Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Zilch-nada[edit]

Zilch-nada is warned to assume good faith and maintain civility in discussions, and to better listen to other editors during discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Zilch-nada[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

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

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

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

Thanks, Seraphimblade. Indeed, I would greatly appreciate input from some more administrators so that this could reach some conclusion (whatever it may be). --JBL (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[1]

Discussion concerning Zilch-nada[edit]

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

Statement by Zilch-nada[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sangdeboeuf[edit]

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

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

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

Statement by Beccaynr[edit]

On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [2], [3], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [4] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [5] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.

Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [6]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [7], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.

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

There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [8]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Statement by Aquillion[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Zilch-nada[edit]

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

I haven't gone through every one of the diffs yet, but so far it's a mixed bag. Some of them I'm struggling to see the incivility in. Others, particularly those shown by Aquillion, are clearly inappropriate. I should be able to finish reading through everything tomorrow, I'm just commenting now because I noticed this hasn't received any admin attention yet. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After looking into this deeper, there does appear to be a civility and WP:IDHT problem here. I do see that Zilch-nada has apologized for the poor language and immaturity. I'm on the fence about what should be done about it. Leaning slightly towards a logged warning for now, with the understanding that if we end up back here a topic ban is very likely. I'm open to arguments either way. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've dearchived this request as it is incomplete, and it looks like discussion was still in process. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On going through the diffs (and some of Zilch-nada's other posts) it does seem that their tone is rather brusque and dismissive. That said, none of it is actually beyond the pale and therefore I think a logged warning, a mild one that reminds them to AGF in discussions, is likely the best way to close this. RegentsPark (comment) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds reasonable enough to me. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymailsays[edit]

There is consensus for an indefinite block of Jaymailsays. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Jaymailsays[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles

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

19:46, March 27, 2024 Adds blatant WP:SYNTHESIS
15:30, March 29, 2024 Repeats previous edit in violation of WP:ONUS despite discussion at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Synthesis and false narrative

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Blocked for edit-warring at 18:25, February 16, 2024

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

Notified at 18:19, March 10, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Largely based on this BBC article (and earlier articles in the Belfast Telegraph and Newsletter), the editor is attempting to relitigate the lengthy Bloody Sunday Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972). None of the sources in any way suggest this verdict should be in any way looked at again, so additions such as "the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled" and "based on the evidence available at the time" are totally unacceptable, since it should be blatantly obvious that a video of someome in March 1972 isn't evidence of what they were doing on a particular date in January 1972.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaymailsays[edit]

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 Jaymailsays[edit]

Unfortunately the complainant has now broken the 3 revert rule without consensus or suggesting an edit, on the Martin McGuinness page by removing BBC content, because it doesn't fit in with their personal view, instead of adopting a neutral encyclopaedic edit. Request that a neutral administrator reinstates edit.
The complainant reinstated 14 killed during Bloody Sunday, when the citation linked to the official report states 13 and not 14. The complainant is acting as if they own the article instead of collaborating with editors to gain consensus. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss[edit]

At the risk of hijacking an AE complaint—this comment is not about The Troubles, but Seraphimblade has already opened this door below—their brief participation at Talk:Donald Trump has been... unimpressive, disappointing.[12][13][14][15] They were asked to strike the PA in that last one,[16] but have so far ignored that (in my view, that constitutes doubling down on the PA, which is even more serious). If they were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't miss them. But at least they didn't edit war, credit where credit's due. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IgnatiusofLondon[edit]

Echoing Seraphimblade and Mandruss, I believe there is a WP:CIR issue that extends beyond the scope of AE. I interacted with the editor at Where is Kate?, a BLP article, where the editor continually added WP:UNDUE content (1, 2), extensive citations of routine statements/comments (3, 4, 5), which sometimes broke the prose's grammar (6, 7), and generally unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) or sources of unknown reliability that likely violate WP:BLPGOSSIP (8, 9, 10, 11). A minority of their contributions to the article were uncontested. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Jaymailsays[edit]

