User:Ayenaee/Advice for TBANned editor

<!--

[As a related aside. The query you made to Selfstudier is hilarious because of it’s truth: "They don't even speak English here [en.wiki], they speak in Wikipedia policy codes?". I know you said it in anger, and I don’t intend to invalidate that. Their response, that we get used to it after a while, is true but maybe it shouldn’t be. You perfectly express the problem especially for new editors. I just saw a new editor being told that YouTube wasn’t a reliable resource and to read WP:RS. Their response was amazement. They were indefinitely blocked for calling the experienced editor an idiot. But imagine their incredulity (assuming good faith) being told that a world wide recognised social media site couldn’t be cited to make their point. Until you’re experienced that does sound idiotic, and how can you get experienced if everything everyone says sound like gibberish. Any social sub-group will have its in-group language, but maybe we (you?) need to work out how to make the transition to that easier for new editors. The reason that this is relevant in case I’m being to subtle 😀  is that even your throw-away remark, said in anger, had wisdom valuable to Wikipedia in it. That’s why Wikipedia needs you to stay. I’ve taken your point into account on this page and tried to de-WPC it (de-Wikipedia policy code it 😂🤣). To me it reads much better.

How to get unbanned
! scope=row colspan=4 style="text-align: left"; | Addressing the underlying (rather than apparent) reasons for the ban two examples: The poimt is, my style is my style, as your is yours. They suit us and match the way we think, and we shouldn’t (because we can’t) try and change who we are. But it is possible in the right circumstances (having discussions on Wikipedia, for example) to be aware that your style doesn’t suit the environment, and to a certain extent change it to fit. I do this when editing, by summarising sources in my own style in a table. I then rewrite appropriate parts of that summary into an article, again in my own style. Then I review it 2-3 times trying to de-style it to wiki-voice. This normally means making each sentence more concise, and deflowering (sic 😄) the words I use. Even after that when I look at my final edits they seem too long and flowery (by my understanding of other’s standards, not my own). But I stop at that point, and it normally seems to satisfy the wiki-style. I use a similar less formal method for editing my responses in discussions. This always means I take longer to edit than most people. All my writing on wiki isn’t first draft, it’s probably 4th edit of the 1st draft. I don’t create articles (because once I’ve thought through what I want to say, someone else has already created it), but I’m good at expanding stubs to C or B class. [Writing that I realized it also keeps me away from too much CTOP controversy - I can greatly expand CTOP stubs so I do, and leave the larger more contentious articles to others, I trust the process will appropriately include my (sometimes biased) opinions] Your style in articles is fine, it’s more your style in discussion that needs to fit in more. I’m not suggesting you use my method, find one that works for you. Your main issue seems to be conciseness and staying on point. I think taking time to identify the underlying rather than apparent issue in a discussion will help. There is also some wiki-guidance that you should read:
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * scope=row colspan=4 style="text-align: left"; | The TBAN is officially for breaching an ARBCOM ARBPIA sanction (1RR - which did happen several times) but the indirectly expressed issues, which may have lead to a ban/block outside CTOP, are more important to address. There are two which run through the AE commentary and the editor’s talk page warnings, including that of the deciding admins. They are not the direct reason for the ban, but these issues aren’t hidden, and should be considered in good faith for any unban request to succeed. Those issues are:
 * The editor’s perceived lack of experience to edit in a contentious topic area, given the complexities that exist. The feeling is that the the editor has good edits to make, and that they in good faith want to make them in terms of the rules, but that they do not seem experienced enough to make them on these terms. All the other issues raised relate to incorrect application of rules (an experience issue), so the enforcement would not have arisen but for this issue. I definitely believe this can be overcome with an in depth revision of the rules.
 * The editor’s writing style in discussions (not in article edits0. This arises when the editor’sarticle edits are queried and in the response to the AE process. The editor’s discussion style is their style, and reflects how they thank. The aim is not to change this, but to translate it into a more wiki—discussion style when necessary. The areas to focus on are conciseness and focus on the issue being discussed.
 * - style="vertical-align:top;"
 * colspan=3 | You have understood that you have a style of writing that some other people find difficult to understand. This isn’t a criticism, it’s your style of writing and it reflects the way your mind works - which is a good valid way. I understand this because I have a similar problem.
