Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:37, 20 March 2024

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

KronosAlight

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 KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: KronosAlight (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

[1] 10 March 2024—violating WP:PSCI
[2] and [3] 11 March 2024—ad nauseam advocacy for violating WP:PSCI, WP:ASPERSIONS; see also their previous edits at that talk page wherein they accuse me of violating WP:NPOV.
[4] 10 March 2024—accusing me you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV
[5] 10 March 2024—accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules

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 [6] 10 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I do not seek a formal sanction, but someone needs to tell them they need to take a break from WP:Advocacy for WP:FRINGE science.
the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity—this is not part of WP:RULES, they are inventing rules of their own making. In fact, citing Boslough (2023) is more than enough WP:V for the YDIH being pseudoscience.
So, Boslough (2023) is sufficient for WP:V my view, and Holliday c.s. (2023) is an extra bonus.
If you want an example: K.R. Popper admitted that Marx's predictions were scientific, but these predictions failed in the real world. So, it suffices to quote Popper in order to show that Marx was mistaken.
@Aquillion: Wikipedia already has the article Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There it is presented in full detail.
a maximalist interpretation—for those in the know: a WP:FRINGE interpretation. And no, we don't incorporate fringe theories into mainstream articles. We don't incorporate pseudohistory into Bible scholarship articles.
@Nycarchitecture212: You should mind both WP:BOOMERANG and WP:SANTA. Accusations of antisemitism without providing evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. What you ignore is that scholars belonging to Reform or Conservative Judaism, see e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], and "consensus based on archaeology" at [11], also oppose fundamentalist pseudohistory. And secular Jews completely oppose it. I'm not saying that Orthodox Jews are bad people. All I am saying is that their views about Ancient Israel have been debunked by mainstream historians and mainstream archaeologists.
@ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think it was their first time, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism. Especially [12]. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[13] 11 March 2024

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

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 KronosAlight

I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing.

As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof.

There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work.

Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity.

He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV.

I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case.

The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.

I'm not endorsing the theory – I think it's basically science fiction, a mad mixture of Ancient Astronaut Theory and Young Earth Creationism. But you need more than just one paper which has received little coverage and, last time I checked, basically no citations of its own, in order to justify the claim that it has been "refuted", which is a conclusive and final claim, not a provisional one.

If the citation of a single academic paper (and I of course do not doubt that the paper itself was subject to entirely valid crutiny via a rigorous peer-review process) is "more than enough" to declare a niche scientific theory "debunked", then I do wonder what the minimal Wikipedia requirements might be to make such a claim. What’s the ‘low bar’, compared to this ‘high bar’?

That isn't how the scientific process works, which necessarily involves back-and-forth disputes in which multiple researchers and schools of thought claim to have 'debunked' the other, nor is it how Wikipedia adjudicates the truth or falsity of the claims to pseudoscientificity, which has a higher threshold of proof.

You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. KronosAlight (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding WP:ASPERSIONs and the like, it would probably be best to take this to WP:FRINGEN. I think theory is obviously fringe, but how to best describe that and what sources to use for it still requires some thought; people at WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nycarchitecture212

KronosAlight I'm sorry that you've also had a negative interaction with this individual. A few days ago, he attempted the same thing with me. When I messaged him on the article's talk page expressing my concerns, he didn't engage with them at all. He rigidly adheres to one academic narrative regarding biblical scholarship and condescends to anyone with a maximalist interpretation. Personally, I've decided to cease interactions with him. Regrettably, based on my experiences, he appears to be a contentious editor who doesn't engage in discussions and debates in good faith. He frequently reverts edits without delving into the details on talk pages and endeavors to impose his narrow point of view, exploiting Wikipedia policies to suppress discourse and shape articles from a singular perspective rather than incorporating multiple academic viewpoints. While I'm not certain about Wikipedia conventions in such situations or the specific rules he may be violating, it seems implausible that his conduct is permissible. I do think the wording was a little choppy, but your request for him to bring more sourcing is valid and the right way to move the conversation forward.

