Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Arbitration | Requests Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 23:56, 22 July 2023 editCourcelles (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Administrators434,776 edits SMcCandlish: Closing discussion (DiscussionCloser v.1.7.3)← Previous edit Revision as of 04:35, 23 July 2023 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,290,549 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive320) (botNext edit →
Line 6: Line 6:
-->{{User:MiszaBot/config -->{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K |archiveheader = {{Arbitration enforcement/Archive navbox}}|maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 319 |counter = 320
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 0
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
Line 12: Line 12:
|archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive%(counter)d
}}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}} }}</noinclude>{{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header}}

==NMW03==
{{hat|Closed with advice. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 02:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning NMW03===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|R.Lemkin}} 13:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|NMW03}}<p>{{ds/log|NMW03}}</p>

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced:
] and ]

; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
# First time NMW03 reverts me on an article they never edited before without any kind of discussion
# NMW03 again reverts me on an article they never edited before, claims my edit "has nothing to do" with the topic without discussing why
# Yet another NMW03 revert for article never edited before, again saying "has nothing to do with this page" without discussing
# Another instance of NMW03 ] me to an article they never edited before to alter my edit
# NMW03 hounding again to write an essay in the edit summary instead of discussing, remove the entirety of my edit instead of just the parts they disagreed with
# I had addressed the concerns NMW03 had in the previous diff, yet they are still hounding me on the article and then make unnecessary biased POV changes to text that was already neutral POV. And NMW03 is still not using the talk page at all.
# NMW03 reverting me twice on the same page within 24 hours. In the first revert, NMW03 . I had , but NMW continued hounding, ignoring the additional source, and showing bad faith
# another NMW03 hounding revert, claiming Artsakh isn't a common name even though it's the name of the ] article. And NMW03 scrapped the word entirely, even in the context of residents of the Artsakh republic. This is just blatant POV pushing now.
# NMW03 following me again to remove all uses of the word "Artsakh" on this article too even though it's the common name of Republic of Artsakh; more hounding, POV pushing, and edit warring

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
* and warned for ]
* and warned for breaking ]

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
NMW03 has been increasingly stalking my edits to revert them, and is now hounding every day. NMW03's changes are clearly disruptive POV pushing and in bad faith, and continues to follow whichever article I edit to no end. --] (]) 13:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

:{{re|Callanecc}} Which articles has NMW03 edited before reverting me? With the exception of ], NMW03's first edit was removing my changes in all of the articles listed. And even for ], NMW03 only started editing it two weeks after I had, showing they likely were stalking me for that article as well, and their second edit on the article was reverting one of mine. ] (]) 17:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

===Discussion concerning NMW03===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>
====Statement by NMW03====
I have been editing Misplaced Pages for a while, and these articles were already on my watchlist. I did not intentionally follow you to find any of them. I apologize if any of my reverts gave you that impression. In the future, I will take your suggestion to open discussions and try to communicate more effectively. But I want to ask question. If you didn't agree with my reverts, why didn't you open a discussion before?--] (]) 08:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning NMW03===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
*Having looked through the diffs above some of them show NMW03's first edit on an article is to revert R.Lemkin. On other articles, NMW03 had edited the article before the R.Lemkin revert. Given this I'm not convinced that there is sufficient evidence of hounding to warrant sanctions. Having said that I'd recommend that in the future the two of you discuss your edits and engage in ]. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 03:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
**Sorry {{u|R.Lemkin}} I was looking at Political status of Nagorno-Karabakh and missed your edit a couple weeks earlier. I wonder whether at this point, short of applying sanctions, we might be able to solve this by saying this: {{u|NMW03}} it appears that your editing in these articles has been ] against R.Lemkin. You mention above that if R.Lemkin didn't agree with your edits that they should have started a discussion, given that it was you who was following R.Lemkin's edits and then reverting them it was encumbent on you to start a discussion rather than edit war across multiple articles. I would strongly caution you to be consider your editing and ensure that you are not following other editors around to revert them specifically. If you have a general issue with their edits follow our ] processes and start a discussion before reverting. <b>]</b> (] • ] • ]) 23:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}

==Tombah==
{{hat|1={{nobold|1=Tombah is indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. While some editors did express good-faith content concerns in this topic area, there is no indication that applicable content-review processes are unable to address them. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 00:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)}}}}
<small>''This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. <br />Requests may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.''</small>

===Request concerning Tombah===
; User who is submitting this request for enforcement : {{userlinks|Onceinawhile}} 12:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

; User against whom enforcement is requested : {{userlinks|Tombah}}<p>{{ds/log|Tombah}}</p>
<!--- Here and at the end, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->

