Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive330
Salmoonlight
[edit]| Salmoonlight (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from making edits anywhere on Wikipedia regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. This topic ban is per consensus of uninvolved administrators in this arbitration enforcement thread.Participants are also generally reminded that accusations of gaming the system require evidence and should not be made lightly; they are reminded to not cast aspersions when making such accusations.— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 23:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning Salmoonlight[edit]
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. At Al-Rashid humanitarian aid incident, they violated 1RR with edits to different content:
At Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell, they violated 1RR and 3RR while edit warring with Alpoin117 over the same content.
Discussion concerning Salmoonlight[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Salmoonlight[edit]The Alpoin117 reverts are irrelevant as Alpoin was being purposefully disruptive and vandalizing articles. Salmoonlight (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by LegalSmeagolian[edit]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)
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)
Statement by Sameboat (about Salmoonlight)[edit]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. Alpoin117 (talk · contribs) 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.[7] -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 00:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC) @BilledMammal: 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 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) @BilledMammal: 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) @Firefangledfeathers: 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) @LegalSmeagolian: 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) @Firefangledfeathers: 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[edit]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)
Statement by Nableezy[edit]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)
Statement by Cullen328[edit]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)[edit]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 Cullen328 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[edit]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.
Statement by Zero0000[edit]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[edit]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)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Salmoonlight[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Sennalen
[edit]| Appeal declined. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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).
Statement by Sennalen[edit]The block violated WP:Blocking policy.
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. Bradv 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.
To recap, with reference to the criteria at WP:BLOCKP:
Statement by Galobtter[edit]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 ([17], [18]), 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 Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 180#Essay on fringe guidelines. 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[edit]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)[edit]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[edit]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) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Sennalen[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Sennalen[edit]
|
SMcCandlish
[edit]| SMcCandlish is reminded to remain civil in MOS discussions, that they remain under sanction, and that civility applies everywhere on Wikipedia. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning SMcCandlish[edit]
There's some pretty textbook violations of WP:AGF here, both at individual editors (Hey man im josh and Jessintime), 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)
Discussion concerning SMcCandlish[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by SMcCandlish[edit]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) [19]. Did major tone edit to the entire essay; should address Jessintime's concern.
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 angry 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:
Later diffs from Sideswipe9th (in lengthy content dispute with me elsewhere):
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 is 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. Update: Being sensitive to negative interpretations, false accusations, I tone-revised the statements HMIJ objected to [20]; 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: 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[edit]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[edit]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.)" [21] 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 Wikipedia: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[edit]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)
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:
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)
Statement by BilledMammal[edit]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 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[edit]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[edit]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. Acroterion 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[edit]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 Meanwhile on the MOS talk page, SMcCandlish misinterpreted a Workshop proposal I made and concluded from this that Next, when I criticized a different, ngrams-based type of evidence SMcCandlish had presented for their position, they replied 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)
Statement by Bookku[edit]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. Bookku (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Elinruby[edit]Interesting that this thread is still open even as SMcCandlish has been assuming bad faith at my user page. (User talk:Elinruby#And on and on and on). 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 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 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.
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
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".
Not a listener.Elinruby (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf[edit]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)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning SMcCandlish[edit]
|
Fizzbuzz306
[edit]| Fizzbuzz306 is advised to be more civil in their interactions, especially in areas where tensions may already be high. No formal action taken. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning Fizzbuzz306[edit]
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)
Discussion concerning Fizzbuzz306[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Fizzbuzz306[edit]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) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Fizzbuzz306[edit]
|
Jarek19800
[edit]| Jarek19800 topic-banned indefinitely from Eastern Europe, broadly construed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning Jarek19800[edit]
Discussion concerning Jarek19800[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Jarek19800[edit]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[edit]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[edit]
Joy, my first AE case. Jarek’s conduct over the last week has been misguided at best and disruptive at worst:
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)
Result concerning Jarek19800[edit]
Clerking[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by andrew.robbins
[edit]| Appeal accepted. As such, the extended-confirmed protection issued by Courcelles at Talk:Elissa Slotkin is revoked, and the previous semi-protection is restored. As that semi-protection was not a CTOP action, it can be appealed through ordinary means in line with the protection policy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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).