 * I got the 2nd highest grade on my honours thesis, but the comment given was "Verbose, indosyncratic, and chatty." The Prof, who new me well and was himself quite idiosyncratic we used to go drink beer after class and discuss life  was only describing who I was, not criticizing me. I own that description and wear it as a badge of pride.
 * Someone in good faith once compared my writing style to Shakespeare, but I realized what they subconsciously meant was that my writing was flowery and they couldn’t understand a word of it. I love Shakespeare, but I don’t wear that one with pride, although I do own it and try to limit it when necessary 😂
 * WP:CONCISE: This isn’t about writing in general, but rather a criteria for choosing article title from WP:Article. It says: " The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." If you replace "the topic" with "the discussion point [you’re trying to make]" it’s a perfect definition of how we should be participating in discussions.
 * The essay WP:TLDR is a good summary of why people tend to not be concise, and what they can do about it. The essay’s "See also" section sets out lots of other good on-wiki help about conciseness. The ones I’d highlight for you are:
 * Read before commenting NB article for responding to accusations. I know you were horrified and panicked at being brought up at AE. But if you could see through those emotions (difficult, I know) and been able to identify the main issues your response would have been better. These issues were ability to edit in CTOP and writing style, not 1RR reverts or {cn} tags (although those were the examples of the underlying issues). So, 500 words was sufficient to address the AE. I would have structured it as follows (after -much editing):
 * Used about 300 words to acknowledge your lack of rule application experience, explaining as per your edit count history that although you’ve been on wiki for 4 years and have 8000 edits these have been in two bursts of output, which didn’t allow sufficient time to become experienced. (I understand this because the pattern of my editing looks the same, for different reasons. I started editing, and then was to depressed during COVID to edit in a major way. But I did spend that time wikignomimg and reading policies and the drama boards, which served me well in this editing stint]
 * Used 150 words to acknowledge how evidence of this arose in your misunderstanding related to 0RR and {cn} application which hadn’t arisen in your first burst of,output.
 * Used about 50 words to own the inexperience and pledged not to edit in CTOP without guidance from a trusted experienced user.
 * I’m sure the Admins would have given another 100-200 words to answer any questions they might have had.
 * Don't bludgeon the process I haven't seen you do this. This article is important for you to be able to recognize when someone is bludgeoning you and avoid it. In content or process (e.g. AfD, AN/I, AE) discussions you don’t need to answer every question posed. If someone is bludgeoning in bad faith you can ignore them, or only address their on-topic comments. When I participate (very selectively) in process discussions I’ve thought through my comment well and tried to make sure it represents my opinion fully (using my writing process above) so although I continue reading others comments I try not to respond even if my opinions are attacked. I’ll only respond if my argument is misrepresented, and then only briefly, or if someone changes my mind.
 * Wall of text You don’t do walls of text. But by inserting so much white space in your first AE response you had a similar impact, on me at least. I thought of it as a wall of lace. The white space (obviously good in articles) made your response seem longer than it was and my brain resisted reading it, which is the same reason our brains reject walls of text. In wiki discussions the style seems to be concise with less paragraph breaks, if any (so a little hedge of text 😄). People used to that won’t ready the wall or lace versions.
 * User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing Good detailed essay about removing excess
 * WP:Germaine About not adding info to articles, which while related to the topic, is not necessary in the specific article.
 * Too much detail Avoid it.
 * Keep it concise Being concise in AfD !votes
 * }

Participants
Colors are randomly chosen to differentiate participants only and have no meaning Other Commentators: Uninvolved Admins:
 * WP:ARBPIA TBANned, 7-day Blocked: }}
 * Requestor: }}
 * Uninvolved:
 * TBAN, Block Admin:
 * Block Reviewer Admin:

Sanctions logged

 * The editor is indefinitely banned from the Palestine/Israel conflict, broadly construed as a result of [the arbitration enforcement discussion]] at WP:AE. 22:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The editor is blocked one week for violation of their topic ban after being warned. 23:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Concerns raised in arbitration enforment discussion
All underlined italic emphasis added to comments are mine and not the original poster’s. I’ve moved participant comments into issue order to help understand the breaches better