He also reverted my edits of an anti-Jewish trope about pigs and blood that was poorly sourced and unrelated to the article. The trope of Jews and pigs and blood is best well known in Judensau (German for "Jew-sow") a derogatory and dehumanizing image of Jews that appeared around the 13th century. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis. Jews, who were typically portrayed as having obscene contact with unclean animals such as pigs or owls or representing a devil, appeared on cathedral or church ceilings, pillars, utensils, etchings, etc.

He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perputrating pseudohistory and was ranting about this again a few days ago which got his post struck. One of the consequences of that is he is subtly pushing a pseudohistory revisionist agenda to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient Israel characters (mythical or not) solely as Yahewists. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. I hope that a level-headed administrator will thoroughly investigate these matters. Such action would send a clear message about the true culture of Wikipedia. - Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; I feel quite confident in my characterization and felt an obligation to weigh in to defend KronosAlight and share my experience. I've never had to contribute to one of these posts before but Tgeorgescu's heavy-handed use of admin resources, approach to sourcing and lack of good faith are genuinely concerning, something I've never encountered before.

My attempts to engage in discussion on talk pages with this user have been sidestepped, and he has made some objectionable statements in the past, which other users have noted that I should be able to raise.

I've raised valid concerns, most recently regarding the edit about pig's blood on the Ahab page he insists on, and his disregard for my input on the Abrahamic Religions talk page. If you look at what I wrote, it makes quite a lot of sense. Since you are contemplating a logged warning for speaking up, I'm here to contribute positively in good faith and enjoy myself; I didn’t come here looking for trouble. My area of expertise is uncommon and provides a valuable perspective within the framework of Wikipedia policy and discourse. Articles flourish when multiple views converge, and new information is synthesized through discourse. If you 100% disagree with what I wrote, it would be helpful if you could address my specific concerns, and then offer advice on how to refine my approach if necessary, which requires more work but is far more productive and positive. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the full quote: The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency inside the mainstream academia. In mainstream history, it's void. Same as Jehovah's Witnesses dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory." tgeorgescu (talk) 22:1233, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This statement could be considered controversial or offensive, as it directly criticizes the perspectives of certain religious groups, labeling them as promoters of "cult pseudohistory." The use of the term "void currency" suggests that the views of Orthodox Jews on early Judaism are completely disregarded in mainstream academia, which is a broad and potentially misleading generalization. Similarly, equating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the fall of Jerusalem with pseudohistory could be seen as dismissive or disrespectful.

The phrase "I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" indicates a strong bias against certain interpretations of history, which could be interpreted as antagonistic towards groups associated with those interpretations.

While the speaker may intend to express a commitment to historical accuracy, the language used can be seen as targeting specific religious groups, which might be perceived as anti-Jewish or anti-religious sentiment. It’s important to critique specific historical claims or methodologies without broadly dismissing or demeaning the perspectives of entire communities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serpahimblade, I reached out in good faith to get your take on my specific concerns about those articles. Do you mind taking a look and weighing in on each one? To reiterate, he changes articles to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient characters from the Torah (mythical or not) as Yahewists. Also, the pig blood thing was upsetting and another user said it was poorly sourced too. I was really surprised when he reverted these edits. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

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

I might otherwise see this as a content dispute, but I'm quite concerned by the type of attitude displayed even at this very request: You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. If you know about more sources for the claim, and think it needs more, you ought to be adding them, not removing the claim even though you apparently know it's verified. That's textbook tendentious editing, and if that's how this KronosAlight intends to handle situations like this, I rather wonder if they should be editing in this area (or indeed, any area) at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As to Nycarchitecture212, you seem to have rather grossly mischaracterized the statements you are supposedly quoting. That's not appropriate either. I think there needs to be at least logged warnings issued here, if not more, but would like some additional input if anyone has any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there should be at least a logged warning. The editing is so pointy that I wouldn't object to a topic ban, though I lean slightly towards a logged warning in this case as there hasn't been a pattern of this behavior presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nycarchitecture212, as to how to "refine your approach", as you stated, you might start by not characterizing someone's statement that they "have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" as "[having] an ax to grind with Jews". Either you are implying that Jews in general are engaged in fundamentalist pseudohistory, or you are totally mischaracterizing the statement to make it look inflammatory and unacceptable when it was not. Whichever one of those it is, that's completely inappropriate. And if you can't recognize it as such, I have my doubts as to whether you should continue editing in this topic area at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose I can, given that, see how you got there without it being as bad, but let's not see something like that again. As to resolution, I would go forward with the logged warning, and hope that will suffice to settle things down. If not and we're back here again, we can decide what more to do at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm afraid I mind. AE does not resolve content disputes or make binding decisions about what an article should or should not say. If there remains disagreement over that, and that can't be resolved via discussion, additional forms of dispute resolution might be necessary to involve other editors. But that decision is not for me, or anyone here, to make. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jarek19800

