Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive330

Salmoonlight
''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 Salmoonlight

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 03:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


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

Multiple WP:1RR/edit warring violations. They have been requested to self revert the violations at Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, but have neither replied to the request nor done so, despite having continued editing including on the articles talk page.
 * Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it :

At Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, they violated 1RR with edits to different content:
 * 1) (Reverted, among others)
 * 2) (Reverted )

At Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, they violated 1RR and 3RR while edit warring with over the same content.


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


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
 * As I said on your talk page 00:14, 3 March 2024 is what needed to be reverted. 11:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alpoin’s contributions don’t appear to be obvious vandalism; they appear to be edit warring with Salmoonlight, with Alpion thinking the, and Salmoonlight disagreeing.
 * 1RR is a bright line rule; violations should be promptly self-reverted, and if they are not it is necessary to report them. Accusing editors who do so if gaming the system disrupts rule enforcement in this contentious topic, and is possibly WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior - LegalSmeagolian has done this twice now, and I ask that reviewing admins consider warning them against continuing to do so. 17:09, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems every time I make a report - MakeandToss, Irtapil, here - editors accuse me of bad faith and gaming on the basis of a mistake I made years ago. If it is appropriate to report non-self-reverted 1RR violations then I ask that admins consider warning Nableezy and LegalSmeagolian against continuing to make such accusations, to deter frivolous accusations in the future. Alternatively, if it is inappropriate to make such reports, I ask that the admins consider warning me for frivolous reports. 22:46, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * See LegalSmeagolian’s first comment. 01:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you link the ban that Alpoin was violating when they made those edits? 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Then that exception does not apply; the ban was put in place after the edits and thus they weren't a violation. Further, edit warring doesn't justify edit warring back; the correct response is to report the issue. BilledMammal (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said in the first paragraph of this request I did ask them to self revert. As for the 5 days stale edit-war, I don’t think five days (four when the request was made) is particularly stale, and regardless of staleness I think it’s appropriate and useful to demonstrate if there is a pattern of behaviour. 02:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * When I said MakeandToss, Irtapil, here, I wasn't saying that you had previously accused me of bad faith and gaming; I was giving examples of AE reports (Makeandtoss, Irtapil, here) where editors had done so in order to demonstrate a pattern. I was not intending to directly refer to you and I apologize if my comment appeared to be doing so.
 * With that said, even if I was directly referring to you I don't believe the statement would have been factually incorrect; in Makeandtoss you said It is crystal clear now that instead of engaging on the articles' talk pages to solve disagreement and reach consensus, they have chosen instead of spend countless hours trying to find fault in other editors to get them banned. At the time, you were told that such allegations were immaterial and not convincing. 09:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If it’s helpful, my rule of thumb is that if an edit is by an established editor, then it’s not vandalism - exceptions are so rare as to not be worth considering. 16:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning Salmoonlight
''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 Salmoonlight
The Alpoin117 reverts are irrelevant as Alpoin was being purposefully disruptive and vandalizing articles. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also it was not necessary to take this to AE. ANI would have worked completely fine. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted myself now. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * BilledMammal, I strongly feel that all of these attempts to eliminate editors using AE will backfire on you. It is a clear abuse of the system. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seriously?? How were those edits not vandalism?? Salmoonlight (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alpoin117 insulted me too. They're banned. Their sockpuppet is banned. It's against policy to restore edits by vandals/sockpuppets. Salmoonlight (talk) 17:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is ridiculous. I have reverted all of my edits on Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident. You are still trying to get me sanctioned based on a vandal who was being purposefully inflammatory. Salmoonlight (talk) 02:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how what Alpoin117 was doing wasn't obviously vandalism. They themselves violated 1RR multiple times over. Salmoonlight (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * If this many editors are accusing you of gaming then maybe it's true. Just a thought. Salmoonlight (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @BilledMammal What mistake? Salmoonlight (talk) 23:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The edit war did not occur solely between me and Alpoin117. As for them being disruptive, Cullen328 and Ad Orientem can attest to that. Salmoonlight (talk) 03:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by LegalSmeagolian
I'd highlight this is an additional case of BilledMammal trying to use AE to WP:GAME a victory in I-P content disputes - this is evidenced by BilledMammal including reverts of Alpoin117's, which were obvious instances of vandalism and not subject to the 1RR. Inclusion of these diffs is groundless and vexatious. BilledMammal has been warned to not | use AE in this way yet has done so twice this week. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 16:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal, selective of you to provide Alpoin117's one "reasoned" reversion, which they immediately followed up with reverting more content and inserted a POV showing WP:NOTHERE. Alpoin117 continued to violate 1RR, used a sockpuppet, and edited disruptively. His edits were correctly reverted, with multiple editors patrolling the page to prevent vandalism. Where else should I raise these concerns if not here? LegalSmeagolian (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alpoin117 was under a 1 year editing restriction, to not to participate in deletion discussions or engage in editing for a period of one year - at least that is how I am reading @Ad Orientem's unblock conditions. I could absolutely be wrong on my interpretation of those conditions.
 * My concerns regarding the nature of the filing of this request stem from BM's previous filings here in the same topic area against Sameboat and Selfstudier, which resulted in no action being taken. This, coupled with BilledMammals request in the Sameboat discussion asking "Would it be appropriate to restore the status quo (AKA BilledMammal's status quo) while the RfC proceeds?" (which Seraphim correctly answered that this was not the forum to resolve a content dispute) is what makes me nervous, although I commend BilledMammal for his response to Seraphim. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Salmoonlight civility please. And my reading (and I am not an admin so take this with a grain of salt) of the previous unblock conditions were from deletion discussions and editing generally. So essentially a mainspace ban. But to your point then why call it a TBAN. But then what is "deletion related" editing outside of deletion discussions? I guess my point is one could read it in a different way and I think some leniency should be given, but again, grain of salt. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 22:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you! LegalSmeagolian (talk) 23:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I request the uninvolved administrators look at WP:VANDALISM prior to a topic ban decision. "The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia." - Alpoin's edits, adding POV through an unsourced claim that the statements were "Misleading polarizing" was clearly WP:OR and violated WP:NPOV, therefore was vandalism as described above. Any argument that Alpoin was making such edits in good faith (to improve the encyclopedia) does not apply as he kept editing disruptively and his response to his ban shows the intent of the edits were not good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia rather were to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. I've said my piece. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 12:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Read the quote again - malicious removal OR changing such content beyond all recognition - Alpoin changed the content beyond all such recognition, which is exactly what occured by their addition "misleading polarizing" language. Many users highlighted this change in the articles talk page. I would argue their behavior was malicious based on their further interactions with other users, including personal attacks, using a sockpuppet to get around a ban, etc. LegalSmeagolian (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Sameboat (about Salmoonlight)
WP:3RRNO lists "3. Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of a ban, and sockpuppets or meatpuppets of banned or blocked users" in one of the exemptions of 3RR/1RR. clearly satisfies the exemption of counting towards 1RR. Newsweek may not be the best source to support the statement which cites it, the statement itself is rather harmless and didn't justify the removal by Alpoin117.

Apart from sockpuppetry, Alpoin117 was clearly not here to make constructive contribution by adding this defamatory statement about Bushnell without citing any reliable source.[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-immolation_of_Aaron_Bushnell&diff=prev&oldid=1210734797] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Alpoin117 was blocked on 28 Feb 2024 for "Personal attacks on another editor in violation of previous unblock conditions, POV pushing, edit warring" (read the user's contributions page) when the only article they edited was self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell. There was a [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#User%3AAlpoin117_being_extremely_disruptive_on_Self-immolation_of_Aaron_Bushnell discussion on ANI] on 28 Feb exactly about disruptive edits by Alpoin117 regarding the self-immolation article. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

3RRNO is not only about sockpuppetry but "banned users in violation of a ban" who violated their "previous unblock conditions" for edits on the self-immolation article. I am not going to argue about Alpoin117 with you anymore. It's getting unfruitful. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 01:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

As long as Salmoonlight vows to never violate 1RR again, they would not face any form of topic ban this time. Am I right? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