;Sanction or remedy to be enforced: ] discretionary sanctions
<!--- Link to the sanction or remedy that you ask to be enforced ---
; ] of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation ''how'' these edits violate it :
<!-- Supply diffs as evidence here, and explain why they require arbitration enforcement. Any allegation not supported by a diff is usually disregarded. You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as ], or groundless or ] complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.-->
# Quote: {{tq|"This piece is the latest among a series of articles trying to delegitimize Israel, Zionism and undermine the connection of Jews to the Land of Israel, from the same author that brought us . I'd never want to cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors, but it is quite difficult to dismiss this as a coincidence."}}
# Quote: {{tq|"Comment on this piece as a whole, which is starting to resemble not only an anti-Zionist essay but also starts to bore a faint smell of antisemitism…"}}

; Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any :
<!-- To the extent it may be relevant, link to previous sanctions such as blocks or topic bans.-->
# ARBPIA block

;If ] are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see ]):
<!-- The following are examples. Write "Not applicable" or similar if this is not a discretionary sanctions enforcement request. Otherwise, fill out at least one line that applies and delete the rest. If you wish to request discretionary sanctions but none of these situations apply, issue an alert yourself instead of making this request, see the link above. -->
*Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see above.

; Additional comments by editor filing complaint :
Working on a sensitive topic like the one we are currently discussing (]) is hard work, and comments like the above make it much more difficult. The editor saying they don’t want to cast aspersions didn’t reduce the impact.

; Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested :

<!--- In the line below, replace USERNAME with the username of the editor against whom you request enforcement. --->
===Discussion concerning Tombah===
<small>''Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 ] and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. <br />Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.''</small>

====Statement by Tombah====
Onceinawhile is a brilliant editor with great talents, and through him, I've learned a lot. I have no wish and didn't intend to disrespect him personally. But, things have to be said: we have a serious POV problem today on Misplaced Pages in everything Israel- and even Jewish-related. Once's recent articles, judging from their titles, content, and DYKs, all seem to aim for delegitimizing Israel and/or Zionism (from various aspects), or, to undermine Jewish history in the Land of Israel:
* ] (DYK: <i> .. that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing?</i>) that for some reason discusses the phenomena in Israel only
* ] (DYK: <i>... that the demolition of the Shrine of Husayn's Head (pictured), probably the most important Shi'a Muslim shrine in Israel, may have been related to efforts to transfer Palestinians out of the country?)</i>
* ]: (DYK: <i>... that all known writing in Ancient Hebrew totals just 300,000 words, versus 10 million in Akkadian (pictured), 6 million in Ancient Egyptian and 3 million in Sumerian?)</i>
* The DYK for the latest article, ], was going to be <i>... that the genetic origin of modern Jews is considered important within Zionism, as it seeks to provide a historical basis for the belief that descendants of biblical Jews have "returned"?</i> After seeing this proof, I don't believe I'm just being paranoid.

Sometimes those articles present well sourced but biased material, and sometimes they utilize synthesis and original research − as is the case in the article we currently refer to- ] − to prove a point and convince readers to follow a certain viewpoint. The article in question is thankfully now a ] for multiple reasons, including the ones I mentioned above. Among the other reasons is the continuing use of the word "belief" to refer to Jewish descent from the Israelites, virtually ignoring the conventional view in genetic research, which is that most Jewish ethnic sub-divisions share Middle Eastern ancestry which may be derived from the ancient Near East, putting them in proximity to other groups of the Levant and the Eastern Mediterranean, such as Lebanese, Druze, Samaritans, Palestinians, Greeks and Italians. Yes, that also probably includes most Jews whose ancestors migrated from Warsaw, Poland, to New York City one hundred years ago for example. The same article was created in the first place as a reaction to a challenged edit by Once and a discussion surrounding it at ], so it is hard not to view it as something akin to an attack page, aimed at winning a talkpage debate, which other user also described as "a textbook example of ]". Unfortunately, this is only the tip of the iceberg, and there are not only new articles, but many older ones, that suffer from the same issues. Here (, ), for example, during the last week, Once has been trying to "prove" that Jews are largely descended from converts. In reality, while a few known cases are generally agreed upon (i.e. the ] population in southern Judea under Hasmonean rule), there is zero evidence to support large-scale conversions to Judaism. It is only logical to assume that the purpose of those edits to ] was to support the new article in question.