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 Jarek19800

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Rosguill (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jarek19800 (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/Eastern_Europe#Contentious_topic_designation

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

12 March outright WP:OR ("left", let alone "far left" is mentioned nowhere in the article and no new source is provided), and expresses a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality vis-a-vis Polish media
8 March edit warring and claiming support from the talk page discussion, when the state of Talk:Mikhail_Kalinin does not support it
6 March Personal attacks against The Kip (albeit before being warned of CTOPS)

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 6 March.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In addition to the above diffs displaying tendentious editing behavior, in general, Jarek19800's conduct in Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#oko_press_Poland-_propaganda_can_be_reliable_source? exhibits a WP:RGW and battleground mentality. If I weren't involved in that discussion, or else I would have likely imposed sanctions myself. A block is likely most appropriate here, as their sole edit outside the Eastern Europe topic is a transphobic comment at Talk:Death of Nex Benedict. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1212247059

Discussion concerning Jarek19800

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 Jarek19800

I finally understand with my students the idea of this section.In 500 words than: this kind of action shall never happen on someone who 1. has only 10 or similar edits 2. most of edits were in Talks section which is defined for open discussion 3. all my edits were always(apart one explained below) with note and logic 4. no vulgarity or vandalism. All edits were on 2 following topics:a. Mikhail Kalinin-one of top five communist leaders(agreed and evidenced) one of five who signed order for Katyn massacre with 20000 victims (agreed and evidenced). One of editors reedited it from header on base it is not fundamentally important as Kalinin was figurehead (not agreed and against a logic).b:oko press with label far left. this was not documented but the same(not documented far right)was on blocked for editing Visegrad 24. Action successful far-right deleted on Visegrad 24. Standard recovered; In case of Talks section unless clear vandalism shall not be mentioned at all. Just remark for other editor: how one sentence request for official fact can violate 3 policies of Wikipedia??? Another editor on Talks section first "invited" me to open discussion on reliability of oko press as a source and quickly joined the action here. I can see from above that free speech which is based on facts and logic is unpleasant to some people but encyclopedia concept is in my opinion not for them — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarek19800 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WeatherWriter

Just had a comment relevant to this. This may be a case of a CTOPS COI. Visegrád 24 was recently protected due to double CTOPS (PIA and Russia-Ukraine), but the reason for this was brought up at AN, due to the subject of the article, Visegrád 24, posting on Twitter (March 2) to have editors "fix" the article from propaganda. On March 3, Jarek19800, as well as maybe a dozen newer accounts on March 2-4, became heavily involved in the article and its content with mass editing (see article history on 2 March prior to protection) and talk page discussions. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:15, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Kip

~~In a hurry at the moment so my full statement will come later, but just wanted to note I support a topic ban at the very least if not an indef.~~ The Kip 22:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy, my first AE case. Jarek’s conduct over the last week has been misguided at best and disruptive at worst:

Ideologically-driven editing: This RSN discussion of Oko.press; Jarek has insisted OKO.press is unreliable “propaganda” because they (supposedly) haven't criticized the current Polish government, while also claiming without sources that most Polish media is controlled by leftists.

Failure to understand WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:DUE: Both the discussion and Mikhail Kalinin. Jarek repeatedly added to the latter’s lead that he was responsible for the Katyn massacre, attributing this claim to a primary source; however, it only backs the claim that Kalinin co-signed the order, not that he held significant responsibility. I explained on the talk page how this claim violated WP:OR and WP:V due to the lack of a proper source, and WP:DUE as a result; however, I never received a response, although an attempt seems to have been caught in an edit filter. At the Oko discussion, Jarek repeatedly asserted claims without any reliable sources in support, such as the above claims, that there's an anti-PiS “media monopoly” in Poland, or generally claiming Oko to be unreliable propaganda simply because “it is." On the two occasions he did provide “sources,” they were a single article from a right-wing newspaper and his own interpretation(s) of Oko statements.