If all the admins don't see the "misleading polarizing" edit by Alpoin problematic at all, there is no hope to convince them. I think it's time to let it go. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 14:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Just for clarification: Violation of OR or NPOV does not necessarily constitute vandalism. Is that right? 14:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers
Charges of gaming against BM depend on a finding that Alpoin117's edits were either vandalistic or in violation of a ban. Neither is true. I am much less worried that BM might be gaming than that the other participants might continue to edit in ARBPIA with a mistaken sense of what counts as vandalism or ban evasion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * , your quote from the vandalism policy is great, but I'd also bold the malicious. It seems like the only thing stopping Salmoonlight from being TBANned would be a recognition that their interpretation of the 1RR exceptions was off, so your furthering their misunderstanding is not helping them. I am now worried about your own understanding of what vandalism is, and I urge you to reconsider it before continuing to edit in sensitive topic areas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , no, and I'm not the right person to ask anyway. You can see in the Result section exactly what the uninvolve admins hope to see from Sal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * SB, that's 100% right. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * LS, "malicious" applies to all vandalism, since vandalism is defined as "deliberate" attempts to harm the project. I suppose you could read "malicious" in that part as just referring to removal (I don't). A117's changes did not alter the content "beyond all recognition". I'm hopeful you'll come away with a better understanding of the policy, and I'd be happy to talk more at my user talk page or yours, since you're well over the word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * +1 to everything Aquillion said. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy
The edit war with Alpoin would have been better handled by coming here to report that user, as their edits were both 1RR violations and unquestionably tendentious, as in this one making a personal judgment, ditto for this one, and that they were edit-warring against multiple users and had blown past the 1RR. Alpoin117 reverted five users six times there, but the portrayal of that edit war here is Salmoonlight vs Alpoin117, and that just isnt true. Should Salmoonlight have reverted as many times as they had? No, of course not, but the complete picture doesnt really support the idea that Salmoonlight should be sanctioned for it. And going back to a 5 days stale edit-war does indeed strike me as one of those things people who are trying to remove the competition do. The other violation has already been self-reverted, something I thought it was standard practice to ask for before coming here, that is if somebody is not just trying to remove the competition.  nableezy  - 01:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * SFR, I said at the start that there was a 1RR violation, but the second tacked on part is the battlegrounding you apparently feel so strong about. BilledMammal is indeed attempting to dispense with the opposition, you can see that in his report of Sameboat in which they claimed changing "Free Palestine! Free Palestine!" to "Free Palestine!" is a revert worthy of reporting, or in that same report claiming a new edit is somehow a revert. They do it again here in tacking on a yes stale 5 day old edit-war to a revert report about a NPOV tag, which yes should just be handled on a user talk page. Yes, BM posted on the user's talk page, but they did not wait for any response before escalating to a report here. This is the second report on this page by BM that is, in my view, not meriting an AE report. You all are taking a since self-reverted 1RR violation and a revert war that nobody saw as meriting any attention at all for several days as reason to indef topic ban an editor. Sorry, but this is returning to a game of counting, and you are not looking at the wider context here. But I can file a report about BM's game playing instead of commenting here if that would not make you think it was battlegrounding instead of raising the poor substantiation in the reports currently on this page.  nableezy  - 00:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And Ill say that yes this is not vandalism but it is a garbage edit and one that should be reverted. You are missing the forest for the trees here, and somebody reporting reversions of garbage edits as cause for a ban is what is battleground behavior.  nableezy  - 00:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, despite the claim above that I merit a warning for bringing up supposed mistakes from years past, I did not bring any such thing up here. I brought it up in the above complaint because that one was of the quality that merited the initial warning. But that’s fine, I’ll just make reports of the same quality as this against BM instead of asking that you all take a more discerning view of the ones he is filing.  nableezy  - 09:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328
I am commenting here at this time only because I was pinged by Salmoonlight. Yes, I blocked Alpoin117 and my reasoning can be found at User talk:Alpoin117. Any editor could have found that quite easily. That does not at all imply that I think that Salmoonlight is blameless. I have some concerns about this editor's behavior but I have not yet investigated closely enough to say anything definitive at this time. So, I may (or may not) comment in the future. I am working on many other things. Cullen328 (talk) 04:52, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by (Ad Orientem)
I can confirm that I was the original blocking admin for Alpoin117. The block was broadly speaking for disruptive editing, which in this instance also included personal attacks on other editors. Subsequently I unblocked them subject to conditions laid out on their talk page which included a one year TBan from any involvement in AfD discussions and related editing. I also explicitly warned them that they would be on a very short rope with regards to any future disruptive behavior including NPA. They affirmed their understanding and acceptance of those conditions. Unfortunately they failed to keep their end of the agreement. I was pinged to an ANI discussion, but got there first and reblocked them indefinitely. I took a look at the issues and fully endorsed Cullen's block. I am not familiar with the broader issues being discussed here and so respectfully decline to comment further at this time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Makeandtoss
This is the fourth or seventh (I lost count) attempt by BilledMammal to get users they don't agree with banned in less than two months, usually based on implausible claims of 1RR violations. I don't think it's a sign of constructive WP editing to spend more time trying to get users banned than constructively contributing to WP articles as their user contributions log reveals.


 * This is the first time I comment on a report you file that does not concern me, so I request you to retract or clarify your factually incorrect claim about: "It seems every time I make a report - MakeandToss, Irtapil, here - editors came and accuse me of bad faith and gaming on the basis of a mistake I made years ago." Makeandtoss (talk) 09:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for clarifying that you weren't referring to myself. Even if you were, it would still be indeed factually incorrect to claim that I have done so every time, as you have filed more reports that I did not comment on since then. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for responding. I carefully chose my words saying: "usually based on implausible claims", which is my personal opinion; I did not say vexatious. BilledMammal has clarified above that they were not referring to myself. Every editor has the right to express their concerns, which was done in a civil manner and without insulting anyone. Nevertheless, your question is a good reminder to maintain assuming good faith. Makeandtoss (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000
Misunderstanding the boundaries between "disruptive edit", "policy-violating edit" and "vandalism" is a very common problem even for more experienced editors. It seems to me that a topic-ban would be excessive. Zerotalk 05:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion
The accusations of trying to "remove the competition" strike me as themselves dangerous. The fact is, in a controversial topic area, the people who notice and take the time to report misconduct are going to be those in dispute with a user - most people who edit controversial topics have at least some opinion on them; and few people closely examine the edits of those they agree with. If a report is valid (and clearly there was at least a 1RR violation here), any disputes the reporter had with the reportee don't matter; they're not required to be WP:UNINVOLVED, obviously. Otherwise there would be a chilling effect on people's willingness to report genuine problems, which would make enforcing AE restrictions extremely difficult. Likewise, "lots of people misunderstand what obvious vandalism is" can't possibly be a justification for 1RR / 3RR violations or those restrictions would have no meaning. Anyone who genuinely, truly believes that Alpoin117's edits were obvious vandalism should not be editing controversial topic areas at all; the idea that anyone could go "I feel that that edit maliciously violates NPOV, therefore it is vandalism and the 1RR/3RR doesn't apply" is obviously unworkable. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning Salmoonlight

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


 * There are two clear 1RR violations presented here. Alpoin117 was not blocked at the time, and their topic ban was from deletion related discussion. I'm also not terribly impressed with the accusations of trying to remove people from the topic area for reporting clear cut 1RR violations. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure how deletion related discussions and editing broadly construed would apply to the edits at issue. I believe the violation of unblock conditions refers to Any more disruption, rather than a violation of a topic ban on Wikipedia deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Adding an AfD or MfD tag to an article, or removing or adding a prod/csd would be a deletion related edit that is not part of a deletion discussion. A topic ban on "editing broadly construed" would just be a block. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , WP:VAND is pretty clear, On Wikipedia, vandalism has a very specific meaning: editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose$(emphasis in original)$. Vast, enormous, titanic errors in NPOV/OR/BLP/OTHERACRONYMS can nonetheless be good faith or at least not a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I largely share SFR's reading of the scope of Alpoin117's topic ban—it pertains to deletion discussions, not making ordinary edits—and the topic ban does not plausibly apply to the edits that respondent edit warred to remove. I'm likewise a bit saddened to see that respondent conflates revert rule violations with vandalism, as they did when they wrote above I don't understand how what Alpoin117 was doing wasn't obviously vandalism. They themselves violated 1RR multiple times over. Very simply, there was edit warring by both respondent and Alpoin117 at the second article, and no reasonable revert rule exception has been claimed for that case.Revert restrictions are self-limiting restrictions; we can only expect that people who do not actually understand their scope will not abide by them. If they don't immediately understand, they are owed an explanation, and several have been proffered in this thread. If respondent does not understand this difference, even after attempts to explain it to them, then we can't address the root of the problem (respondent not understanding that respondent's edits do constitute 1RR-vio) with less restrictive measures. And, because 1RR is a general sanction that covers this entire topic area, I'm leaning towards a topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed, unless respondent can explain in their own words the difference between vandalism and a mere violation a revert rule, as well as why the edits made by Alpoin117 do not constitute block or ban evasion.Separately, I'm unhappy with this comment by respondent—that other people (as SFR puts) have made accusations of trying to remove people from the topic area for reporting clear cut 1RR violations is not a reasonable rationale for making those accusations oneself. To respondent's credit, the comment was later struck, but I do think that it was made in the first place may be indicative of a battleground mentality. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Respondent stated that they were not the only person involved in the edit war with Alpoin117. That may be true, but it is not a reasonable excuse, and it does not address the root problem concerns above.If no uninvolved administrator objects within the next day or so, I am going to place an indef TBAN from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Respondent needs to understand 1RR if they are going to edit in the area, and, even after numerous attempts to explain the relevant substance to them have been made, respondent continues to demonstrate that they do not understand it. The topic ban would (of course) be appealable, and I imagine an appeal would be likely to succeed when respondent demonstrates an understanding of our edit warring behavioral policy both through adherence to WP:EW in their editing outside of the topic area and through some sort of satisfactory explanation in their own words as to why the edits highlighted by complainant do constitute edit warring in violation of WP:1RR.I'd be OK to leave this as a logged warning only if some explanation to the above effect would be forthcoming in the next day or so. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that if they demonstrate an understanding of 1RR and 3RRNO a warning would be fine, but if they can't demonstrate that understanding then they shouldn't be involved in a topic that is entirely under 1RR.
 * I believe some action, be it a general warning or otherwise, needs to be taken against the obvious battleground editing demonstrated by editors here. Reporting bright line 1RR violations is to be expected. If people are upset that BilledMammal keeps raising these issues at AE they should encourage editors to abide by 1RR and remedy any violations when asked.
 * , you were just warned here and now you're showing up at this report to accuse the editor who reported you of trying to have editors removed from the topic area with vexatious filings. In what way is that not textbook BATTLEGROUND behavior?
 * , you're recently off a topic ban for battleground behavior and yet you're dropping that is if somebody is not just trying to remove the competition at an AE that clearly demonstrates 1RR violations and adhering to the gentleman's agreement as Salmoonlight continued editing despite the issue being brought up on their talk page. You also said And going back to a 5 days stale edit-war does indeed strike me as one of those things people who are trying to remove the competition do. Four day old behavior that demonstrates a pattern of violating a sanction is not stale, and is the type of context and pattern establishing that is appreciated at AE. In what way is that not textbook BATTLEGROUND behavior? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Respondent has continued to edit Wikipedia since 6 March, and no explanation as to their understanding of revert restrictions (nor their exceptions) has been forthcoming. As such, I'm going to be implementing the topic ban now. I will leave this thread open in case other administrators find it reasonable to take some admin action regarding some other participant, though I'll close it tomorrow if nothing new comes up. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 01:23, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Seeing no further comments, closing this discussion. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 23:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I generally tend to agree here. These are 1RR violations, and 1RR is a bright line to never cross, not a suggestion. It is also, of course, not an entitlement; it does not indicate that reverting once every 24 hours and one minute is okay, just that reverting more often definitely is not. The edits reverted were clearly not vandalism, and I'm rather concerned to see them characterized that way. If this editor cannot tell what vandalism is and is not, I suspect we would just see ourselves back here again if they continue to edit in the area. I am also not impressed with those who try to bring up the prior warning against bringing meritless cases; the fact that 1RR violations really did take place here clearly indicates that the request does have merit and is not frivolous or "gaming". So I think absent some forthcoming explanation that's very convincing that this will not happen again, I would support a topic ban from the area. Seraphimblade Talk to me 11:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen
''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 sectionsbut 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 : – Sennalen (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : This concerns an indefinite site block as an AE action by Galobtter at . Another matter at AE was called a "related action".


