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 11:46, 31 January 2023 editCinderella157 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers18,530 edits →Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz: This would suggest the OP's ''thousands'' is not unreasonable← Previous edit Revision as of 11:47, 31 January 2023 edit undoBishonen (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators80,333 edits →CanterburyUK: hattingNext edit →
Line 320: Line 320:


==CanterburyUK== ==CanterburyUK==
{{hat|CanterburyUK has been page-blocked indefinitely from ] and ]. ] &#124; ] 11:47, 31 January 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> <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>


Line 439: Line 440:
:::*I was thinking "both" myself. But surely that would make it even harder for the user to understand. The bureaucracy of sanctions is hard enough to grasp for experienced editors. I have talked with several who assume page blocks also imply topic bans (one today by e-mail, actually). In fact, I'd sooner keep an eye on the partials than do any more <expletive removed> ''explaining''. ] &#124; ] 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC). :::*I was thinking "both" myself. But surely that would make it even harder for the user to understand. The bureaucracy of sanctions is hard enough to grasp for experienced editors. I have talked with several who assume page blocks also imply topic bans (one today by e-mail, actually). In fact, I'd sooner keep an eye on the partials than do any more <expletive removed> ''explaining''. ] &#124; ] 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
:::*Everybody seems OK with my partial blocks, so I'll close. ] &#124; ] 11:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC). :::*Everybody seems OK with my partial blocks, so I'll close. ] &#124; ] 11:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC).
{{hab}}


==Dan Palraz== ==Dan Palraz==

Revision as of 11:47, 31 January 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,
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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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
    341342343344345346347

    SashiRolls

    Closed with no action. SashiRolls is reminded of the broad terms of their IBAN. Please review and take notice of the feedback from this discussion. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:54, 30 January 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 SashiRolls

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    SashiRolls (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
    • 1-way IBAN with me, as an AE sanction
    • 1-way IBAN with me reaffirmed by the community a week ago (January 15), as a condition of unbanning. From the close: There is very little rope left on the coil, and I cannot imagine another unban gaining consensus.
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    • Giving me a "thanks" notification for an edit I made, January 22, 2023.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Facepalm Facepalm This is so far beyond "I told you so", that I can't believe I have to post this.

    It's a relatively small thing, to "thank" someone, and on the face of it, not something one would normally expect to result in sanctions. But, our WP:IBAN policy says: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:... use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits. Those are the existing ground rules, and I didn't make them up. I'm willing to WP:AGF that, somehow, SashiRolls was unaware of that, and that he was trying to reach out in a friendly way. So, as a minimum, I'll be satisfied with a very clear message to him that it was unwelcome, and that the IBAN has no exceptions, footnotes, or special circumstances, full stop, the end. Anything beyond that is up to the administrators here, and it's not on me.

    Under the circumstances, though, it seems to me that he should have made it his business to know what the IBAN rules are. And there was no particular reason for him to have thanked me for that edit I made (). It was completely unrelated to anything I'm aware of him doing, and I don't see him making an edit in that RfC after I made that formatting fix. From my end, it feels creepy, like he was following edits I made and letting me know that he was seeing them. Although I'm under no restrictions under the 1-way ban, I actually have no idea what edits, if any, SashiRolls has been making, because I'm not concerning myself with that, and I sure didn't ask for that blue notification that brings me here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Following up after the comments so far, I find it plausible that it was a matter of inadvertent mis-click/mis-swipe. Not unlike someone accidentally hitting rollback on a 1RR page, and then quickly self-reverting – except that here, there is no way to self-revert. As I already said, I'm OK with a firm understanding that this will absolutely not happen again, and I'm not comfortable with a severe sanction. But there's no getting around the fact that SR was viewing my edit when the error happened, which, in the future should be a big flashing red light that when you are viewing anything I've done, be very, very careful.
    I think that Politrukki's comments directed at me are worthy of administrators taking note, and I am seriously sick and tired of this kind of conduct. (Seriously, the fact that I didn't go back and check whether SR had edited the page earlier indicates that I could have followed SR there and somehow manipulated him into thanking me? Yes, in filing this AE request, I checked if he had also been editing there around the time that I edited there, in case it was an inadvertent thank, but in fact I didn't check the whole page history, because I'm not looking for SR's edits.) Anyway, I think that Floq has read the situation astutely. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
    Also: seeing Vanamonde's comment about Mr Ernie, I understand Mr Ernie's comment in the context of discussions that he and I have had, and his comment was not a sarcastic one. I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning SashiRolls

    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 SashiRolls

    I had no intention of having any contact whatsoever with my accuser. I think this must have been due to a careless swipe closing a window while looking through the RfC on Vector 2022 last night. When blocked, the giant 'thanks' button did not appear at the bottom of the screen on the phone app, so I'm used to just swiping from bottom to top to make the app disappear.

    I am aware that thanking someone is not permitted and would not have done it intentionally.

    It is my assumption that wp:banex allows me to reply to this immediate escalation.

    I will look into this further when I get home from the hospital this evening, as normally I thought you had to confirm to give thanks, which I certainly did not do... unless the dialog box was also swept away in the effort to close the window.