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

This editor's talk page is quite the mountain of warnings for OR, poor use of references, and the like, and I see even more of that in these edits. I also note that now they seem to want to needlessly snark at other editors, while there's an AE request open about them: [17]. Jaymailsays, I'd be open to hearing your side, but at this point I'm giving a lot of thought to whether you ought to continue editing at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still considering what to do here, primarily between a TBAN and indef. If anyone else has any input, would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the wide range of topics that Jaymailsays edits, I support an indef. RegentsPark (comment) 17:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996[edit]

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 Abhishek0831996[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Abhishek0831996 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan

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

27 March 2024 15:36 at Article 370 (film), strange edit summary "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came later (17 March 2024 16:07), which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing.
27 March 2024 16:03, at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?"
27 March 2024, 15:41 at Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with Capitals00?
31 March 2024, 14:27 at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false.
1 April 2024 12:46 at Aksai Chin. More biting of the newbie editor: "Revert half baked edits of Haani". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page.
1 April 2024 13:03 at its talk page. "One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough." Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press.
26 March 2024, 09:45 at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Similar bombastic edit summary "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history". Reinstating content previously added by Capitals00
21 January 2024 10:53 at Babri Masjid. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 reinstated the edits after having been reverted once by Vanamonde93
16 March 2024 16:49 at Indian independence movement. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

24 April 2017. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing.

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 31 August 2021, 9 June 2022 and 27 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 24 July 2023.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless.

Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent.

Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

Interesting that Capitals00 finds fault with me placing a POV template on a faulty section. Surely they know that WP:NPOV is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible.

For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done.

As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves.

On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1 April 2024 17:49

Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996[edit]

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 Abhishek0831996[edit]

1st edit: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[18] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by The Hindu [19] and The Deccan Herald [20] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to WP:OR.
2nd edit: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching WP:NPA.[21] This is a breach of WP:ASPERSIONS on Kautilya3's part.
3rd edit: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since 2 March 2024.
4th edit: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[22] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[23]
5th edit: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[24] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles.
6th edit: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided scholarly sources (including the one from Harvard University Press) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[25]
7th edit: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the Bharatiya Janta Party [26][27] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[28] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit.
8th edit: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[29] and the activists belonging to Nirmohi Akhara,[30] Hindu Mahasabha [31][32] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[33]
9th edit: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of Gandhi's ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership."

It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Haani40)[edit]

I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00

Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source diff

Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source diff

Restoring edit of Capitals00 with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" diff

False claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin diff

Removing Aksai Chin from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state) article diff which Curious man123 reverted.

After reading the allegations of Capitals00 below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the {{this is a new user}} template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at WP:PG. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. Kautilya3 has stated that those edits are his here but Capitals00 is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read WP:DONTBITE

I have also read the five pillars of Wikipedia after Kautilya3 mentioned it on my Talk page.

In his reply above, Abhishek0831996 has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[34]

Capitals00 has again reverted Kautilya3 here - it certainly looks like he and Abhishek0831996 are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin.Haani40 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996 has changed his statement here saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962 and, "false claim that China got control in 1962".-Haani40 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this, this, this, this and this diff to understand that Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 are repeatedly removing sourced content from the Aksai Chin article.-Haani40 (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00[edit]

Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[35][36] and even WP:CIR.[37][38]

While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[39][40][41] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[42] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[43][44] against their will on the cited pages.

I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[45] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Bookku)[edit]

I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.

Importance of WP:DDE protocol and going back to WP:DR

Here I am not commenting on specific merits of the case (emphasis added).

As usual at this WP:ARE forum, intermittently I come to make good faith reminder; If for some reason discussions go off the track from content dispute usual preference should be, 'go back to the track of solving content disputes as per WP:DR' rather than personalizing them. As far as personal issues before any disputes coming at WP:ARE checking protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE also be considered important.