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : Galobtter indicated awareness here

Statement by Sennalen
The block violated WP:Blocking policy.
 * Blocking for any amount of time was not a neccessary measure to prevent disruption.
 * An indefinite site block was punitive and grossly disproportionate.

Some well-meaning but misplaced concerns were raised about the WP:CLEANSTART policy. It is not required to notify anyone when making a clean start. The policy page's advice about not editing in controversial topics pertained to avoiding past misdeeds, which was not a circumstance that pertained to me. confirmed that I was not under any prior sanctions and that I have a legitimate reason not to disclose my former account name.

Disruption was alleged in multiple CTOPs, but all of the actions attributed to me either did not take place or do not constitute disruptions according to Wikipedia policy. There is no cause to believe I will cause disruption at a later time.


 * My involvement with the Falun Gong topic began with observing what looked to me like religious bias on a noticeboard, and it ended with posting my evidence at AE. The AE closure agreed there was a problem and warned about it. I had served a 31-hour block for a comment interpreted as a personal attack on Bloodofox, but the matter was cold by the time of the indef. There's no grounds to think I might be disruptive about Falun Gong.


 * In the course of that filing, alleged I had "pushed racist pseudoscience" in March 2023 at . That's me being an outside respondent to an RfC in a CTOP I had no involvement in before or since. I reject any connection between race and IQ. There was nothing either racist or pseudoscientific in my responses. I argued for following best sources and Wikipedia policies. There has been no explanation of what I'm supposed to be answering for, or how I might supposedly be disruptive regarding it in the future.


 * I brought an AE request about editors who had refused to discuss their content deletions about Covid-19. It was a plea for help on my part. I tried to be clear that there were off-ramps that could be followed back to discussion and compromise, if others were willing. It was an appropriate and constructive use of the venue.


 * The matter stemmed from an article I created. The new article was built around high-quality peer-reviewed journals and WP:MEDRS adherence that was superior to any related article. It was in concordance with the community/scientific consensus that COVID-19 is "likely of zoonotic origin". Creating articles with good sourcing and neutral point of view is the purpose of the encyclopedia. The only way this can appear disruptive is by uncritically accepting unfounded aspersions about my motivations.


 * My motives for creating the article were questioned. The exact moment I decided to write it was in a discussion about claims that were out of scope for the lab leak page and too technical for the general Origin page. There was no WP:DETAIL page for those kinds of theories, so I made one.


 * Whether it should be merged into another page is a content question on which reasonable minds can differ, but it was not created to advance a point of view. Sticking to sources saying the pandemic origin is unknown in no way reflects an agenda to promote any particular theory. In any case, there was no Wikipedia consensus that that the lab leak theory is pseudoscience either, so administrative actions should not act as if there were such a consensus.


 * In deference to admins' time, in the future I will avoid making a new AE request while still a party to an active one.


 * Some of my edits about Herbert Marcuse and Western Marxism were also criticized. I could have done some things better with those edits, which I am happy to discuss further in appropriate venues. What matters for now is that it concerned cold good-faith edits unrelated to any CTOP. The very reason the block was so disproportionate appears to be that it was otherwise not procedurally possible to punish me for those edits as an AE action. That seems like an abuse of process above and beyond the fact it was a non-preventative block.

To recap, with reference to the criteria at WP:BLOCKP:
 * 1) There was no imminent or continuing damage to Wikipedia.
 * 2) There was no present disruptive behavior to deter.
 * 3) My editing was productive, congenial, and within community norms.


 * I did believe in April 2023 that a lab leak was the best explanation. Expressing that belief violated no rule at the time, and it still doesn't. I later changed my mind while examining the evidence. I also said in those diffs that we would have to wait and see what reliable publishers did with the evidence before Wikipedia could be updated. A few months later, I wrote an article reflecting what reliable sources did with it. That happens to include a paragraph in the article's opinion corner about the "Proximal Origin" controversy, which is WP:GNG on its own. The only reason to think I did anything in bad faith is to assume that I did. Sennalen (talk) 17:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The point of the appeal is I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that anyone understands how my edits were disruptive. I'm willing to work on it, but at least one admin has to meet me halfway and point to something that was actually a disruption, and not just a motivation they imagined I had. Sennalen (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter
I give a couple examples of the evidence for the block re the cultural marxism and covid issues here. I also want to point out that Sennalen believes that Covid stems from a bioengineered lab leak, which probably explains why like I said she used a news source to undercut a scientific source that said otherwise.

For the race and intelligence topic area, Generalrelative gives a good summary of the issues at Village pump (policy)/Archive 180. For clarity the Eyferth study RfC mentioned there is at here and is about this content which is very much about race and intelligence, despite what Sennalen says at that discussion. Galobtter (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Bon courage
I was one of the named editors in Sennalen's AE filing which boomeranged into their block. One only needs to look at the various unblock request(s) to get an idea of what would likely follow in the case of an unblock: arguments at length rooted in a premise of "I am right and everybody else is wrong". This would be a big time sink for the community and a negative for the Project. Bon courage (talk) 10:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by KoA (Sennalen)
The link wasn't directly included, so here is the AE where Sennalen was sanctioned. I commented as someone uninvolved back then, and the overall discussion among editors was not whether or not to sanction them, but rather how wide the scope needed to be due to disruption in multiple topics. I'm still not seeing any recognition of the problems with their behavior in WP:FRINGE topics and elsewhere in this filing, but rather WP:IDHT. The block came across pretty clear as that behavior butting up against WP:NOTHERE when many topic-bans would be needed to try to allow them to edit at this point. KoA (talk) 17:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by XMcan
My question is procedural: How does someone transition abruptly from being a senior editor, essentially a hero with no prior blocks, to a perceived villain warranting a complete editing ban? Has this user done one thing that was so egregiously disruptive as to earn this measure, or is this deemed a “straw that broke the camel's back” type of situation? If it's the latter, why haven't there been any prior warnings, pblocks, or tbans, as is typical in other cases?

The best way for the appellant to demonstrate that they are not disruptive is to let them edit something unrelated to the problematic areas. I vote to change the siteban to a tban, or tbans if necessary. XMcan (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC). Edited 12:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sennalen
''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.''

Result of the appeal by Sennalen

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


 * I don't see that anything has really been learned here. If there were to be an unblock, I think it would need to come with a complete topic ban from editing any fringe topics, but this editor does not seem capable of recognizing what is a fringe topic, so I do not see that working well either. I therefore would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing anything that demonstrates that they understand how their edits were disruptive, which doesn't bode well for the disruption not continuing if unblocked. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is possible to craft a topic ban wide enough to stop the disruption yet provide any useful and enjoyable place to edit. Decline. Courcelles (talk) 14:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

SMcCandlish
''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 SMcCandlish

 * User who is submitting this request for enforcement : 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: WP:CT/MOS, WP:ARBATC


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


 * 1) But thanks for making it clear that your goal is to try to abuse process to censor someone who disagreed with you on some trivial style matter. said as a reply to.
 * 2) Jessintime simply try to reflexively censor every word of that and Jessintime has done nothing but attempt to suppress, only abused WP:AN process to make false accusations and try to get an admin corps to help them "win" a content dispute they refuse to substantively engage in resolving. said in a reply to another editor, about.
 * 3) you sure display a complete disregard for process when it suits your partisan preferences said as a reply to
 * 4) Hipocrisy doesn't suit you. said as a reply to.
 * 5) But various people love to drag out any argument if style, titles, MoS, AT, or RM are involved in any way, for some damned reason. general comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS and AT.
 * 6) That said, "questioning the MoS" is tellingly battlegroundy wording. said as a reply to.
 * 7) Imagine people engaging in these sorts of defy-until-I-die antics, complete with blatant canvassing at firehose levels, sourcing denial and falsification, a putsch to try to prevent the community being able to examine the underlying question via RfC genera comment about editors who get into disputes at MOS.


 * Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :


 * 1) Prohibition from making bad faith assumptions about any editor or identifiable group of editors, and strong advise to avoid commenting on contributor and avoid making personal attacks or engaging in incivility, with regards to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS.
 * 2) * Also logged at Arbitration enforcement log/2013


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


 * Under active sanction in the topic area, see above


 * Additional comments by editor filing complaint :

There's some pretty textbook violations of WP:AGF here, both at individual editors ( and ), as well as identifiable groups of editors (those who edit the MOS and get into disputes). Not sure what sanctions are appropriate here, but at minimum I'd suggest SMcCandlish strike these comments and apologise to the named editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, this isn't the only recent examples of SMcCandlish assuming bad faith in discussions relating to parts of the MOS.
 * At he said We have two extremely entrenched camps demanding the deadnames either be entirely suppressed, or that they always be included if sourceable. Neither camp is going to shut up and go away, and will do everything in their power to wikilawyer their way to victory. in the current RfC on MOS:GENDERID
 * At he said a large number of TG/NB persons would nevertheless delight in insisting on their own alternative versions anyway in a discussion about neopronouns in MOS:GENDERID. Multiple editors asked him to strike the comments as derisive about fellow editors, he.
 * At he said I'm not responsible for how other people bend over backwards to misinterpret things and then to cast people they disagree with on something as ideological "enemies". I will not be browbeaten into self-censoring on a matter like this. which one editor described as a full-throttle descent into assumptions of bad faith. Which he then  a personal attack I'm just concerned about more than one editor doing it in more than one direction, while you're only apparently concerned with a single editor doing it in a direction that doesn't agree with your position.
 * I'm concerned that SMcCandlish's ongoing contributions to MOS related discussions simply brings more heat than light. The repeated accusations and implications of bad faith about other editors do not help when discussing guidelines that crossover between two CTOP areas (GENSEX and CT/MOS). Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Re : SMcCandlish's conduct in that discussion is emblematic of a much broader long term issue of incivility and accusations of bad faith from him, sometimes directed at individual editors and sometimes directed at identifiable groups. He has been under active sanction for this issue, in this specific CTOP area, for the last decade. Sooner or later, something has to give. Either he needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions, or he needs to not participate in them. I would prefer the former, as his institutional knowledge and insight into the guidelines can be helpful. For me, this is just the straw that broke the camel's back. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm loathe to get into a back and forth with the person I'm filing a request about, however. you said Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV is an observation lots of us make, all the time. ... there is no fault in saying so. Ordinarily you are correct, people make remarks on POV pushers and wikilayers all the time, however for since March 2013 you have been under a sanction preventing you from making this sort of bad faith accusation on pages or discussions related to WP:MOS. Other people might be able to say it, you are certainly allowed to think it, but you cannot by the plain reading of the sanction actually say it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether it should or should not be split off into its own guideline, or be merged into another one, for the moment it is part of the MOS. Unless and until it is moved elsewhere, discussions about the wording of it are in scope of ARBATC. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here's a few more diffs that demonstrate the same issue from other discussions, unrelated to the one at AN:
 * you clearly should not be editing material on WP about historical subjects because you fundamentally misunderstand how to do encyclopedic writing in that topic area. and Randomly firehosing a stream of mutually exclusive "reasons" in a Gish gallop manner to try wear out the opposition is not going to work. directed towards
 * You do not appear to have a firm grasp on the subject and seem to be just opininating for the sake of opinionating, based on incorrect assumptions directed towards
 * specifically because activists will use it to editwar against inclusion of them anywhere on the basis that it "is not required" said a discussion about the deadnames of deceased trans and non-binary people, about an identifiable group of editors.
 * a separate page on this would be highly likely to develop WP:LOCALCONSENSUS problems, including the probable formation of a WP:OWN-attempting WP:FACTION. about editors who have an interest in shaping and enforcing MOS:GENDERID.
 * The first two are direct comments about an individual editor, the last two are about identifiable groups of editors. All are assuming bad faith about their respective targets, and the first two are bordering on incivility and personal attacks. I also want to re-emphasise, the current discussion at AN is just the straw that broke the camel's back, and emblematic of a broader problem stretching for years across the whole MOS. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * To the admins who are suggesting postponing this until the conclusion of the AN thread, respectfully that thread is about a different issue. While I have provided diffs from it, they are there to illustrate a deeper, longstanding behavioural problem, that has been under active sanction for for the last decade. The diffs I have provided are there to demonstrate instances where SMcCandlish has violated the terms of the sanction he is under. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If continues following with what he's said on my talk page, about re-evaluating and changing his approach so that this type of misunderstanding stops happening, I would be content with a reminder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 29 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

Discussion concerning SMcCandlish
''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 SMcCandlish
Background: I'd made observations at an essay I wrote. Jessintime reverted it all with grandstanding, subjective rationale of "inappropriate", with evidenceless bad-faith-assumptive accusation of GAMING. I un-reverted (with curt comment). Instead of normal discussion, Jessintime went to AN with same accusation: "attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". WP:GAMING is specifically defined as bad-faith activity. Jessintime's partisan in said review.

I was unnecessarily testy to Jessintime, my tone poor and flippant. I should've been the one to open talk-page discussion, though BRD's a rather conventionalized essay, not required. At AN, I offered to userspace the essay. Also suggested people're welcome to MfD it to that end (just not misuse AN as "pseudo-MfD"). Repeatedly welcomed editors to raise issues in talk toward wording changes. Any such solution is fine. Tempest in a teapot. It's not AN/AE material, just routine, temporary content-dispute. Apologized to Jessintime for flippancy and venty response at AN (common there, but nevertheless more heat than light). Did major tone edit to the entire essay; should address Jessintime's concern.

[SMcCandlish] needs to address his conduct when engaging in these discussions: Fair enough. I can veer from brusque to wordy, argue forcefully. But there's assumption I'm "angry". Not sure what to do about that, what approach/discourse adjustments to make. Made many over the years, so I open to such advice. There must be a better way to go about it than I have been, since I've clearly upset some people.

Colin's first law of holes advice is right; no one'll be impressed by me acting butthurt about a finger being pointed or a concern raised. Not about anything, just weary. Having a momentary "everyone just STFU about style stuff and go do something else!" reaction, instead of taking a breath, reapproaching from a chill position, wasn't the cool head Colin advises.

Sideswipe9th's initial diffs:
 * 1) It's process-abusive to try to turn AN into psudo-MfD, especially when involved in a content dispute (RfC, subject of close review) with author of esssay HMIJ would suppress (more content dispute). Especially unproductive, since discussion at essay and productive content revision are happening –.
 * 2) All correct; Jessintime did no discussion, AGF, WP:PRESERVE, or clear rationale; just WP:IDONTLIKEIT, evidenceless accusation.
 * 3) HMIJ (among others) "questioned the legitimacy of" the RfC. (Theory: community barred from addressing article-titles questions except via RM, a view the close rejected). Yet HMIJ wanted to bypass MfD process to get desired result. (aside from opposition-silencing): The VPPOL RfC opened (per WP:CONSENUS) after RM/MR consensus failure then new dispute flareup. Contrast: no attempt by Jessintime to discuss, just rushed to AN, them HMIJ dogpiled to misuse AN to suppress entire essay, not just material Jessintime criticized. (Seemed vindictive, excessive.) AN is late- not first-stage DR. WP:Process is important not only when it suits personal interest.
 * 4) "Hypocrisy" isn't the sweetest word, but not verboten. Replaced it anyway, as unnessarily testy.
 * 5) Correct observation; community has a bad habit of tolerating, even encouraging, protracted style battlegrounding; drain on editorial productivity and goodwill. Not aspersion-casting, just noting it happens, for unclear reasons (though there are hypotheses). None of this was about HMIJ. It's about a wiki-social issue.
 * 6) Post-RfC actions nothwithstanding, I was observing strong partisanship RfC – dubious "questioning the MoS" and "legitimacy" of community even being able to have the RfC, then providing pro-capitals sourcing (start here), which didn't stand up to examination. Criticizing "questioning the MoS" as battlegroundy tone seemed reasonable given this history. And the whole comment is wry (HIMJ: "my reply was a bit tongue in cheek"; okay for HMIJ but not me?). Still, I don't like being misinterpreted and don't want to misinterpret; moderated that material.
 * 7) Unnecessary adjectives, but demonstrated factual at RfC page: Canvassing diffed. Incorrect claims about sources disproven by multiple editors. Top 1/3 of page is the canvassed parties trying to derail RfC.

Later diffs from Sideswipe9th (in lengthy content dispute with me elsewhere):  Observing PoV pushing exists and likely to continue on both sides of an issue is an observation everyone makes. We craft policy to thwart this behavior (it's why WP:WIKILAWYER exists). No fault in saying so. Correct observation; trans/enby community, broadly, committed to defying imposed categorization/labeling of others' identities. If some particular neopronouns became something of a doctrinaire set, then many would avoid them because they became assumptive labels. Someone didn't like the word "delight", and accused of being derisive, when it was lighthearted approval of resistance. Also was't "about fellow editors". If say "Lots of Scots (and diaspora) don't like being called 'Scotch, that's not "about editors"; some may turn out to fall into that category, but that'll be entirely incidental. Saying how something isn't a claim about reality of someone's viewpoint, motivations. Yes, I object to blind assumption that if there  be a negative interpretation, that the intended or objective meaning  that negative. By its nature, it leans bad-faith-assumptive. (Don't think it's consciously intended. Probably also some subculture clash.) 