Activism is a problem we don't have many tools to deal with on Misplaced Pages, and unfortunately, Once is not strictly acting alone, but with the help of other like-minded editors with very similar ideologies, exactly as described in ], who join each other editing the same pages, and back each other when facing criticism. This recent surge in Anti-Israeli articles (including the fairly recent ], ], ], ] and there is even one newer to the aforementioned "Zionism, race and genetic": ] Once to contribute to) on Misplaced Pages is problematic, and is even worrying. We're in a world where antisemitism is on the rise, and again, unfortunately, this kind of point-scoring and synthetic and unbalanced editing may contribute to this rise in hate speech, if not to violence. We have the responsibility to stop this phenomenon, and as a first step, we must be able to recognize and stop activism when we see it. This, and not personally attacking anybody, is what I was trying to do during the discussion Once mentioned above. ] (]) 14:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
:{{ping|Tamzin}}, thank you for your comment. I never accused anyone here for being antisemitic, so I don't think that would be necessary. My claim is that irresponsible editing, focused on pushing a very particular view based on biased material and synthesis to make certain claims on Israel, Zionism and Jews in general, without even trying to introduce the well established conventional view on the subject, may contribute to the current growth of antisemitism. I believe we can all agree on that. On the same time, yes, I believe I know how to identify an ideology-driven editing when I see it.<br/> If you believe my concerns are valid, I'd would really like to hear your opinion on the evidence shown above. I think it shows a very clear agenda and focus, aiming to promote a certain point of view. The DYKs above indicate that those articles, while touching different topics, all share the same bias: they try to show that various things related to Jewish history, ancestry, demography, etc, are not exactly what you think... Many of those articles are written as argumentative essays, using synthesis and biased material to push the same views. <br/>In my opinion, this pattern of editing should immediately ring the ] bell. What options are available, and what is the appropriate course of action, for an editor who has these concerns? What is the missing evidence, in your opinion, to prove we are facing a problem with widespread activism? And what resources does Misplaced Pages offer those trying to halt it? ] (]) 04:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::I see there is a recent surge in comments here. I would like to add that many here are of the same group, sharing many of the views promoted by Once. It's always the same people that defend and back each other when in need, and join forces when someone of the perceived "opposed" view is reported. Perhaps that, again, goes to show the extent of the problem I'm addressing. When it comes to voting, the numbers have an impact and the same viewpoint consistently secures a majority. The same can be seen here: editors who share my concerns won't even notice this discussion, but this group, who support Once's viewpoint, always has an exceptional level of communication and sync. I'd suggest that uninvolved third parties have a deeper look into the matter. There is genuine bias all across the board; its ramifications could seriously undermine the credibility of Misplaced Pages, and even make an impact in the physical world. ] (]) 06:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:::I don't know about mockpuppetry, but the issue of activism is unquestionably present. Yes, all sides are represented on Misplaced Pages, but one side obviously works hard to promote their opinions, clogging the site with numerous pages that "prove" their points of view and, as was demonstrated above, exploiting ] other fringe sources to compose argumentative essays that criticize Israel, promote fringe views on Jewish history, and delegitimize Zionism. Unfortunately, this has turned into a battleground where only one side engages in combat while the other sees no sense in doing so. The same effort shows up in both individual and group undertakings. We have Once, which occasionally works on a new essay that criticizes certain aspects of Israel or Jewish history, perhaps with the intention of reaching the broadest audience possible by employing DYKs. I can add a fifth DYU recently published by Once to the list above; it was just posted on his chat page this past week: ] (DYK: ...<i>that Ein Samiya (pictured), which provides the water for Taybeh, Palestine's first beer, was depopulated in 2023 after harassment by neighboring Israeli settlers?)</i> Is it really a coincidence that the same user always finds a way to say something about Israel/Zionism/Jews in his DYKs? With the exception of recent incidents related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, I find it difficult to think that any article from the past year was written specifically to criticize a particular component of Palestinian identity, history, or conduct, let alone repeatedly promoting the same views with streaks of related DYKs. The same user, for some reason, moved earlier this year the entire histories of Israeli cities such as ], ] and ] were moved without discussion to the articles of related former Palestinian villages such as ], and ] (see the move of info , and ), as though to imply that contemporary Israeli cities cannot be the continuation ancient settlements. I still don't understand why on Misplaced Pages is Arab Yibna considered a legitimate successor to the classical-period Jewish town of Yavne, but the modern Israeli city of Yavne is not. If those efforts are not activism, I don't know what is.<br/>Our page ] describes group activism as when: <i>one of the blocs is usually dominant, either because it has more editors, is better organized, its members have more time on their hands.</i> Sounds very familiar. In ARBPIA move requests you will find that votes nearly always proceed as follows: someone from the aforementioned group proposes a change; voting begins; Everyone who does not agree with the proposing group gets a response attempting to persuade him (or others) that he is wrong, while supporters rarely get responses. You can see the same pattern in ], ], ], and repeating itself right now, in the AfD for ]. Additionally, you can always find members of the same group closely collaborating on new articles. Above, we saw Once by Selfstudier to contribute to a new article named ]. ], You may see Nableezy and Nishidani mentioning a "series of articles on the occupation" they collaborate on, later joined by the same editors. Nableezy suggests to start a new article named ], and Nishidani compares the issue to the ], it's unclear whether he's mocking of Jewish history or just enjoying the comparison between the two unrelated occurrences. Several of the pieces I have linked above feature the same editors working in pairs or trios. <br/>Also according to WP:ACTIVISM:<i> Activists don't want any other editors taking their articles off message. So, activists will try to drive away editors they don't approve of. The method used to accomplish this is usually to make the other editors feel very unwelcome in the activists' articles. The activists will display consistent and continuous incivility, including personal attacks, hectoring comments, biting edit summaries, baiting, condescension, and just plain rudeness.</i> This problem is perfectly demonstrated by Nishidani, who previously compared Israeli policies to those of the Nazis, stating that the settlements in the West Bank are part of an old ideology kicking Palestinians for "]". personally attacks editors who do not share his own view and consistently asserts that they are not knowledgeable enough about the subject.</i> Here are a few examples: "]", "]", "]" and even writing once that " then we have a problem: editors not knowing anything about the topic they are trying to rewrite. These are fables, nursery tales, vernacular chatpoints whatever, all rubbished above all in Israeli universities. What are they doing here? What you all appear to be doing is pushing for a 'Zionist' fairytale version to compete with the relevant historical literature, as the raison d'être for Israel's existence. It doesn't need those crap stories any more. Ancient history has nothing to do with it: the Holocaust does, massively]]." Not just me, but other editors frequently encounter the same problem. The same issue was mentioned by Walt Yoder in his comment above concerning the ongoing AfD on Zionism, race and genetics. There are many more instances showing the extent of anti-Israel activism on Misplaced Pages today, but it would take a lot longer to go over them all. And I'm not sure if I can still firmly classify them, or at least their ramifications as exclusively anti-Israel. ] (]) 22:32, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Walt Yoder====
It does seem to me that there are multiple editors in the Israel-Palestine space who are creating content which is essay-like and argumentative, but not encyclopedic in nature. When somebody calls them out, they claim personal attacks, bias by the other editor, or that any editor who has not read a specific 400-page book in detail is not qualified to comment (). None of which address the criticism.