An editor needs experience of proper rule application when editing contentious topics
BilledMammal:
 * "…my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but…are struggling to understand what they need to do…similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply …but for various reasons fail to do so…I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability…"
 * Examples (besides 1RR breaches mentioned in that section):
 * AGF including the entire population of Gaza as "captured" [Ayenaee comment: Although I, and I assume BilledMammal, don’t agree with the content, I wouldn’t characterize this edit as CIR. It’s a novel way of trying to introduce the concept of "Israel has made Gaza into an open air prison", an opinion held by pro-Palestinian activists. While it’s inappropriate as POV, a BRD discussion could have lead to a more neutral way of introducing the concept here or in another article in a balanced way.]
 * The use in GF of {cn} tags to insert content without citation at the time of citation and sometimes for long periods thereafter
 * GF misunderstanding notification of other editors, leading to canvassing breach


 * Galobtter: "I'm getting increasingly concerned…doesn't have the competence to keep editing in this WP:CTOP"
 * Galobtter: [The TBANned user], the 20 diff limit is a limit of the number of diffs you can link to. It doesn't not stop you from editing your statement.
 * ScottishFinnishRadish: This is a situation where I would normally go for a 3-6 month and 500-1000 edits topic ban to allow the editor to gain necessary experience. In this circumstance the editor has over four years and 8000 edits to their name, so I don't know that it would be effective.
 * Galobtter:Yeah I don't see what else can be done here other than an indefinite topic ban. I don't think a time limited ban would help.

Be concise, no walls or lace of words

 * Galobtter: "…I would recommended trimming it a lot - sure you have a lot to respond to but I would keep it short and coherent. I tried reading it and couldn't make sense of what you were saying."
 * ScottishFinnishRadish: "…you're at nearly 2000 words…and as far as I can tell you haven't really addressed anything. If you can provide a statement with 500 words that actually addresses the substance and still need more, then we can determine if you need an extension."
 * Galobtter: "…ditch their current statement and write a new short one that specifically addresses the issues raised."
 * Seraphimblade: "…the word limit for responses is 500. If you need a little more than that, you would probably be granted it if you asked, but you're currently over 1600. Please do some substantial trimming."
 * Ealdgyth: "I agree that…nothing in the current statement…is keeping me from supporting an indefinite topic ban. It's not a good idea to be told on the 26th to shorten your statement, and keep editing without doing so [by the 29th]."

One Revert Rule ARBPIA sanction (partial) breaches

 * BilledMammal: Listed 7 partial reverts which were discussed with [the TBANned user] with limited self-reverts occurring, listed 3 other reverts not discussed.
 * Galobtter: "…[the TBANned user] will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be [intervening] edits turning that one revert into multiple…I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts…[the TBANned user] could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue."
 * Galobtter: One thing I will say is that 1RR has to be followed whether you are trying to do a good thing or not; this is why BilledMammal points out violations even if they agree with the edit.

Using "citation needed" tags to disruptively insert content without (immediate) citation

 * Galobtter: "I'm more concerned about…adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on 'know[ing] citations exist'."
 * SaintPaulOfTarsus: "…I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns…culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive." Felt,they’d observed nearly all WP:DISRUPTIVESIGNS] from editor
 * ''':Addition of general war material in specific attack article
 * '''Extention of battle date with no source even when asked
 * '''Added unsourced combatant, when asked added cite that didn’t address addition
 * '''Added {cn} tags when citations clearly stated what they said was uncited x3
 * '''Included commented out speculation in articles

Hounding concern
BilledMammal: After the AE report was submitted, the TBANned user seemed to follow BilledMammel cross-wiki to commons and participated in a discussion on his talk page, on a topic the TBANned user had never shown interest in before. BilledMammel considered this to be hounding related to the AE report.

Breaches of No Personal Attacks, and Assume Good Faith rules

 * Selfstudier: Noted that this recent ANI discussion showed the "interaction between filer and defendant."
 * ScottishFinnishRadish: I've warned [the TBANned user] at least twice now about personalized commentary. Along with the example BilledMammal provided, there is also this recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement with that they may not be net positive in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ScottishFinnishRadish: After my two earlier warnings for personalized commentary I linked to above, they have yet again commented negatively about an editor's motives. Any objections to an indef topic ban?

Canvassing breach

 * ScottishFinnishRadish: [The editor], you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles

--> <!--