On more HMIJ comments: Yes, I bludgeoned as did several on both sides. Not an ideal discussion. I'll endeavor to do better. But mixing "bludgeon" into "bad faith" sentence makes for a claim that posting too often bad-faith (i.e., HMIJ ABFs while accusing me of ABFing). Elephant in HMIJ's (and Sideswipe9th's) room: consistently mislabeling criticism of actions/statements as ABF. It's not. It's disagreement with action/statement. Not judgment as a person, expression of defaulting to distrust, etc. AN[I] consists of little but such inter-editor kvetching. "[C]ompletely irrelevant discussions": nope, deeply intertwined in a causal chain. The irrelevant ones were things like Sideswipe9th diffing me using a word she doesn't like months ago in unrelated subject. No room to address HMIJ's closing invective; its punitive heat didn't assuage the "silence opponent in content disagreement" feel.

Peace is better. : Being sensitive to negative interpretations, false accusations, I tone-revised the statements HMIJ objected to ; can go further or strike something if needed. I may defend my rationale for writing something, and it not being ABF, but have no interest in retaining material felt hurtful. HMIJ, please do read the above, try to understand my perspective as I have yours. E.g., why I found some of your statements alarming or antagonistic (not just toward me but to consensus formation/process, which matters more).

Sideswipe9th's hypothesis, that "Observing that PoV pushers on both sides of an issue exist and will push their PoV" = ABF, isn't sustainable. ABF about an editor (or group thereof) isn't equivalent to observing bare fact that PoV pushers exist and will (by definition) push PoVs. Observation and assumption aren't synonyms. Discussed in detail in usertalk.

The Wordsmith: "AGF/ABF" don't get to mean whatever someone chooses. Definition at WP:AGF: Assuming good faith (AGF) means assuming that people are not deliberately to hurt Wikipedia, even when their actions are harmful. I've not assumed, implied, or stated anyone's "trying to hurt Wikipedia", or even were inadvertently harmful. Offense at criticism doesn't equate to being ABFed. Criticizing action, statement, or rationale isn't ABF. Could be misinterpretation, wrong logically, uncivil, or otherwise unhelpful in some instance, but that doesn't transmutate into ABF. Reality: I don't believe anyone has actual bad faith in style disputes. Always appear to have good-faith but often prescriptive notions that their preference is and  based on what they've internalised about English (from "authorities" who conflict), or on sociopolitical language-reform or memetics grounds. While often problematic for WP:NPOV and WP:NOT reasons, it doesn't mean bad-faith. Our behavioral jargon – "good/bad faith", "neutral/PoV", "civil[ity]", "personal attack", "advocacy/soapbox", etc. – has very distinct definitions and cannot be randomly mix-and-matched to win/punish. WP:AOBF's important here: Without clear evidence that the action of another editor is actually in bad faith or harassment, repeatedly alleging bad faith motives could be construed as a personal attack. Repeatedly asserting something one objects to ABF assumes,  on, a motivation antithetical to the community, yet is evidence-free and a pretense at mindreading.

Update, after extensive HMIJ and Sideswipe9th usertalk discussion (as Drmies advised), Sideswipe9th posted (quoting me at start):

Reason[s] are under discussion, reflection. The AE opener appears to have accepted that while I wasn't as civil as I needed to be (some of that in rather old diffs), it wasn't bad-faith assumption. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 26 February 2024 (UTC) (revised a bunch of times to address incoming comments and developments, but keep under 1500 words without an extension)

Statement by Colin
I think the opening diffs of this complaint are unfair in that they don't supply context for the hostile remarks. The context is that SMcCandlish got his ass dragged to ANI by Jessintime and explicitly accused of "an attempt to game the system in light of the threads like the close review above". The disputed addition to the so-called "Manual of Style extended FAQ" is indeed highly problematic, inflammatory and verging on rant (e.g. "If you are going around looking for potential exceptions to push against any MoS rule, please find something more productive to do."), but dealing with that by going straight to ANI would I think understandably have got any editor angry and hostile in their response.

The context is necessary as comments about other editors are made all the time at AN/I. While some comments may indeed be uncivil and nasty and so on, making a comment about another editor and one's perceptions about their behaviour is expected there (as seen by Jessintime's accusation of SMcCandlish gaming the system). Hostile negative comments about another editor are absolutely typical in the case where the community is about to sanction that editor at ANI. So context is needed.

Reading many of the hostile remarks, I'm struck by the phrase "When you are in a hole, stop digging". That, if SMcCandlish is still angry, then perhaps best to leave things with "I concede my tone in response was poor", etc, and leave others to examine the behaviour of all users in that ANI discussion.

Augmenting a so called MOS FAQ with rants about other editors behaviour, which one has only just witnessed and vocally publicly disapproved of, was not wise IMO. SMcCandlish has written useful essays and has first class knowledge of how MoS works. But a cool head is needed to write a good essay. The general feeling of that ANI dispute was that the MOS FAQ has too much personal moan and note enough of a succinct frequently-asked-questions-with-pithy-answers help page. Can this be better avoided in future? One thought would be that any page that appears to be a general advice (like a MoS FAQ essay would be viewed as) should be up-front collaboratively written. That SMcCandlish find a partner to write it, who would maybe help spot when it is getting too personal-viewpointy and too angry? -- Colin°Talk 11:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Jessintime
I would like to clarify my statement at AN in regards to "gaming." My belief upon seeing the edit summary used "New section based on various talk-page discussions (user talk, RfCs, RM disputes, etc.)" and the actual content added (which almost everyone at AN has since taken issue with) was that SMcCandlish was effectively attempting to amend a purported part of the MOS amid an article title dispute currently being reviewed at AN. This seemed to run afoul of FORCEDINTERPRET or "Attempting to force an untoward interpretation of policy, or impose your own novel view of 'standards to apply' rather than those of the community" by amending the MOS to suggest it is inviolable or/and discouraging other editors from questioning it. As for why I went straight to AN, I felt that any discussion at either the FAQ's talk page or the MOS talk page would have been met with the same bludgeoning that occurs regularly at WT:MOS (or has been seen in the ongoing title dispute). I also considered MFD but felt it would be WP:POINTY to nominate it myself given my prior revert. Jessintime (talk) 15:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Hey man im josh
Just taking a moment to note that I'm writing something up to respond with. I know it's unlikely this gets closed before then, but I have an unreasonable fear it will be, so I'm just putting this placeholder here. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm having trouble fitting my reply in under 500 words. Is there any chance an admin could approve me for more than 500? I'll keep working on cutting this down in the mean time. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Geez, 5 of the 7 diffs are directed at me… guess I’m involved whether I like it or not. Responding to SMcCandlish’s reply about the diffs:
 * Diff 1 – You’ve skirted around the actual diff and made a statement about the general AN, not about the fact that you made a pointed bad faith accusatory comment directed at me. What I don’t understand, and what makes this that much more inappropriate, is that we’re not in any content dispute!  Your unsubstantiated statement about me remains unstricken.
 * Diff 3 – Your reply is a bad faith accusation on top of a previous bad faith accusation. I did not try to derail a conversation. I questioned the legitimacy of the venue for the discussion, the exact same thing you’re doing in your reply, and I accepted the outcome of the RfC.
 * Diff 4 – I was, generally, not participating in the RfC thread referenced, so this reply felt inappropriate given that, ironically, you were trying to argue against that venue for the discussion, similar to what I did at the RfC. I admit that my reply was a bit tongue in cheek.
 * Diff 5 – Again, you fail to recognize what you’re writing as bad faith, including accusing me of trying to go after you. I find it strange that you accuse others of having a battleground mentality when you’ve benefited grateful from the community’s tolerance towards your frequent bludgeoning of discussions. I had never felt the need to take a Wikibreak until I dealt with that MOS discussion in which you responded to every single person who did not agree with you. That discussion drained me more than anything else on Wiki ever has. Not because of the outcome, but because it felt ridiculous that there were 3 people who wrote 50+ comments each who drowned out any possibility of constructive discussion.
 * Diff 6 – Also correct, especially as to that editor's protracted pro-capitalization activities in the topic in question. – Continued bad faith and unsubstantiated accusations. You’re dragging up completely irrelevant discussions and deflecting from the matter at hand in this response. I want to dispel your misguided notion that you continue to repeat. I moved nearly 400 pages to downcase “Draft” to draft”, I proposed all of the appropriate categories for renaming, and I’m working on an AWB configuration to deal with the 40,000+ pages that need to have draft downcased now. I have NOT made any type of argument or attempt to or overturn the close and I’ve been pushing hard for people to move on. I also roughly the same thing yesterday.  Despite this, you continue to cast aspersions in my direction. Wordsmith  and Cbl62  have both praised my post-close behaviour in enacting the changes.
 * Diff 7 – An irrelevant to discussion to bring up, but people had valid concerns. I myself have said I had a false belief that the RfC was not going to be binding and that I personally feel a weight of responsibility for it how it turned out because I parroted this belief.