There are clear problems with ] as it currently exists, and Tombah should be commended for pointing them out, not punished for failing to reach an impossible standard of politeness. ] (]) 14:29, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Selfstudier====
Tombah needs to dial it back with the anti-Semitism/WPconspiracy innuendo, it's getting tiresome. The recent is a typical example. Like minded editors? What about ]? I could equally say there are a bunch of editors conspiring to push Israeli nationalist POV positions in Misplaced Pages but do I have any evidence? Evidence free allegations have no merit.] (]) 14:47, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Iskandar323====
Once is meticulous in adding reliably sourced content from ], journal and book sources. The material they present, well ... it is what it is. The truth will set you free. What definitely does not set us free is the breakdown of AGF and a devolution into idle insinuation. Anyone forgetting AGF, and in doing so aggravating other editors, as well as, by requiring concerns over this to be taken to disciplinary forums, wasting community time, needs reminding of AGF. We keep thoughts to ourselves for a reason. ] (]) 18:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by PaleoNeonate====
I just wanted to note that there also currently is a related open thread at ] where participation is welcome. —]] – 22:57, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Nableezy====
An editor is upset that their personal POV is being challenged by reliably sourced articles. They make absurd claims that manifestly notable topics like ] are evidence of a spate of anti-Israel'''i''' editing. And they do this while making articles like ]. Compare the sourcing at ] and at ]. See who is primarily using sources representing a nakedly partisan viewpoint, and minimizing the opposing viewpoint. Being upset that your personal position is not accepted as gospel truth on Misplaced Pages is not an excuse for repeated personal attacks. And it should not be allowed to continue. I am unaware of Tombah's motives being repeatedly attacked. He should return the favor to the people he interacts with. All that said, I think Tombah is a very smart editor, and Id rather he continue editing than be restricted from doing so, but this one-way sniping cannot keep happening. That or let this degrade in to a free for all where we can all say what we feel about each other without consequence. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 05:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)</small>
:Sheesh, the cognitive dissonance is something else here. You have an editor making comments like seen ], an editor who has had multiple banned editors show up at his talk page precisely for his views (eg ], which contains the gem ''the disputed area of the West Bank'', or ], or ]). But yet he has the gall to write, presumably with a straight face, ''It's always the same people that defend and back each other when in need, and join forces when someone of the perceived "opposed" view is reported. Perhaps that, again, goes to show the extent of the problem I'm addressing.'' Just wow. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap">''']''' - 06:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)</small>

====Statement by Zero0000====
Challenging the content of articles is par for the course, but Tombah's constant impugning of the motives of other editors is very tiresome. I don't like filing reports against other editors but this one is long overdue.