Failure to understand consensus: Stated that the discussion should be closed as WP:GUNREL based on his own opinion, despite four WP:GREL votes at the time. After WeatherWriter explained WP:V and consensus to him, Jarek insisted that because “nobody questioned his links,” we should simply agree it’s GUNREL.

Battleground editing, PAs, and aspersions: Said I should be deleted from the Oko discussion for "hiding the facts concerning Soviet murderers,” implied I opposed his edits in order to defend “left-wing elements” , and claimed via edit summary that my Kalinin claim removal was "defending the communist mass murderer.”

In short, Jarek has shown at best a lack of understanding and at worst a complete disregard for Wikipedia policy on numerous occasions, in addition to casting plenty of aspersions about those opposed to him. Barring a massive behavioral shift (which his statement doesn’t indicate), I don’t see him becoming a constructive contributor to either the topic area or Wikipedia as a whole, and I’m supportive of either a TBAN or indef. The Kip 07:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:@Firefangledfeathers, point of clarification - is the 500-word limit based off the response in Wikitext (which currently clocks my statement in at 500 exactly), or in normal/visual text (which has it just under 400)? I'm unfortunately not quite experienced with AE. The Kip 06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's why the claim violated all three:

WP:V: Information, especially contentious claims, must be verifiable via a reliable source. Claiming in the lead that Kalinin held responsibility for the massacre somewhat implies he held sole/major responsibility, which your source (the execution order) doesn't verify; it lists him as one of six signatories, while RSes consider Stalin and Beria responsible.
Reasserting this using that source is WP:OR; your own opinion/synthesis of information can't back a claim.
Furthermore, it's undue weight to add this to the lead when it doesn't appear to be a mainstream view among RSes.

I've explained this multiple times now. The Kip 22:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jarek19800

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

@Jarek19800: Our behavioral guidelines call upon us to not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Would you please explain your rationale for making this edit, as well as the extent to which your rationale is (in-)consistent with that guideline? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my view, when Jarek19800 wrote if Visegrad 24 is far right than it is obvious that oko press is far left. it is stright and direct logic, that sentence shows both a lack of understanding of our sourcing requirements and a failure to engage in logical thinking. Cullen328 (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cullen328 on both parts, and given that do not think that Jarek19800 should be editing in this topic area. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:34, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's enough WP:BATTLEGROUND-adjacent misconduct here for me to support an indef EE TBAN. I hope Jarek19800 gets a chance to edit in a less contentious topic area, learns more about how disputes should go here, and posts a competent appeal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clerking

@Jarek19800: you need to keep your comments in your own section, and please be aware of the 500-word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jarek19800: thank you for the kind words. You need to keep your comments here in the Statement by Jarek19800 section. You're now over the word limit, so you may want to trim. I've removed your 18:37 comment, since it was made after the word limit breach. Please do not add further comments unless you've trimmed below 500 or are requesting an extension. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Kip: we count "normal/visual text" words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zilch-nada

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

Request concerning Zilch-nada

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation

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

Longstanding and systematic use of dismissive and belittling tone towards other editors:
1. 2 July 2023
2. 2 July 2023
3. 27 September 2023
4. 15 December 2023
5. 12 March 2024
6. 13 March 2024 (a response to a request to retract a personal attack)
7. 13 March 2024
8. 14 March 2024
9. 14 March 2024 (a third party requests that they retract a personal attack; they decline)
10. 1 February 2024
11. 1 February 2024
12. 7 February 2024
Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus, and battleground behavior: I'm not exactly sure how to show this in diffs, but they've made roughly a dozen comments on Talk:Sarah Jeong and about twice that many at Talk:Gender, rehashing longstanding settled questions, taking a heavily argumentative (rather than consensus-building) approach, and not desisting despite the evident failure of their efforts to draw any support. Here's a sampling to try to illustrate the basic tenor of their contributions:
1. March 14 at Talk:Gender
2. March 13 at Talk:Gender
3. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong
4. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong
5. March 12 at Talk:Sarah Jeong

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[14]

Discussion concerning Zilch-nada

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

Statement by Zilch-nada

(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)

As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.