What I’m seeing in this AE is further doubling down by SMC. There are very clear pattern of long-term issues in how they approach discussions and handle their temper, and I fear that without a formal warning or punishment this type of behavior will only continue until addressed. I understand these methods may have “won” discussions but they're not healthy. It's literally a meme that people would rather deal with Israel–Palestine discussions as opposed to MOS, and I think SMC’s conduct in said discussions is a key reason why people are not involved in that area. They’re a large part of it and their behaviour needs to be addressed in some way, otherwise we’re sending a message that this type of behaviour is allowed. They clearly care about Wikipedia, but the damage they’re doing may have gotten to the point that it’s outweighing the positives. We need them to take some time to To be clear, I do not want SMC blocked indefinitely. It's clear they care about the quality of Wikipedia but the way they go about things has been causing harm for a while. The funny thing is it's not even them being wrong, they’re usually right, it's the approach, badgering, and instant bad faith assumptions I've witnessed constantly over the last couple months. They need to be told the way they conduct themselves is not appropriate, spend some time self reflecting on how their behaviour and words come across, and then hopefully come back as a productive editor.

Also, it'd be appreciated if they could strike several of their comments directed at me and acknowledge how their behaviour has come across. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * @BilledMammal: I did say that a month ago. In response, SMC repeated that it was appropriate. I disagreed until the close, when Wordsmith determined it was. I wrongly parroted the belief it wasn't and I believe that negatively affected participation, which I regret. My POV isn't the same as it was back then because I've spent a lot of time chatting with a few other admins who helped me to see things differently. That's why my comment said we should focus on the validity and content of the discussion, with a tongue in cheek twist. I figure it's better to let a closer determine whether it's appropriate instead of replying with that to everybody, derailing the conversation. Never the less, a tongue in cheek response against someone who views you as an adversary is not a good way to be productive. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Requesting a word extension so that I may continue to respond tomorrow when I get time to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by BilledMammal
I just wanted to comment to first point out that whether MOS:DEADNAME is really part of the MOS or is instead mislabeled is a matter of a debate; Sideswipe, for example, has argued that it should be seen as, and given the weight of, BLP policy. I would be very hesitant to group alleged misbehavior related to that policy with alleged misbehavior related to the MOS.

I have little opinion on the broader topic, but I do want to comment on Hipocrisy doesn't suit you. Editors switching their position based solely on their POV is an issue, and it is appropriate to call it out in an appropriate forum when it is obvious. In this case, SMcCandlish made that response to the comment RFCs are also not the standard place for move discussions, but sometimes the validity and content of a discussion outweighs the venue it's at, exactly one month after Hey man im josh said A rm discussion needs to take place and nothing in this discussion is binding in any sense - arguing that an RfC is not suitable to move an a page to the extent that it is not and cannot be binding.

It was appropriate, and not an assumption of bad faith, for SMcCandlish to call out the double standards, although they could have been less blunt about it. 22:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by North8000
I have just two narrow comments because I haven't taken a deep dive to learn the overall situation. On is on accusations of violating wp:AGF. WP:AGF is (rightly so) just a guideline and not a policy because is more of a general principle, and thus is broad and vague enough to be interpret-able to say that some common, logical and correct behaviors are wrong. Second, the complaint really doesn't make any case, it just relies on extracted out-of-context quotes to establish the complaint, which they don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
SMcCandlish, Hey Man, Sidewsipe--you all are among some of the most helpful and positive editors here. Please try to find a way to work this out. and I would host you in our NYC parlor with coffee and pastries, but we have commitments elsewhere--please think of how much you all have meant to this project, and how much it has meant to you, and talk it over. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Apaugasma
I did not know about the AE restriction prohibiting SMcCandlish from making bad faith assumptions in MOS-related discussions, but exactly this happened to me back in September.

After previously having raised a concern in a MOS discussion that my approach to sources might be cherry-picking, SMcCandlish posted notifications to VPP and NPOVN which flatly stated involves [...] WP:CHERRYPICKING. I asked on their talk page to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications (full discussion). Despite the fact that on the MOS talk page I had already come up with a new approach to sources that explicitly addressed the cherry-picking concerns, SMcCandlish declined to remove the reference to cherry-picking from the notifications, commenting If someone individually chooses to identify with the term CHERRYPICKING and be offended by mention of that rule, that probably says much more about what they've been writing than about what I wrote. The discussion only went downhill from there, with remarks like you are not the only person making "do it because sources I like do it" arguments, and I don't think you understand what "cherry-picking" even means.

Meanwhile on the MOS talk page, SMcCandlish misinterpreted a Workshop proposal I made and concluded from this that This "workshop" subsection is simply an excuse to ignore all the concerns raised in the main section of this discussion. When I pointed out that they had misread the proposal with an explicit invitation to discuss at my talk, they doubled down insisting they did not misread, and repeated once more that I was just Digging up examples that specifically support your viewpoint. The type of misinterpretation here (assuming I want the MOS to recommend writing about Muhammad as "holy", while of course the text under discussion is about restricting such expressions) speaks a lot to the underlying ABF issues.

Next, when I criticized a different, ngrams-based type of evidence SMcCandlish had presented for their position, they replied I suspect you did not actually look at the ngrams at all, and have just blindly assumed they are searches for "Muhammad" After some further attempts at explaining why the evidence doesn't work, they replied that my explanations are mere meaningless hand-waving and that everyone here understands that. I strongly suspect that you do as well, since the alternative is that simply have no understanding at all of what aggregate data is and how basic statistics works. I explicitly asked SMcCandlish to take a break, which seems to have worked, but I'm sure that if they had not assumed some kind of intentional obfuscation (or ignorance) on my part they would have much sooner understood what I was trying to say.

Since this incident I have removed all MOS pages from my watch list, because I simply do not want be confronted with such behavior. In general I have decided to spend a lot less time on WP, and this incident has been a catalyst in that decision. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 02:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC)


 * @Courcelles: "shut this down"? I may be misunderstanding, but this really feels dismissive of the issues I raised, as if they were merely piling-on in some free-for-all. I would have raised this in its own report if I had known about the restriction (i.e. that it's not just me, that the ABF is a long-term issue). I get that AE can be a bit of a drag, but at least some comment on what happened here would be welcome. ☿ Apaugasma  ( talk  ☉) 15:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Bookku
Following edit tool stats indicated prominent influence of User:SMcCandlish

1) WP:VPP tops in number of edits 958 (14.9%); tops in added text 752,054 (19.6%)  Ref tool

2) WP:MOS Tops in Edit; Tops in number of Edit 1,005 (24.3%) In added text 3rd position 97,646 (13.5%)  Ref tool                                                                  3) WT:MOS Tops in number of edits 5,276 (36.9%);  Tops in added text 4,790,959 (53.4%)  Ref tool

I have had some small experience of conversing with the User (but not recent one). Since then I prefer to learn from the experienced users. If experienced influential users show good faith towards other well meaning users and show a little more accommodation can be more helpful in achieving the Wikipedia's goals. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Elinruby
Interesting that this thread is still open even as has been assuming bad faith at my user page. (User talk:Elinruby).

TL;DR I pinged him in an ANI thread looking for confirmation of an Arbcom request he filed. The ANI involved a mistaken new user who found out they were mistaken and retracted the whole thing. SMcCandlish posted some discussion to my talk page about the need for civility. I responded at some length to his mistaken assumptions about the thread and pointing out that he had made the same Arbcom request also based on an assumption of bad faith (about someone else) but that I had supported it anyway because the e-e CT needs more sourcing restrictions in my opinion.

He doubled down a couple of hours ago, still apparently without reading the thread, and said I wasn't going to dig into it, and my only purpose here was to recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach. At the risk of repeating myself, the entire complaint that this comment is about was retracted once the new editor learned that contentious topic alerts and 3RR notifications do not constitute personal attacks.

I have no opinion about the MoS dispute except that I fervently wish editors would pick something and move on.

that is all Elinruby (talk) 11:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I would just like to point out that the behaviour I discuss above has happened since The Wordsmith and Seraphimblade suggested a reminder, which indicates to me that an informal reminder may not be effective. It stopped once I posted here but the next time it occurs the target may not have an open AE thread to post to. Unless of course you all don't think that lecturing an editor on civility after they were dragged to an ANI thread that explicitly found no evidence of such a problem is not an assumption of bad faith in a CT area. If that is the case, huh, I think I disagree but I bow to your judgement. I realize that he is considered a valuable editor in the MoS topic area, and this is not MoS, but nonetheless. While I approve of his Arbcom request, it was made on the basis of imaginary anti-Semitism and created a situation where editors in the topic area of the Lithuanian Holocaust are forced to explain that no really, the topic really does fall under the Anti-Semitism in Poland Arbcom decision, so apart from the editor who felt a need to change his name, there is a long-lasting problem that was created along with the motion. (Does this Arbcom motion make me sound crazy?)
 * I am not suggesting we burn him at the stake. My suggestion would be a logged warning, to help him remember. Elinruby (talk) 09:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


 * May I please have a short word extension to agree with ? I will be succinct. I am right at 50O words right now. And don't see much to cut. Courcelles' response raises some questions that I would like to speak to. 'While this case was open: has been blundering around making accusations  in a Holocaust topic, and his previous unfounded  accusations of bad faith in the topic were within the past three months. Hardly the stuff of misty legend. Perhaps we need some diffs rather than a post that summarizes another post that summarizes two ANI and one misquoted AE proceedings. Elinruby (talk) 17:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I am not advocating an EE sanction but it's an additional reason to have taken more care. I still suggest a logged warning, and oppose dismissing a decade of behaviour. It has also occurred outside MoS, so I ask that we not add a "in the MoS topic area" scope.