Of course everyone who edits in the ARBPIA area has their biases. Unfortunately, Tombah has a self-righteous belief that s/he is an exception. His/her response above is indicative. Someone really needs to buy Tombah a mirror. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 05:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

The editors most likely to write against Tombah here are those whose integrity Tombah endlessly questions. But for Tombah this is evidence of a conspiracy ("an exceptional level of communication and sync"). One would have thought that Tombah would at least tone down the accusations for the duration of this case, but alas the opposite has happened. ]<sup><small>]</small></sup> 09:18, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Thebiguglyalien====
Uninvolved except for two comments (], ]) to the effect of what I'm about to say here. I expect most editors will agree when I say that this area, more than any other, has a significant unaddressed ] problem. I believe that Tombah's accusations of inappropriate collaboration to push an anti-Israeli POV are true. I believe that Selfstudier and Nableezy's counter-accusations of inappropriate collaboration to push a pro-Israeli POV are also true.

I'm an adherent of the ]/] philosophy. If you can confidently tell what an editor's predilections are purely from their editing in a given area or from the trend when they !vote in discussions, then serious consideration should be given to whether their long term contributions run afoul of ] and to whether they should continue editing in that area. I believe that the evidence provided by Tombah makes it clear that Onceinawhile has fallen short of this standard. Given the previous AE sanction and after a brief glance at their contributions, I doubt that Tombah would survive such scrutiny either. It's my suspicion that more than half of the editors that commented at the AfD discussion or at this AE discussion would be identified as a disruptive POV pusher if this standard were applied.

It is possible to edit despite your own personal biases rather than in service of them. Despite this, many regular editors in this area have chosen specifically to write things that are predominantly negative about Israel or predominantly negative about Palestine, and we need to consider whether this topic era benefits from their participation. I contend that it does not, and I will support sanctions (AE or otherwise) against any and all editors that can be shown to predominantly contribute in a way that denigrates or reflects poorly on a specific nation or ethnicity. This includes Onceinawhile based on Tombah's testimony, and it would presumably include many other editors on either end of this dispute if similar evidence were to be demonstrated.

I expect to make a lot of friends among the ARBPIA regulars with this position. ] <small>(])</small> 02:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by Drsmoo====
{{redacted}} ] (]) 20:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:<small>Removed, see below. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 23:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)</small>

====Statement by Boynamedsue====
I would just like to add a comment on Tombah's opening statement. They argue that Onceinawhile's delegitimising of Israel includes: {{tq|Mixed cities (DYK: .. that Israel's mixed cities don't have much mixing?) that for some reason discusses the phenomena in Israel only}}. ] are a specific settlement category existing in Israel which relates to 8 cities defined as "mixed" by Israeli authorities, therefore inclusion of information about other countries would be unusual.

This is an accusation of judging Israel by standards that would not be applied to another country, which is defined as antisemitic by the ].

I find it unlikely that this allusion to the IHRA definition is accidental, and it would therefore constitute a deliberate, and completely baseless, insinuation of antisemitism on the part of Onceinawhile.
--] (]) 20:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by TB====
I agree with Nableezy, and this needs a logged warning at minimum. Frankly, I will go as far as to suggest that anybody who claims "Zionism as settler colonialism" to be the product of activism, implying a lack of encyclopedic value notwithstanding the hundreds of scholars who have written on it, can be safely blocked per CIR. ] (]) 23:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

====Statement by (username)====
<!-- Copy and paste this empty section below the most recent statement and replace "(username)" with your username. -->