I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.

Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".

Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion.
Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments.

Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Aquilion: how do they speak for themselves if my logic employed also followed that of abundantly sourced reliable media?

Zilch-nada (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let me specify; what I said was my opinion, and indeed not a relevant one. But upon merely using "scare quotes" I was pushed to elaborate upon a notion of illegitimacy. I agree that that was irrelevant for the talk, but it was an opinion that was asked for. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Beccaynr: I demanded a response from no one. I have considered opening up the talk on gender; that is why I have ceased editing it; it's clear it's getting nowhere.

Zilch-nada (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Zilch-nada's WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions in the archives of Talk:Reverse racism, which is within the American politics topic area. They are often the sole voice pushing for a contentious change to the article, e.g. Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9#Reverted edit, where they display a lack of WP:CIVILITY as well as a failure to WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that ~~have~~ had already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beccaynr

On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [15], [16], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [17] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [18] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.

Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [19]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [20], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.

I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [21]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question.; 01:00, 15 December 2023; 01:04, 15 December 2023; 01:10, 15 December 2023. Another example of referring to participants as "you people" is at 05:02, 15 December 2023.

Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Some relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case:

[22]: "prior to her transition": yes, when "she" was a man. Jesus Christ.

When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:

[23] Weird accusation. The article uses "she"; that's fine. But I'm not respecting a rapist in talk - I have mostly used the term "they" -, nor am I even remotely suggesting to misgender the average trans person. Nonsense.

When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:

[24] Not all "transitions" deserve equal respect - a view clearly espoused by the police, the prisons, politicians like Sturgeon, etc. etc.; that's how I'll refer to this "person" in talk. Is me putting scare quotes around "person" insulting all "persons"? Give it a break.

I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zilch-nada

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

I haven't gone through every one of the diffs yet, but so far it's a mixed bag. Some of them I'm struggling to see the incivility in. Others, particularly those shown by Aquillion, are clearly inappropriate. I should be able to finish reading through everything tomorrow, I'm just commenting now because I noticed this hasn't received any admin attention yet. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fizzbuzz306

Fizzbuzz306 is advised to be more civil in their interactions, especially in areas where tensions may already be high. No formal action taken. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:23, 20 March 2024 (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 Fizzbuzz306

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Fizzbuzz306 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

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

07:51, 12 March 2024, 08:27, 12 March 2024, 08:34, 12 March 2024 Engaging in an edit war against Rhain removing the high quality source Game Developer from Sweet Baby Inc.
08:45, 12 March 2024 In an edit summary, describes Rhain as "patronizing" them when pointing out that Game Developer is considered a reliable source, before banning Rhain from their talk page.
03:06, 17 March 2024 Personal attack against Aquillion: Your opinion does not trump consensus. Your edit history demonstrates a very clear bias and your opinions on this matter are not relevant.
03:23, 17 March 2024 Casting aspersions about multiple editors I realize several editors on this page want to tell a certain narrative but these sources are clearly lying.
03:29, 17 March 2024 Casting aspersions about multiple editors ignoring NPOV The reason for that is certain editors here have forgotten [[WP::NPOV]] and only accept sources if they tell the narrative those editors want them to tell.
04:13, 17 March 2024 Describing a list of sources I provided as a gish gallop.

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)

08:20, 12 March 2024 GENSEX CTOP notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

In short, this seems to be a continuation of the type of comment from multiple IP and non-autoconfirmed editors that lead to Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. being temporarily semi-protected. Unfounded accusations that longstanding experienced editors are biased and should not be editing the article, that multiple editors are ignoring NPOV, that reliable sources are not reliable and should be discarded. I suggest a topic ban from GENSEX/GamerGate at minimum, if not a block. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callanecc: Short answer no. When I requested a TBAN I was frustrated by the continuing misconduct that lead to the talk page being semi-protected, and I was also coloured by the CU block for sockpuppetry that was lifted a couple of hours later. Upon reflection, as the current disruption has been limited to Sweet Baby Inc. I think a page block from the article and its talk page would be more appropriate here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Fizzbuzz306 recognised that their contributions were unacceptable, and they are committing to improving how they interact on talk pages, I don't see any issues with closing this without action. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification diff.