 * Talk page summary

SM:"Focus on content (in the article, and in claims in the talk page) not on the editor who wrote it."19:50, 3 March
 * Everyone involved says he misunderstood
 * me: "Massive kudos... to and  for actually clicking the freaking links ... required notifications and ...we are supposed to use academic sources, why are you reverting?"
 * Closing admin: "I read the complaint (and the revised one) x 3 and I still have no idea what they perceived your wrong action to be"
 * ANI OP: "Elinruby is basically right! I was too defensive"
 * SM: "recommend a more verbally chilled-out and focus-on-content approach" 08:44, 4 March

Noticeboard background: an AE complaint of "removal or concealment of the history of Lithuanian collaboration" ended in a warning for getting angry at the accusation. ("inappropriate remarks"). A later ANI complaint omits the outcome and says the editor "returned to his practices".


 * At 09:35, 6 December 2023 SMcCandlish says "We put a stop to whitewashing and related disruption about the Nazis in one country, so the PoV pushers have simply jumped ship to a neighboring country instead."


 * Many refutations later at 04:30, 16 December 2023 he says "disruption has simply moved one country over but is essentially the same Nazi-whitewashing issue."

Not a listener.Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 12:04 March 11 Still making remarks about editors, thinks issue is that others lack a sense of humor. (I am uninvolved.) Elinruby (talk) 04:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I've only just become aware this request was open, so apologies for the late response but based on the evidence presented, especially by Apaugasma and Elinruby (and evidence I would have presented if I'd known about this earlier) that this is an ongoing problem that has not stopped since this AE thread was opened I do not thing a simple reminder is sufficient. It is plausible that they forgot about their restriction at first (although nobody should require a reminder to not assume bad faith, especially when doing so has been called out by multiple people in multiple discussions), but it is not plausible they forgot it again since it was brought here. In my view a logged warning is the minimum appropriate level of sanction. A block would be excessive, but adding something enforceable to the restriction would not be - perhaps allowing uninvolved administrators to ban them from any discussion which they assume bad faith and/or mischaracterise the arguments of others (in any manner which is not clearly a genuine misunderstanding)? Thryduulf (talk) 16:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This should not be allowed to just idle out without a formal closure. Do uninvolved admins want more diffs or is there enough to demonstrate the pattern of behaviour? Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Result concerning SMcCandlish

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


 * Isn't Administrators' noticeboard enough? I understand that MOS is a bit of a WP:BIKESHED issue but things would have to be quite extreme before opening a request here while an admin noticeboard discussion was ongoing. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with — this is a false equivalency. El_C 16:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Considering that SMcCandlish has acknowledged his poor reaction and that the ANI discussion is ongoing, I'm not sure action is needed here. However, is at roughly 2100 words in his statement.  Please trim your statement to under 1500 words. Considering how much of the text is discussing, an extension for him to 1000 is granted. The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:13, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Noting here that has requested and been granted a 500 word extension to respond to recent updates. In the future, please try to keep all requests on this page for the sake of transparency. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 500 word extension granted, but I'll say that we're careening towards absurdity with these word counts for what doesn't seem like a very complex issue. Let's all try to keep it brief from this point. I also agree with that we probably don't need this parallel discussion unless the ANI thread goes pear shaped. However, I'm concerned by the implications of the 2013 editing restriction that seems to still be active. The Wordsmith Talk to me 02:17, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't love the same thing being discussed at the same time in multiple venues. I would favor closing this since there was already an ongoing AN discussion, and then if someone thinks there's something still unresolved after the AN thread is closed to discuss here, we can do that afterwards. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Seraphimblade's suggestion seems reasonable to me. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine putting this request on hold until the ANI thread resolves. The Wordsmith Talk to me 04:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming you mean the AN thread? — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 05:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, that's the thread. The Wordsmith Talk to me 05:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We've now had a few days, and the AN thread has died down. has acknowledged his conduct issue. Do we still need this open? It seems like the editing restriction is still active, so there could be a violation here. It was long ago and I can accept on good faith that it was forgotten, so I don't think anything stricter than a reminder is warranted here. The Wordsmith Talk to me 17:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think that serves as well as anything. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'd be OK closing this with a reminder about that restriction. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 03:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Concur. Someone please shut this down unless an uninvolved admin comes by soon arguing differently. (I might do it later this afternoon if no one else does.) Courcelles (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we may need a little more time. Valereee (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the new diffs presented, I would have been supportive of upgrading the reminder to a logged warning. However, the discussion at User talk:Elinruby seems to be exclusively about the WP:ARBEE, and SMCCandlish's 2013 editing restriction specifically says it applies to pages or discussions related to WP:MOS, where these edits would seem out of scope. I'm not seeing enough here to warrant a sanction or logged warning for Eastern Europe. Adding a sentence to the "reminder" that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia should be enough there. 300 word extension granted, since it doesn't seem like you've had one already. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That seems fair to me. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 21:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Fizzbuzz306
''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 : 04:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality


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


 * ,, Engaging in an edit war against  removing the high quality source Game Developer from Sweet Baby Inc.
 * 1) In an edit summary, describes  as "patronizing" them when pointing out that Game Developer is considered a reliable source, before banning Rhain from their talk page.
 * 2) Personal attack against : Your opinion does not trump consensus. Your edit history demonstrates a very clear bias and your opinions on this matter are not relevant.
 * 3) Casting aspersions about multiple editors I realize several editors on this page want to tell a certain narrative but these sources are clearly lying.
 * 4) 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.
 * 5) 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):


 * 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)


 * 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 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)
 * 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)


 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

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)

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)

Result concerning Fizzbuzz306

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


 * Is there evidence of misconduct in this topic area that's unrelated to Sweet Baby Inc.? 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Given the latest response from, 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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:, 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)
 * 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)

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 : 21:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe


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


 * 1) 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
 * 2) 8 March edit warring and claiming support from the talk page discussion, when the state of Talk:Mikhail_Kalinin does not support it
 * 3) 6 March Personal attacks against (albeit before being warned of CTOPS)


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


 * 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 Reliable_sources/Noticeboard 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)
 * 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)

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)

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)

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)

I'm unfortunately not quite experienced with AE. The  Kip  06:27, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)

Result concerning Jarek19800

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


 * 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)
 * In my view, when Jarek19800 wrote, 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Clerking

 * 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)
 * 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)
 * we count "normal/visual text" words. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:57, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

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 sectionsbut 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) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Talk:Elissa Slotkin Extended Confirmed Protection for one year. There does not appear to be a request at 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 :


 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Please take the sockpuppet/meatpuppet speculation to Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. This is not the place for that.
 * Admins, can you strike? andrew.robbins (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * Re: @Dcpoliticaljunkie's last comment. I'm curious what you mean by "This problem would go beyond manageable if non-ECP editor participation were to restart." There is no problem there aside from OrcaLord vehemently disagreeing with your position. The proper solution to that is to take it to dispute resolution if you can't handle it.
 * I am going to be completely honest, I don't think this is about false consensus. I think this is about dissent. andrew.robbins (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 and admin  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 . Following the ECP, (part of the anti-Slotkin Twitter cabal who was blocked from the page for edit warring by  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)


 * @Red-tailed hawk and @Seraphimblade: I understand your concern about ECP of a talk page, however, I'd love to hear what your alternate solution to protect the page from off-wiki coordination and false consensus would be? @Drmies previously semiprotected the page which has helped in stopping the direct sockpuppetry. If the page is not ECP protected, I'm unclear what the mechanism for dealing with off-wiki canvassed editors swarming and tag teaming the talk page. I hope the informed discretion of admins involved in the page wouldn't be overturned by others without full understanding of the situation.
 * Even now, with ECP protection, I think the ongoing discussion on this section underscores the difficulty and patience required for other editors on this page. This problem would go beyond manageable if non-ECP editor participation were to restart. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)


 * 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)

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. ⇒  SWAT Jester   Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Cpotisch
I am not involved in this matter, although I was part of past disputes on the article. My viewpoint here is that discussions on the talk page absolutely have been uncivil and disruptive, and that the well-established influence of sock/meatpuppets has resulted in the deterioration of the quality of the talk page discussion. 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, and scrolling through his timeline will show quite clearly what the issue is here. I’m bringing this up not to target users but to make clear that we are dealing with a highly-unusual situation that requires potentially-unusual remedies. A talk page spammed to swing outcomes will result in editorial decisions difficult to identify and reverse. Cpotisch (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by OrcaLord
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.