===Result concerning Tombah===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* If Tombah's concern is that Onceinawhile's edits are not in accord with reliable sources, that is of course a valid concern. If Tombah's concern is that Onceinawhile's edits contain specific antisemitic tropes, that is also valid. But the above comment reads more like several leaps of logic, ''edits reflect poorly on Israel/Zionism''&nbsp;→ ''edits are anti-Zionist''&nbsp;→ ''edits are antisemitic''. (There is, thankfully, no final jump to ''Onceinawhile is an antisemite'', or this would be much more serious.) My first impression here is in favor of a logged warning that {{xt|accusations of antisemitism and insinuations about other editors' ideologies ]}}. I'm open to being convinced of a more or less serious remedy, though. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 18:00, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
**{{re|Tombah}} At your soonest convenience, please either retract your insinuation of inappropriate coordination among other editors in this topic area, or present formal evidence of it (here, or to ArbCom if private evidence is involved). I already linked to ] in my previous comment. "Someone should look into this" is not a loophole through which one can accuse people of meatpuppetry without presenting evidence. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 16:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
***{{re|Drsmoo}} I don't know how you could enter a thread where the most recent comment is mine above and think that it's then a good idea to make your own set of unevidenced accusations, but no, that's not going to fly. I have removed your comment. You may add a new comment if all accusations it contains are 1) named (i.e. no {{!xt|the same editors}}, {{!xt|the same group of people}}) and 2) backed up with specific evidence (i.e. no {{!xt|I received personal attacks and insults}} without specifying what was a personal attack or insult). '''General warning to all commenters''': The next person who uses this space to make accusations without evidence will be blocked as an ARBPIA action without further warning. <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 23:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
****Tombah appears to have a fundamental ] in this topic area. Israel–Palestine is an incredibly difficult area to work in. Basically all contributors have strong views on the topic. Editors who accept that, and learn to work with those with whom they disagree politically, swim. Others sink. Tombah is asking us to sanction multiple editors for writing content that reflects poorly on Israel. He has presented little evidence of any content issues, beyond personally disagreeing with what certain articles say. He is saying that these editors are pro-Palestinian, and so their edits should be considered advocacy—while his edits, which he seems to acknowledge favor a Zionist point of view, are supposedly above reproach. He characterizes their collaboration on these articles—a basic part of building an encyclopedia—as sinister, and seems to think that this is self-evident. This is not an attitude compatible with editing in such a difficult topic area. Pro-Palestinian editors are welcome. Zionist editors are welcome. But those who can't handle the idea that sometimes most of the people at an RM will be from the other side are not welcome, not in that area. I will topic-ban shortly if no other admin objects (courtesy ping ]). <span class="nowrap"> <span style="font-family:courier">-- ]</span><sup>]'']</sup> (she&#124;they&#124;xe)</span> 23:03, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
****:I can agree with this. I’m almost of a mind that Tombah talked themselves into this needing to be a full topic ban here. So, please feel free to enact such with my support. ] (]) 00:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
* I'm not impressed by the tenor of Tombah's comments above (accusations of anti-semitic groupism, the reference to real world dangers, etc.) and a logged warning is almost the minimum option, though perhaps, with an explicit reference to consequences (e.g., "... continuing to do so could lead to sanctions/a topic ban/blocks"). --] <small>(])</small> 02:04, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
{{hab}}


==Appeal request by GoodDay== ==Appeal request by GoodDay==

Revision as of 04:35, 23 July 2023

"WP:AE" redirects here. For the guideline regarding the letters æ or ae, see MOS:LIGATURE. For the automated editing program, see WP:AutoEd.
Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages'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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

    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 informationShortcuts

    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:

    1. ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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, or is no longer an administrator; 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:

    1. the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
    2. the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
    3. 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:

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

    1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
    2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
    3. 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-en@wikimedia.org).
    Modifications by administrators

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

    1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
    2. 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:

    1. 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.
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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
    1234567891011121314151617181920
    2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
    4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
    6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
    81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
    101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
    121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
    141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
    161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
    181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
    201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
    221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
    241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
    261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
    281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
    301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
    321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
    341342343344345346

    Appeal request by GoodDay

    Appeal request by GoodDay (talk)

    Sanction, that appeal is being requested for

    Administrator imposing the sanction

    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by GoodDay

    Well, it' been a full year now, since my t-ban was imposed. I might've been able (not sure) to request having it lifted six-months ago, but chose to wait longer. I understand the mistakes I made & certainly recognise that the topic-in-general is indeed contentious. Should administrators chose to lift my t-ban from GenSex? I can easily promise, it's a topic area I would very much rather avoid. If any questions, please feel free to ping me. PS - I will also avoid the editor, whom I wrongly described with an offensive pronoun & not use such offensive pronouns on any other editors. Heated exchanges do not excuse, such utterances. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    I've been asked why appeal, if I'm going to avoid the topic anyway. Because, it's less stressful, if one edits a page (unknowingly) even remotely related to Gensex, without the possibility of breaching a formal t-ban. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    Good catch @Courcelles:, I did appeal, six months ago. My apologies for the over sight. Since then, I've successfully had my t-ban modified. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    @Sideswipe9th:, I've no plans to make any Gensex related edits or get involved in Gensex content disputes/discussions. If my appeal is successful? I would certainly walk away or stay away, from such disputes & undo any edits to main space, if seen as problematic. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    @Swarm:, We've got links to both the July 2022 case & Jan 2023 appeal, I believe now. I would appreciate it, if you would point out, any other. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    @Miesianiacal:, I'm fully aware, one must tread carefully around the GenSex topic & interaction with editors, when content disputes arise. Can I do better? There's only one way to prove if I can. That would be lifting the t-ban & giving me that chance. In the GenSex topic, I can prove I can do better, if I'm given the chance to 'walk the walk. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    To administrators - I will not be argumentative around the GenSex topic, since I won't be giving input in GenSex topic disputes. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Dennis Brown

    Statement by Sideswipe9th

    Just to note on the timeline, this is GoodDay's third appeal, having made and withdrawn an appeal in January 2023, and having made a successful amendment request in February 2023.