Bookku (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some different facets Diff1
Brief: MOS:FILMHIST says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."

Detail appreciation Diff1 issue

- While my primary perception about above case has been that like many other content dispute spilling over in personal realm and that continues; I gave a re-look into discussion between Kautilya3 and Abhishek0831996 specially about Dif 1 deletion of {{unreliable source?}} tag.
- Can any history film, other than academically transcripted and peer reviewed documentary; be called academically accurate? Who is going to decide those are just fiction or fictionalized or academically accurate history? Whether even any reliable news media can sit on judgement of it's veracity like academics?
- What Wikipedia lacks at policy level is well identified allowance of weak sources. So be it. If at all a RS media is being used where academic should have been then why not at least provide attribution to the media.
- Above discussions are mentioning WP:HISTRS essay but inadvertently seem to miss on MOS:FILMHIST which provides some good via media for above explained difficulties. MOS:FILMHIST says:
- ".. If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). .. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."

- Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier.

Some related advise

- We all users being human it's very understandable we prefer to stick to more suitable positions and RS. To draw a parallel whether any one would appreciate that court judges getting influenced by media even if RS? Similarly in a role of encyclopedist do we not need to understand many of our perceptions and positions are being constructed by media and mediums around us and there may be need to revisit our own positions and do effort to understand from where other user's point is coming and can there be space for that?

- @Abhishek0831996 Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read WP:TRUTH then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and inadvertently we do not go closer to WP:POVPUSH. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better.

I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all.

Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (User name)[edit]

Result concerning Abhishek0831996[edit]

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

As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need more information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it brief. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reviewing and will likely have some thoughts in the next 24 hours. I urge all the participants to be mindful of the word limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006[edit]

As ArbCom has stated they have private evidence relevant to this request, it will be moved to WP:ARCA. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Rp2006[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2), indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed.

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

15 April 2022, an edit about at Havana syndrome about Robert Bartholomew, he writes for several newspapers and journals on sociological and fringe science topics, including Psychology Today, Skeptical Inquirer, and British magazines The Skeptic and Fortean Times.
15 April 2022, explicitly warned about edits about Bartholomew at Havana syndrome on their talk page, clarification of topic ban provided.
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive306#Rp2006, 12 June 2022, Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken following a technical violation.
21 January 2023, an edit about a living person of interest to the skeptic community.
27-28 January 2023, warned about violations on their talk page.
1 March 2023, topic ban violation at David Paulides.
4 March 2023, warning about that violation.
Special:Undelete/User:Rp2006/sandbox/Biddle, 20 December 2023, 17 July 2023, 30 September 2022, admin-only, page since deleted, edits about Kenneth "Kenny" Biddle, an author, skeptical investigator of paranormal claims.
6 February 2024, adding Wikiproject Skepticism to a BLP.
6-7 February 2024, talk page warnings about violations
2 April 2024, an edit about Robert Bartholomew at Havana syndrome.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After at least 5 warnings, both on their talk page and at AE, topic ban violations continue. I've been wearing kid's gloves with my handling of this, but after years of violations and warnings I think we've reached the point where something more concrete should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with a sanction from Arbcom is not a reason to ignore it. The not understanding the limits doesn't really wash after it's been explained by multiple editors multiple times. We expect all editors who are topic banned to stay away from the edges of their bans, and to ask questions if they're unsure.

The diffs above are also not the only violations. Taking a look through there are more that pop up, like [46]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping a note that I have sent evidence of COI editing to Arbcom as well. I'll provide the evidence to any admin who requests it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Rp2006[edit]

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 Rp2006[edit]

My understanding was - due the perceived violation of rules on two BLPs of two people of interest to the skeptic community - one a self-professed medium, and another a science communicator who renounced the title skeptic) that the ban's intention was to prevent two things. One being me putting negative material (although true) on BLPs of those investigated or debunked by skeptics (such as the aforementioned "medium"), and the other to avoid promoting skeptics on their own BLPs. I have avoided doing either in the years since the ban was initiated.

