in a similarly problematic manner. Bon courage (talk) 04:14, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning JCJC777

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

That’s quite a lot of FRINGE pushing. Absolutely support a PS topic ban, but wondering if that’s enough. Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I took a 30-second look and my inclination was to indef. But it was only a 30-second look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The use of sources like the Hollywood Reporter, Vice magazine and the German Wikipedia as references for medical content is a very serious problem that cannot continue. This behavior indicates a deep misunderstanding of how articles on medical topics must be written. Cullen328 (talk) 04:05, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Retirements" when an editor is under scrutiny are commonplace, and this particular retirement should have no impact on this discussion. Cullen328 (talk) 04:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In agreement with Courcelles: we should at least give JCJC777 an indefinite topic ban from pseudoscience. I would not be opposed to either a one-year block as arbitration enforcement, or an indef block as a regular admin action (since there's a rule that AE blocks can't be longer than a year.) And yes, never mind the retirement. Bishonen | tålk 08:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC).[reply]
These problems seem pretty severe and unlikely to improve on their own. JCJC777 absolutely should not edit in this topic area, and probably not at all given the massive issues presented here. I'm leaning towards indef block, the first year of which would be an AE action. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

@@ Line 338: / Line 338: @@
 ==JCJC777==
+{{hat
+| status =
+| result = Indef blocked, 1st year as AE action.
+}}
 <small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 [[Word count#Software|words]] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>
@@ Line 461: / Line 467: @@
 *In agreement with Courcelles: we should ''at least'' give JCJC777 an indefinite topic ban from pseudoscience. I would not be opposed to either a one-year block as arbitration enforcement, or an indef block as a regular admin action (since there's a rule that AE blocks can't be longer than a year.) And yes, never mind the retirement. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] &#124; [[User talk:Bishonen|tålk]] 08:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC).
 *These problems seem pretty severe and unlikely to improve on their own. JCJC777 absolutely should not edit in this topic area, and probably not at all given the massive issues presented here. I'm leaning towards indef block, the first year of which would be an AE action. <span style="font-family:Courier New;font-size:3">[[User:The Wordsmith|'''The Wordsmith''']]</span><sup>[[User talk:The Wordsmith|Talk to me]]</sup> 16:10, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
+{{hab}}

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