Discussion concerning Fizzbuzz306

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 Fizzbuzz306

In order to defend against this I will need to be informed of the *specific* policy I have broken. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 04:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I have a lot to learn about the types of discourse that are tolerated here. Some of the above edits certainly *felt* justified at the time... but I wouldn't try to defend them now.

TBH I have no interest in further participating in Sweet Baby Inc; contentious topics like that are detrimental to my own mental health! After I've had time to cool off and reflect, yeah, this was unacceptable and sanctions are warranted. I'd appreciate if it was limited to just the topic area so I can try to contribute more constructively elsewhere in the future. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Fizzbuzz306

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

@Sideswipe9th: Is there evidence of misconduct in this topic area that's unrelated to Sweet Baby Inc.?
@Fizzbuzz306: That you need to ask that question in response to the diffs that have been provided likely speaks more than you wanted it to. Have a look at WP:EW, WP:CIVIL, WP:V and WP:DE as starting points. As a fairly new editor please consider carefully what you say on this noticeboard. The standards expected of editors in these topic areas more higher and more rigorously enforced that in less contentious areas and that is especially the case here. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:54, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on Fizzbuzz306's comments above I believe that this request can be closed with no action. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At the surface level, these edits are clear enough that a sanction could be justified. They also look like a new editor struggling to learn our ways, who's picked a topic area where there's much less leeway than is normally extended to new editors. It also seems that their first exposure to the internal machinery of Wikipedia might have given them some wrong ideas about what kind of language is tolerated on Wikipedia.[25] This astonishingly bad block by an Arbitrator, poor unblock decline from an admin, and clear casting of WP:ASPERSIONS established a hostile tone. Both did apologize, but we only have one chance to make a first impression. I'm not convinced that a sanction is needed at this point; the editor has contributed constructively elsewhere and I think giving them some advice on community norms might be the best chance of curbing disruptive discussion while retaining someone who wants to contribute positively. It should go without saying that if the disruptive comments do not stop, future reports wouldn't be as lenient. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the latest response from Fizzbuzz306, I don't think any sanctions are needed here. The editor seems willing to learn how to edit productively, and I'm not seeing any indication that a topic ban or any other measures are necessary to prevent future disruption. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's...definitely an unfortunate introduction that this editor received, as The Wordsmith points out. I have always thought "must be a sock" blocks, without being able to point to who the account is a sock of, are bad practice. Some people actually do read the documentation and learn from "lurking" before they start contributing somewhere (I actually do), so simply having some baseline competence out of the gate is not in itself proof that an account is a sock. I do think that Fizzbuzz306 needs to do some moderating of their mode of discussion, and perhaps learn when it's time to accept that it's over, but that's something we've all got to learn. I don't want contentious topic restrictions to be used as a way to prohibit people from simply disagreeing with the current consensus, as I think such disagreement can highlight things that need to be improved even if the overall consensus does not change. So, I would ask, then: Fizzbuzz306, are you willing to take that advice on board and engage in more civil discussion, even when you vehemently disagree with someone? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:21, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a genuinely new editor who happens to have gotten wrapped up in a bad block and appears frustrated at the way that they were bitten. Even so, the new editor stuck around, and has acknowledged that their tone ought change. I'm not inclined to sanction here, namely because sanctions should be preventative, and the user appears genuinely committed to improve their civility going forward. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by andrew.robbins

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: andrew.robbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – andrew.robbins (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Talk:Elissa Slotkin Extended Confirmed Protection for one year. There does not appear to be a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. There is no discussion with regard to this sanction on Talk:Elissa Slotkin until after its implementation (and even then, only by a third user). There is an active allegation of WP:Meatpuppetry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article but ECP-lock is not a requested remedy.