It was my impression from the start that the ban was over-reaching, and even worse, vague -- and so I was likely to unintentionally violate it if I kept editing Wikipedia at all. And as my goal is still to improve the encyclopedia, that is just what happened as I keep editing. In some cases I just wasn't thinking - as in the Paulides case where I added some citations I think. After being warned I gladly reverted saying: "Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert!"

Most of the other violations were also things I had not considered relevant... discussion on talk pages and the like, and mentioning a person on a topic page. Most recently this adding relevant information on Havana Syndrome's Talk (an article I have edited almost since its creation) regarding discussing an actual scientist's perspective (he does not call himself a skeptic) on his area of expertise.

IMHO, the ban wording "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is confusingly broad. This could - I suppose - depending on POV, include everyone from Trump, to RFK Jr., to Taylor Swift (there are conspiracies about her), and also include every living scientist, politician, medical professions, outspoken celebrity, etc... Who in this day and age is NOT of interest to scientific skepticism? What topic? It’s virtually impossible to write on any topic I am interested in (science) and not have someone claim I violated my ban. I was frankly surprised that I’ve written or greatly expanded many new articles (no BLPs, but all mention people “of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed”) since the ban and no one -- not even SFR -- claimed these were a violation. These include (King of Clones, Virulent: The Vaccine War, How to Become a Cult Leader, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, Waco: American Apocalypse, The Phenomenon, Satan Wants You.

This vague ban gives me (or someone similarly affected) no clear way to know where the lines are, and the likelihood of crossing lines unintentionally is high. That this ban even included, according to SFR, updating an existing and outdated BLP article (someone has since published one) in my own sandbox (with a minor note), and adding a WikiProject banner on a BLP Talk page, is beyond insane. That anyone should assume such edits are included in such a ban is unreasonable, and that he even thought to list these here shows his state of mind.

This ban's vagueness gives wide ranging power to anyone wanting to slap me down. I believe this applies to SFR who was one of the two editors who essentially prosecuted the case against me, and since becoming an admin, has pursued his animosity towards me with at every turn, despite the "kid's gloves" claim just made here.

Let me close by stating that I believe I have not made any edits anywhere near close to the few edits that caused my ban in the first place in all the time that has passed since, and THAT should be what is considered now. My goal is and always has been to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a list of "gotchas" from SFR as a reason to extend or deepen the ban seems unfair. In fact, if it is agreed that I am correct in that assessment, the ban should be lifted at this point. Rp2006 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tgeorgescu[edit]

If they want to be judged by ARBCOM, admins should oblige. Note that I don't think that it is wise to want be judged by ARBCOM, just that it is a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Rp2006[edit]

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

There's only so many times we can say "Hey, stop doing that" before we conclude that an editor is either unable or unwilling to follow an editing restriction. Rp2006, I'd like to hear from you, because the alternative at that point is normally a lengthy or indefinite block. I'm willing to hear you out, especially because that's certainly not something I'm happy about, but there's a fair chance that's what we'd be looking at here. You've had a lot more chances than most get before blocks start to be imposed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got to say, the response here does not fill me with confidence that this will not be an ongoing occurrence. To begin with, since you were topic banned directly by ArbCom, we can't lift the topic ban. Only ArbCom could do that. And the fact that you have repeatedly not adhered to it will not work in your favor if you want to request that. If someone is interested in editing about science, there are tons of articles which would not risk crossing over that line. Just a couple days ago, I happened to look through the article on Le Chatelier's principle, a rather important concept in chemistry, and well—it's rather a mess. You could work on articles like that with no problems whatsoever. If that doesn't strike you as worthwhile, there are tons of other articles on scientific principles and the like which wouldn't be anywhere close to the ban's subject. I suppose I could go with DWF on this; a formal logged warning indicating that this is the absolute last time, and that next time the line gets crossed (even if clearly technical and possibly inadvertent), blocks are going to result from it. The expectation of a topic banned editor is to stay well away from anything that might violate the ban, not to keep walking right up to the line and sticking their toe over it from time to time. That applies whether you think the ban was fair or not. Until and unless ArbCom lifts it, you must adhere to it, or the result will ultimately be you not editing anything at all. That's not an outcome I hope to see, but that's why I think it's very important to be clear that right now, that's the direction you're headed in. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the private evidence is concerning enough for ArbCom to ask to let them handle it, I'm inclined to do exactly that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I'll close this request and open one at ARCA. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rp2006's response above makes me believe that a block is necessary the next time they violate the restriction. They clearly will never accept they were sanctioned for a good reason, and this is not a hard sanction to understand (and they could ask for clarification, but of course they aren't going to, because they'd rather pretend like the sanction doesn't exist.) SFR has treated them with kid gloves, because the fair and reasonable thing would be to block the editor repeatedly violating the arbitration finding against them, not just keep warning them away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Arbitration Committee has received private information related to Rp2006. As such, an uninvolved administrator (or rough consensus of uninvolved administrators) could refer this case to ARCA for the Committee to handle. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bakbik1234[edit]

Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Bakbik1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict.

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

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Bakbik1234[edit]

I'm ethnically Jewish but it doesn't mean that my coverage of the conflict can't be neutral. I write everything from a neutral point of view that would be described as "liberal" by both neo-Zionists and neo-antisemites.

Statement by Doug Weller[edit]

Statement by 331dot[edit]

Doug Weller I thought you issued the ban. I think I just pointed it out later. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Bakbik1234[edit]

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 Jéské Couriano[edit]

Your personal POV is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not a topic-ban is justified; what matters is your behaviour in the topic area. It isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. This appeal completely misses the forest for the trees. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]

Result of the appeal by Bakbik1234[edit]

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

Ban aside, Bakbik1234 has not reached extended-confirmed and thus is not allowed to edit topics related to I/P broadly construed regardless. The ban is not meaningless, in that it will have an effect once Bakbik1234 reaches extended-confirmed, but it's wholly inappropriate to be appealing it at this time. Demonstrate that you understand how to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, demonstrate that you understand the extent of additional restrictions that apply to this topic, reach 500 edits, and only then consider appealing the ban. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur strongly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bakbik1234 continues to violate their ban and non ECP status. I warned them and said I’d give them a pass, but they’ve continued. A few minutes after filing this appeal they asked if they were still banned. I don’t think they are competent enough to edit within the constraints of the ban. ~~It was User:331dot who gave them the ban.~~ Doug Weller talk 21:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. I wasa bout to write that I wasn't sure if I should be posting in this section as I was the one who banned them, had a moment of doubt, looked at their talk page history and saw 331dot's name so deleted that and added their name. Embarassing to say the least! Doug Weller talk 06:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri[edit]

Kashmiri topic banned for one week by Callanecc. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Kashmiri[edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

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

Violated WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza:

Refused to self-revert.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 14:13, 5 March 2024
Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 19:50, 16 February 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

07:18, 11 April 2024

Discussion concerning Kashmiri[edit]

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 Kashmiri[edit]

@Callanecc It would be polite to let the accused respond. There's no urgency (alleged breach took place more than a week ago), and closing the discussion two hours after filling, no other editor having had a chance to participate, is a tad out of process. — kashmīrī ^TALK 07:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)[edit]

Result concerning Kashmiri[edit]

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

I've topic banned Kashmiri for a week for the 1RR breach and not reverting after being notified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Kashmiri I had originally intended to comment and encourage you to self-revert and explain until I saw that you had effectively been given that opportunity a few days ago. I have, however, left this thread open so that you, and others, can comment. That might include presenting a case that the sanction is unnecessary. Further, on 'out of process', any uninvolved admin can apply any sanction at any stage. The purpose of this board is to report potential breaches and then allow admins to discuss potential responses if they need to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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