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 Sockpuppet investigations/Thespeedoflightneverchanges is relevant here for additional context. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It seems like the use of ECP was valid and within '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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * After taking another look, I think it would be reasonable to downgrade to semi-protection and reduce the duration, somewhere between 1 week and 1 month. If we see significant disruption by autoconfirmed accounts, we can always upgrade it again. <span style="font-family:Papyrus, Courier New">The Wordsmith Talk to me 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , 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)
 * and, I have removed your incorrectly placed comments. Threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. If you would like to make statements, please make them in a section of your own, as instructed above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with Red-tailed hawk. I do not see sufficient justification for ECP here. I'm open to hearing from the protecting administrator, and perhaps I would change my mind with that, but otherwise I would at least reduce this to semiprotection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just plainly not seeing the justification for placing ECP on the article talk page on 18 March and keeping it for a year. I plainly do not see disruption in the talk page history that warrants ECP; within the past month one autoconfirmed sockpuppet posted a single comment on 7 March, but that does not justify protecting the whole article's talk page (something that ought truly be a last resort) for a whole year. As for the potential of future disruption, as WP:ECP notes, Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred.Administrators have authority to make unilateral CTOP actions, but they still have to be justified to survive appeal. A single edit by an autoconfirmed sockpuppet account on 7 March does not warrant the imposition of a 1-year extended-confirmed protection beginning on 18 March. I believe that this action should be overturned and converted into nothing more stringent than some temporary sort of semi-protection. As such, I would accept the appeal. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I also find it hard to see this as "reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption", basically per Red-tailed hawk. I support accepting the appeal and restoring the previous non-CTOP semi-protection, which no one here seems to be objecting to, without prejudice against returning to ECP if there's additional disruption in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

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 : 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * User against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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&mdash;violating WP:PSCI
 * 2) and  11 March 2024&mdash;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.
 * 3) 10 March 2024&mdash;accusing me
 * 4) 10 March 2024&mdash;
 * 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):


 * Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 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.
 * &mdash;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.
 * Wikipedia already has the article Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There it is presented in full detail.
 * a maximalist interpretation&mdash;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.
 * 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., , , , and "consensus based on archaeology" at , 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.
 * I don't think it was their first time, see Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150. Especially . tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What do you think about ? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :


 * 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)

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)

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) 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.
 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * 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)

Statement by BilledMammal
Bishonen, I would read that comment as saying that Orthodox Judaism is a cult; it’s not quite the same thing as saying Judaism is, but given that Orthodox Judaism is the largest branch of Judaism I don’t think it’s a "blatantly misleading aspersion" 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree; in contentious topic areas editors need to be careful and precise in what they say. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

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)
 * As to, 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)
 * 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)
 * , 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will proceed with the closure proposed by . Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * KronosAlight says here and now that they don't support the theory under discussion, I presume the myth of the Great Flood, or possibly the specific "Black Sea deluge hypothesis". That has not prevented them from sealioning it within an inch of its life, under cover of "simply enforcing NPOV", both on Talk:Flood myth and indeed above on this page. I suggest an indefinite page ban from Flood myth and its talkpage. At least that.
 * As for Nycarchitecture212's lengthy posts above, it's disgraceful to summarize what Tgeorgescu says here as "He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perpetrating pseudohistory", as Seraphim has noted. Tgeorgescu describes Jews as a cult? No he doesn't. A logged warning for this blatantly misleading aspersion would certainly be appropriate. Bishonen &#124; tålk 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC).
 * maybe so. But Nycarchitecture212 needs to be a lot more careful in talking about these sensitive subjects. Bishonen &#124; tålk 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC).

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by tgeorgescu
''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 sectionsbut 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 : – tgeorgescu (talk)  23:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Logged warning about WP:BATTLEGROUND


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator :

Statement by tgeorgescu
Human behavior has causes (reasons). My reason for misbehaving was that I did not know that WP:PROFRINGE is allowed on talk pages. I have learned this fact and I will behave accordingly. Sorry for the trouble I had produced. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay, seen the arguments, consider my request retracted. tgeorgescu (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by TheSandDoctor
There was no sanction placed against tgeorgescu nor the other party, SamwiseGSix. The outcome of the discussion was ultimately that they were just both warned about incivility and BATTLEGROUND behaviour following a lengthy and heated discussion that saw both parties' conduct called into question by multiple administrators -- though not enough to garner consensus for formal restrictions/sanctions -- prior to my close. tgeorgescu admits that they were out of line ("misbehaving"), so not really sure what is to be accomplished here. -- The SandDoctor Talk 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by tgeorgescu
''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.''

Result of the appeal by tgeorgescu

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


 * Tgeorgescu states that they didn't know they were in the wrong, but it turns out they were. A warning was given, and they state they will change their behavior based upon that. That's kind of how this is supposed to work, and provided that the commitment to changing behavior is genuine, that will be the end of it. The only reason I would really overturn a warning is if the editor in question really had done nothing wrong, and that's clearly not true here. So, I would decline this appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Interstellarity
''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 sectionsbut 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 : – Interstellarity (talk) 22:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Sanction being appealed : Contentious topics page sanctions on Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton


 * Administrator imposing the sanction :


 * Notification of that administrator : diff

Statement by Interstellarity
I am requesting that we lift the contentious topics page on these two articles. I support Bill Clinton's being removed and weakly support removing Hillary Clinton's. I feel that we are at a point in time where the majority of post-1992 American politics sanctions are usually for pages related to Trump and Biden. Bill Clinton's article doesn't seem to get much disruption other than simple vandalism and test edits. Hillary Clinton's article, while there has been some disruption, has been minimal to an extent, but not as much as high-profile articles like Trump and Biden which is why I say weak support. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. I think in this way, this would be a major step towards pushing the date where American politics that is not current anymore is not sanctioned anymore to say 2000 (maybe 2008 or 2016, but would not go beyond that). I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Interstellarity (talk) 21:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Muboshgu
As I said over at AN, I think this proposal is a bad idea. Articles relating to the Clintons still see disruption, such as Clinton body count conspiracy theory. There is also the not fully resolved matter of Jeffrey Epstein and many think that Bill is on the Epstein client list, which has yet to be revealed. Also, 2024 is a presidential election year, and Bill Clinton was just out in NYC at a high-profile fundraiser with Biden and Obama. Then there's Hillary, who has laid low lately, but will likely speak at the 2024 Democratic National Convention and campaign in the fall. And remember that Biden is running against Trump this year, again. He's not above bringing up Clinton-related negativity to assist his own campaign. Keeping CTOPS for American politics at 1992-present seems the best idea to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Interstellarity
''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 Sideswipe9th
The merits of the request aside for a moment, procedurally this seems out of scope for this noticeboard. Those two articles are considered to be under the aegis of WP:CT/AP, not because of the actions of an uninvolved administrator, but because of the phrasing of the topic wide sanction: Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Bill was the US President from 1993-2001, and Hillary was elected a Senator in 2001, was the Secretary of State between 2009-2013, and was a presidential candidate herself in 2016. Those two people are unquestionably involved in post-1992 politics of the United States. As for page specific sanctions, as far as I can tell there are no active sanctions beyond the CTOP designation for Bill, while Hillary's article is additionally subject to 24-BRD.

If Interstellarity wants to see these articles taken out of the CTOP procedures, by bringing the post-1992 date forward in time, then he needs to make a request at WP:ARCA. They're the only people who can change the scope of a topic wide CTOP designation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Huh, missed that Bill's article was 1RR protected as the talk page wasn't properly tagged. I've . Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by a smart kitten
Noting that the BRD requirement at Hillary Clinton appears to have been imposed by, per the 2019 AE log. It appears that this page was previously also under 1RR, but this is logged as having been removed in 2021. All the best. &zwj;—&zwj; a smart kitten <sub style="color:#595959">[  meow ] 13:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by Alalch E.
In addition to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton, I have reviewed recent page histories of the following articles: Hillary Clinton email controversy, Clinton body count conspiracy theory, Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and QAnon (hypothetically any problems on these other articles could spill over to the biographies—or—if the problems relating to the subjects of the biographies are not actually happening at the biographies themselves but are being manifested on these connected articles, maybe the page sanctions should actually be extended). I could not detect instances of undesirable behavior upon which either 1RR or obligatory BRD page sanctions would have activated. There have been some bad edits (just going to use "bad edits" for simplicity), not many, and they have been reverted. Isolated non-repeated bad edits are not in themselves "disruptive behavior" when analyzed at the level of a page (they may be analyzed behaviorally at the level of a user if the user makes individual bad edits across multiple pages), and the sanctions that are being discussed can not stop isolated bad edits from occurring. They deter behavior, i.e., reoccurrence of bad edits, and I could not find evidence in the pages' histories, on article talk pages, user talk pages, or elsewhere, that editors have been notifying other editors of these sanctions so that they would not repeat such edits, or any other plausible, intelligible mechanism of deterrence coming from these page-specific sanctions. So it seems like these sanctions haven't been doing anything in the recent period. Noting that I have edited the QAnon article, but not recently (unsure about involved/uninvolved).16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Interstellarity

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


 * To be clear, we can't just decide on our own to push out the date beyond 1992: if you want to go down that road, you'll need to ask the Arbitration Committee at WP:ARCA. All we can discuss here is whether the 1RR at Bill Clinton and the BRD requirement at Hillary Clinton are still necessary. I don't support changing anything regarding Hillary Clinton: BRD is a fairly limited sanction, and edit-warring without discussion as recently as November suggests it's still necessary. I wouldn't have a problem with downgrading the 1RR at Bill Clinton to BRD (1RR can be rather restrictive for high-profile articles), but it's not a hill I'm going to die on. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , when you appeal an AE action, you are required to notify the administrator who imposed it so that they can comment if they wish. It does not appear that you have done so. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:54, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * @Seraphimblade: I just noticed the admin on their talk page. You can see the diff above. Interstellarity (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Copying over my comment from AN:I think CTOPs are a topic, not specific pages. Even if a page is unmarked with the CTOP talk page template, edits on it that fall within the CTOP topic can still result in Alerts, WP:AE, etc.The CTOP you're talking about, I think, is "post-1992 American politics". I think the correct way to request a change in scope (for example, changing it to "post-2017 American politics", which would exclude Hillary's presidential run in 2016) is WP:ARCA. Although I don't recommend it. I think post-1992 is a good scope, and post-2017 would be too narrow.– Novem Linguae (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:Extraordinary Writ that the scope of the American Politics sanctions can only be changed by a filing at WP:ARCA. As noted by the other admins, the only things AE could do anything about are the 1RR restriction on Bill Clinton (from User:El_C) and the BRD restriction at Hillary Clinton, placed by the now-inactive User:Coffee. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)