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

Notification of that administrator: Diff of notification

Statement by andrew.robbins

This page was already semi-protected due to events in July of 2023. Per WP:ATPROT, "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption." Extended-confirmed protection of talk pages is so rare that is not even mentioned in the policy. If the disruption in question was the meatpuppetry allegation (which, granted, it may not have been. I can't read Courcelles mind.), ECP-locking is not at all proportionate. If the allegation is confirmed, the discussion can simply be removed after-the-fact. Even if found to be entirely inauthentic, the discussion was never uncivil or disruptive. The time-frame of this sanction of one year is also utterly disproportionate. The page is already semi-protected and had no pattern of repeated violations that would justify an ECP lock of that length. I am requesting that this sanction be reverted and the prior semi-protected status be restored. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to realize that much of this hinges on the proceedings over on the noticeboard. It may make sense to simply hold off on this appeal until that investigation is conducted given both the prevalence of unconfirmed assertions in the statements below and that a finding of innocence would mean that there is no valid protection from meatpuppets concern in the first place. andrew.robbins (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with the notion that discussions have been neither uncivil nor disruptive. There were numerous instances of personal attacks leveled by Thespeedoflight and his socks, at the minimum. And while it might be unusual to ECP a talk page, it is also, as noted below, highly unusual for there to be this level of off-wiki coordination. I was hesitant in the past to disclose off-wiki accounts, but yeah, it’s @ProgFlipPAWI. Just scroll through his tl and see how the replies to his tweets line up exactly with the actions happening here; this isn’t speculation, users here have already admitted to being socks. Cpotisch (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the sockpuppet/meatpuppet speculation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article. This is not the place for that.

Admins, can you strike? andrew.robbins (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dcpoliticaljunkie: With all due respect, I think that the talk page got significantly more hostile after it was ECP'd, not more productive.

Also, the allegations of meat-puppetry are just that. Allegations. Acting as if they're confirmed when they are very much an open question is WP:ASPERSIONS and I'd greatly appreciate you cutting it out. andrew.robbins (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Drmies: The reason that I fell back on "just remove it later" is that Dcpoliticaljunkie did just that with the SPI referenced by wordsmith on a fairly large thread at Special:Diff/1212594724/1213401146 and nobody raised an issue with it. andrew.robbins (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the User:Seraphimblade here, ECP a talk page for a whole year just over an unconfirmed sockpuppet accusation is overdue and drastic, it should be removed once the accusation is closed. Even if there is any confirmed sockpuppet, any effect of sockpuppetry can be cleaned up by just deleting the sections started by socks and the replies from socks, while the current ECP status prevents lots of potential goodwill editors from providing any contribution to that page which will lower its quality. Also, the page itself is ECPed and we should generally trust their ability to decide what should be added based on Wikipedia policy and sufficient information, ECP the talk page will only limit the information they can get. OrcaLord (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This strikes me as categorically weak reasoning; if a talk page gets flooded with spam, it will result in edits being implemented that don’t actually have solid justification, and it is very difficult to reverse that when needed. Cpotisch (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

I see the SPI is already linked. Given the off-wiki issues, I contend this was a reasonable use of CTOP authority to ensure the proper functioning of the project. ECP for a talk page is a rather unusual action, but active attempts to recruit meat puppets is also unusual. Being at the intersection of AP2 and NEWBLPBAN makes the article and the talk page flash point for this type of disruption. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dcpoliticaljunkie

I believe this enforcement action is warranted and hope it will allow for more collaborative editing of this article. For whatever reason, a cabal of Twitter users have chosen to turn this article into a battleground driven by their dislike of the subject as flagged by Cpotisch and admin Muboshgu here. One of the ringleaders of this group of Twitter users (@progflippawi, believed to be the puppetmaster Thespeedoflightneverchanges recently admitted to actively spamming other anti-Slotkin Twitter users to find "experienced Wikipedia editors" to help add negative information to Slotkin's article. This comes after their numerous attempts to sockpuppet have been detected and banned. Simultaneously with the sockmaster's recruitment, a series of editors with sparse editing histories swarmed the talk page to argue for one of the sockmaster's pet inclusions which was previously removed by Drmies. Following the ECP, OrcaLord (part of the anti-Slotkin Twitter cabal who was blocked from the page for edit warring by ScottishFinnishRadish and separately previously warned for original research on the page is the only one of the group who is ECP to argue for the dubious inclusion: while not ideal, it is much more manageable than the swarm following blocked editor Thespeedoflightneverchanges's Twitter recruitment. The enforcement has helped. My report on the administrator's noticeboard has more details about the meatpuppetry concerns on this article in addition to the sockpuppet issue. Need to get back to work so will leave it at that. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Statement by Drmies