    I'm honestly not sure what it's less stressful, if one edits a page (unknowingly) even remotely related to Gensex, without the possibility of breaching a formal t-ban will mean in practice. After the amendment in February, GoodDay can already make his typical Wikignome style edits to GENSEX articles without fear of breaching the TBAN. I have to ask, what sort of edits and contributions are you planning on making if this appeal is successful, and that you can't make now? Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by GoodDay

    Statement by FormalDude

    Why are you appealing the t-ban if you "would very much rather avoid" the topic area? ––FormalDude (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Miesianiacal

    Can GoodDay demonstrate he's learned from the mistakes he's made? Simply recognizing the topic is contentious isn't enough; an inability to recognize contentiousness wasn't even the problem that led to the t/ban in the first place. Given my own recent experience with GoodDay a couple of months ago, I'm highly skeptical of any claim that he's learned from his mistakes and "I'll just keep myself away from the topic" isn't very reassuring. My impression is GoodDay should elaborate on what he believes he did wrong and then on how he proposes to do things better going forward. -- MIESIANIACAL 19:18, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

    Result of the appeal request by GoodDay

    Appeal request by Товболатов

    Appeal request by Товболатов (talk)

    Sanction, that appeal is being requested for

    • indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed

    Administrator imposing the sanction

    Notification of that administrator

    Statement by Товболатов

    Hello, respected arbitral tribunal. I have a topic restriction indefinitely topic-banned from articles related to ethnic minority groups in the former Soviet Union, broadly construed. My violation 17 February 2023 tendentious editing across multiple articles, particularly this editing spree on February 16 (Special:Diff/1139722862, Special:Diff/1139722968, Special:Diff/1139723019, Special:Diff/1139723084, Special:Diff/1139723110, Special:Diff/1139723167, Special:Diff/1139723254, Special:Diff/1139723211). I admit it's my fault. Half a year has passed, I did not participate in disputes, I did not violate the rules. Request to the community to remove the restrictions from me. I won't break the rules. User talk:Товболатов, User talk:Товболатов, Special:Contributions/Товболатов.

    Sincerely, Tovbolatov. Товболатов (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

    Hello, Courcelles this i made this edit by mistake, confused the project with the Russian one. Any person makes mistakes, no one is immune from this. If I violate the rules, any administrator can immediately block me. There were no edits after that, I didn’t want to make a mistake, I thought if I made a small mistake, they could immediately block me. Sanctions were applied to me for the first time, I had not come across this before in 7 years (in the beginning I wrote from anonymous).--Товболатов (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

    I forgot in the Russian project for 7 years I was blocked for one hour. I'm sorry.--Товболатов (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

    I don’t understand why I have such a long block, I didn’t have any gross violations, only spamming once. During this, there is usually a day or two of blocking. I did not offend anyone, I did not have a doll. I didn’t create fakes, but there were disputes at the beginning due to three articles by one person, but their community (administrators) was deleted due to unreliable information. Like I'm some kind of villain. Everyone makes a mistake once, according to the rules, I can apply to three instances. This is the third time I've been rejected. --Товболатов (talk) 17:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

    In the Russian project, I wrote two articles during this time, made many edits. I have been thanked several times for this. There were discussions with participants and I made positive contributions. I want to translate several articles into an English project, three so far. Two about the personality and one about the group of origin. I wrote 12 articles here, they are in the main space with three pages, the administrators helped me. Pages Created Diff- Эпизод сражения при Валерике 11 июля 1840 года, Товболат Курчалоевский, https://ru.wikipedia.org/Служебная:Вклад/Товболатов,
    I finalized this article, protected it from deletion Хамзат Нашхоевский, edited this page Верхний Наур, Штурм аула Гуниб 25 августа 1859 года. Created pages My three pages got on the main page in Russian Misplaced Pages. In total, I wrote 177 articles on Misplaced Pages. --Товболатов (talk) 18:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
    Courcelles ok, i'll fix it, thanks for the trust!--Товболатов (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Rosguill

    Statement by (involved editor 2)

    Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by Товболатов

    Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

    Result of the appeal request by Товболатов

    • Absolutely not. Essentially no editing since sanctioned. Should have been blocked for this. Likely we need to broaden this to the former USSR, including modern successor republics, broadly construed. Courcelles (talk) 22:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
      Okay, withdraw my idea of expanding the ban, but still oppose appeal. We want to see good editing on the English Misplaced Pages, not merely the passage of time. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I see that Товболатов has barely edited since the topic ban. Perhaps edit other areas for a while and then ask for the topic ban to be lifted. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:33, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I'll accept the explanation for that single questionable edit (God only knows I've typed things in the wrong window more than once), but even so the complete lack of activity doesn't really give us anything else to go on. We need to see evidence of actual improvement, not just the clock ticking. That's the exact reason that we don't very often do time-limited topic bans any more; before they get lifted, we want to see someone doing better, not just running out the clock. Seraphimblade 21:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