Statement by andrew.robbins[edit]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)
Dcpoliticaljunkie: With all due respect, I think that the talk page got significantly more hostile after it was ECP'd, not more productive.
Statement by Courcelles[edit]
Statement by Dcpoliticaljunkie[edit]I believe this enforcement action is warranted and hope it will allow for more collaborative editing of this article. For whatever reason, a cabal of Twitter users have chosen to turn this article into a battleground driven by their dislike of the subject as flagged by Cpotisch and admin Muboshgu here. One of the ringleaders of this group of Twitter users (@progflippawi, believed to be the puppetmaster Thespeedoflightneverchanges recently admitted to actively spamming other anti-Slotkin Twitter users to find "experienced Wikipedia editors" to help add negative information to Slotkin's article. This comes after their numerous attempts to sockpuppet have been detected and banned. Simultaneously with the sockmaster's recruitment, a series of editors with sparse editing histories swarmed the talk page to argue for one of the sockmaster's pet inclusions which was previously removed by Drmies. Following the ECP, OrcaLord (part of the anti-Slotkin Twitter cabal who was blocked from the page for edit warring by ScottishFinnishRadish and separately previously warned for original research on the page is the only one of the group who is ECP to argue for the dubious inclusion: while not ideal, it is much more manageable than the swarm following blocked editor Thespeedoflightneverchanges's Twitter recruitment. The enforcement has helped. My report on the administrator's noticeboard has more details about the meatpuppetry concerns on this article in addition to the sockpuppet issue. Need to get back to work so will leave it at that. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Statement by Drmies[edit]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[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aquillion[edit]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)
Statement by Swatjester[edit]As a general principle, I think that any standard restriction able to be authorized on a contentious topic is, by definition, proportionate and necessary. If it were not, the Committee would not have authorized administrators to have such wide discretion in imposing said restrictions unilaterally. It would be self-defeating to the purpose of the CTOPS procedure to require a continuum of escalation in protection beyond what the imposing administrator thinks is appropriate. And I think in the case where an article falls under two separate CT areas and one of those is BLP, there should be an additional presumption in favor of preventing disruption, even if that comes at the cost of non-EC editors being able to contribute. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Cpotisch[edit]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[edit]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. Statement by (username)[edit]Result of the appeal by andrew.robbins[edit]
|
KronosAlight
[edit]| KronosAlight is indefinitely topic banned from the subject of flood myths. Nycarchitecture212 is formally warned to avoid mischaracterizing the statements of other editors or otherwise casting aspersions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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. Request concerning KronosAlight[edit]
Discussion concerning KronosAlight[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by KronosAlight[edit]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.
Statement by Aquillion[edit]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[edit]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. 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)
Statement by BilledMammal[edit]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)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning KronosAlight[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by tgeorgescu
[edit]| Withdrawn by appealing editor. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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).
Statement by tgeorgescu[edit]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[edit]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. --TheSandDoctor Talk 01:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by (involved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by tgeorgescu[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)[edit]Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by tgeorgescu[edit]
|
Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Interstellarity
[edit]| Appeal declined. Admins find existing CTOP actions on each page justified at this time. The partial rationale regarding the scope of WP:AP2 topic area is out-of-scope for this board. In order to change the scope of a particular WP:CTOP, an WP:ARCA could be filed requesting that the ArbCom make a motion to that effect, but we can't change the scope of a CTOP area by a request at AE. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC) |
|---|
| 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).
Statement by Interstellarity[edit]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 EI C[edit]Statement by Muboshgu[edit]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) Statement by (involved editor 2)[edit]Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Interstellarity[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Sideswipe9th[edit]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: 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)
Statement by a smart kitten[edit]Noting that the BRD requirement at Hillary Clinton appears to have been imposed by Awilley, 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. —a smart kitten[meow] 13:04, 30 March 2024 (UTC) Statement by Alalch E.[edit]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) Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)[edit]Result of the appeal by Interstellarity[edit]
|