Protecting a talk page is more common than some may thing, particularly in cases of continued vandalism or nationalist editing, for instance, and ArbCom is given the authority to do those kinds of things also even if they exceed what might be the ordinary reach of the ordinary administrator. andrew.robbins argues "well you can remove stuff later", but that (willfully or not) skips over the very fact that talk page disruption, esp. by people who act as meatpuppets would, is quickly highly disruptive, and the more posts there are, with responses and responses to responses, the harder it is to just remove a thread as a forum post. This semi-protection was entirely within the administrator's discretion, and even more so given the post-1992 status. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by andrew.robbins

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 Aquillion

Also see this open GENSEX clarification / amendment request, where the issue of ECP / ECR as it relates to WP:CTOPs is being discussed; it's still open, but at least some arbs are weighing in with the position that admins already have the authority to apply indefinite ECR to specific pages in CTOPs. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear (and I apologize if my replying like this is improper) my position is not that Courcelles did not have the authority to do this. My position is that this was a disproportionate and unnecessary exercise of said authority. andrew.robbins (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

As a general principle, I think that any standard restriction able to be authorized on a contentious topic is, by definition, proportionate and necessary. If it were not, the Committee would not have authorized administrators to have such wide discretion in imposing said restrictions unilaterally. It would be self-defeating to the purpose of the CTOPS procedure to require a continuum of escalation in protection beyond what the imposing administrator thinks is appropriate. And I think in the case where an article falls under two separate CT areas and one of those is BLP, there should be an additional presumption in favor of preventing disruption, even if that comes at the cost of non-EC editors being able to contribute. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result of the appeal by andrew.robbins

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

I'm not weighing in on the appropriateness/proportionality of the 30/500 protection just yet, but I do want to note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thespeedoflightneverchanges is relevant here for additional context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the use of ECP was valid and within Courcelles's authority under the Contentious Topics designations. I'd be open to arguments for reducing the duration, but I don't think there's likely to be a consensus for removing it entirely. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles, while of course use of ECP is within discretion here, what was the reason for using ECP rather than semiprotection? Shutting out editors from even a talk page is a drastic action, and ECP shuts out substantially more, so I think that does deserve more consideration than a rubber stamp. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 20 March 2024 (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 381: / Line 381: @@
 :I am beginning to realize that much of this hinges on the proceedings over on the noticeboard. It may make sense to simply hold off on this appeal until that investigation is conducted given both the prevalence of unconfirmed assertions in the statements below and that a finding of innocence would mean that there is no valid protection from meatpuppets concern in the first place. [[User:Andrew.robbins|andrew.robbins]] ([[User talk:Andrew.robbins|talk]]) 21:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 :Strongly disagree with the notion that discussions have been neither uncivil nor disruptive. There were numerous instances of personal attacks leveled by Thespeedoflight and his socks, at the minimum. And while it might be unusual to ECP a talk page, it is also, as noted below, highly unusual for there to be this level of off-wiki coordination. I was hesitant in the past to disclose off-wiki accounts, but yeah, it’s @ProgFlipPAWI. Just scroll through his tl and see how the replies to his tweets line up exactly with the actions happening here; this isn’t speculation, users here have already admitted to being socks. [[User:Cpotisch|Cpotisch]] ([[User talk:Cpotisch|talk]]) 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
+::Please take the sockpuppet/meatpuppet speculation to [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article]]. This is not the place for that.
+::Admins, can you strike? [[User:Andrew.robbins|andrew.robbins]] ([[User talk:Andrew.robbins|talk]]) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 [[User:Dcpoliticaljunkie|Dcpoliticaljunkie]]: With all due respect, I think that the talk page got ''significantly more'' hostile after it was ECP'd, not more productive.
 :Also, the allegations of meat-puppetry are just that. Allegations. Acting as if they're confirmed when they are very much an open question is [[WP:ASPERSIONS]] and I'd greatly appreciate you cutting it out. [[User:Andrew.robbins|andrew.robbins]] ([[User talk:Andrew.robbins|talk]]) 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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