    SMcCandlish

    Withdrawn by filer as out of AE scope. Comment objected to was withdrawn, as well. Courcelles (talk) 23:56, 22 July 2023 (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.
    Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

    Request concerning SMcCandlish

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tamzin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    SMcCandlish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

    Sanction or remedy to be enforced
    WP:ARBATC
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 10:54, 22 July 2023 Asserts that TheMainLogan is "willfully misinterpreting" MOS:DASH (an assumption of bad faith) and that if they disagree with his interpretation of MOS:DASH, they "are just smokin' crack" (a personal attack)
    2. 21:13, 22 July 2023 When I asked to strike, replied that I should "Try cultivating a sense of humor", with edit summary ""
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. Misplaced Pages:Arbitration enforcement log/2013 § Article titles and capitalisation: "SMcCandlish (talk · contribs) prohibited from violations of WP:AGF; advised to avoid commenting on contributor." The linked warning includes the line You are strongly advised to avoid commenting on contributor and to confine your comments to content; in particular, you should avoid making personal attacks or engaging in incivility. Failure to achieve a requisite standard of discourse may result in further sanctions being imposed at WP:AE;
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Under active sanction in topic area, see above
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I asked SMcCandlish to strike this remark after seeing that it had clearly upset TheMainLogan . Saying that someone must be smoking crack to disagree with you isn't a joke; it's a personal attack, even if you aren't literally accusing them of cocaine abuse. Doing so after putting oneself forward as an authority on the topic at hand just comes off as bullying. This is coupled with a violation of the AGF sanction. Accusing someone of willfully misinterpreting guidelines, without any evidence for that willfulness, is a prima facie assumption of bad faith. Given the age of this sanction, I was hoping it could be cleared up with a polite request to retract, but as he has, in his own words, rolled his eyes at the idea that he's done anything wrong, I am bringing it here for review. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 21:44, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    @SMcCandlish: Apparently my vote/opinion neither counts nor matters and a major author of the Manual of Style has accused me of being addicted to crack cocaine. The first of the four instances I gave above of them clearly being hurt by what you said. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 21:53, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Izno: My apologies. I was relying on the wording in the 2013 sanction (which applied to all discussion of MoS), but agree that the 2017 amendment to ATC limits the scope of that sanction. Given that what I initially asked for—a retraction of the personal attack—has occurred regardless, feel free to close this as withdrawn. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 23:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    Special:Diff/1166643597


    Discussion concerning SMcCandlish

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

    Statement by SMcCandlish

    Observing that someone seems to be going out of their way to misterpret material is not an "assumption of bad faith". Indeed, I think that participants in disputes like that one have entirely good faith; they believe that they are "correcting" the English of others. Making what is obviously a silly-phrased joke is not a "personal attack". I'd be entirely willing to strike that phrase if the editor in question said they felt attacked by it, but they have so far remained silent, and probably have a sense of humor. Tamzin needs to find something better to do than thought-police other editors. I'll remind the commitee of previous decisions that even telling other editors to "fuck off" isn't necessarily actionable as an attack, and I've come nowhere close to such hostile behavior.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  21:48, 22 July 2023 (UTC); rev'd. 22:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    The "surrounding context" makes it abundantly clear I was neither assuming bad faith nor engaging in a personal attack. I was pointing out an interpretation logic error (based on very direct experience of having written much of the material being misinterpreted), and trying to inject some levity into yet another tedious style debate, which way too many people take too seriously and allow to suck up their time.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    Given that theMainLogan, to whom the comment was directed, objected to the phrase, I've struck it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  22:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning SMcCandlish

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Two comments, while leaving any specific decisions to the uninvolved admin. First, this isn't before the Arbitration Committee. It's at WP:AE so it's before uninvolved administrators (hence why I'm leaving decisions to them). Second, even telling other editors to "fuck off" isn't actionable as an attack is not correct; per WP:FUCKOFF "fuck off" is definitely uncivil in many contexts, and incivility is sanctionable, but consideration should be given to the surrounding context of each instance before deciding to apply sanctions. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
    • These comments are made outside the scope of the contentious topic designation, see the superceded version.

      The scope of this remedy refers to discussions about the policies and guidelines mentioned, and does not extend to individual move requests, move reviews, article talk pages, or other venues at which individual article names may be discussed. Disruption in those areas should be handled by normal administrative means.

      Izno (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)