    -- SashiRolls 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    I have just checked and indeed no confirmation is necessary on Android... You have two seconds to cancel if you misclick / mis-swipe. -- SashiRolls 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Please do not accuse me of lying. I guarantee you I just thanked SFR and was given only 2 seconds to cancel using Chrome on Android. Talk about a gotcha' filing and a wp:agf failure.  :/. -- SashiRolls 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Again, please do not accuse me of lying. I just thanked Bishonen for her comment and was unable to take a screenshot of the tiny line of text appearing beneath the BIG BLUE BUTTON at the lower right of the screen where your thumb goes to swipe Chrome into the background on Android. It disappeared that quickly. I may have mispoken when using the word "app". It is for Commons that I sometimes use the App, but apparently I need to redownload it because it hasn't worked for months now. I assure you, I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of interacting with him. -- SashiRolls 18:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Nableezy: on pages with significant amounts of text scattered all over the place (such as in the Vector 2022 RfC) I find the easiest way to read, by far, is by going to the top diff and then clicking "previous diff" so that I have enough context to understand what's going on. Perhaps in future, this method of reading would be best avoided as it apparently makes inadvertent errors such as this one possible. Thanks to those who compensated for my incompetence in video capturing using my phone! -- SashiRolls 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Isabelle Belato: It's alright: no blood, no foul. I've gotten my heart-rate back down now and appreciate the comment below explaining that diff-viewing is a reasonable way of reading a complicated discussion (but that has unexpected risks on mobile). I was unaware of these risks because while blocked I did not see a thanks button. I don't believe this inadvertent mistake warrants any further sanctions and would ask for whoever closes this to put themselves in the position of someone (me) who had a heart attack during their three-week long appeal and who did not appreciate this thread. Granted, I can put myself in the shoes of the person KoA describes below as having been the victim of a terrible "car crash" I caused and see that they might want retribution for such reckless swiping.
    My apologies for my inadvertent role in this. I would like to be able to continue to thank people and so I will avoid flipping through diff-view in mobile should either of the good users I'm i-banned with come gnoming in threads I've previously made comments in. This will surely help avoid offended reactions. I would prefer to be able to continue to thank helpful users like yourself.
    I would ask that no further comments be made about my cardio-vascular health anywhere on en.wp. -- SashiRolls 20:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by KoA

    And here I just caught myself earlier today thinking I hadn't heard anything about SR since their unban (and hadn't gone looking either until I saw this).

    All I'll say is that multiple editors in the unban discussion did mention one of SR's issues is a sort of stalking of targets that warranted the sanctions in the first place. That context matters even if it were just a little thing that wasn't directly spelled out in ban policy instead of this. Tryptofish was correct to come here in part because there is no other realistic option to discuss an I-ban violation even when it's one-way. Otherwise, it would be like someone who caused a car crash (accident or not) chastising one of those who got hit for asking the cops to get involved.

    Regardless of intent or accident, SR already knows they are supposed to steer clear of Tryptofish, and WP:BANEX is not an excuse for sniping. Instead, SR used this AE as an opportunity to launch into loaded language to lay it on thick like my accuser or this immediate escalation that is definitely out of line considering previous snark they've been warned about and comes across as taking advantage of an accident to make potshots at best. That is not the language of someone who had a simple accident that recognizes the issues such an accident would still cause and have to be followed up on. That's instead the kind of escalation of situations that's gotten SR repeatedly sanctioned, and someone that's supposed to be protected by an I-ban like Tryptofish shouldn't have to deal with it at least.

    Others that can test it can assess the validity of the Vector 2022 comments, but what led to the interaction can also become a red herring from later behavior, so that's why the comments caught my eye. KoA (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    • Nableezy, Tryptofish linked the diff in their section that was thanked.. As you mention, SR was there at that discussion too (basically that they wanted to keep the Vector 2022 and that they were already familiar with it from the French wiki). It at least makes sense that the interaction was because they crossed paths there and not through contribs. KoA (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Sashirolls, you know better with respect to Granted, I can put myself in the shoes of the person KoA describes below as having been the victim of a terrible "car crash" I caused and see that they might want retribution for such reckless swiping. You're already being warned to stop sniping at AE and likely to get by with just a warning despite ramping up the battleground behavior again. You are the one who "crashed" into Tryptofish in this case regardless of intent, and instead of lashing out like in the analogy, all you needed to do was recognize the problems it caused other editors in showing it was an accident rather than use the opportunity to take unneeded potshots and go beyond WP:BANEX with respect to your I-ban. KoA (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    • On Buffs' and Politrukki's comments, I will remind both of you not to violate the WP:ASPERSIONS principle that is in effect here being a GMO DS discussion in your comments on Tryptofish. Admins have been letting enforcement of that slip lately. KoA (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Shibbolethink

    Without making any other statement or claim as to this filing, I just wanted to point out, @ScottishFinnishRadish @Isabelle Belato-- @SashiRolls is talking about using the mobile site on the Android Chrome app. Not using the Misplaced Pages for Android App. Very different interfaces on iOS between these two so I can imagine it's similarly very different on Android.

    I just tested it (on @Tewdar ) on iOS Chrome mobile version on the DIFF (not the history or contribs pages) and indeed, it only gives 2 seconds to cancel before it goes through with the thank action. On the history or contribs pages, the "thank? confirm cancel" persists, but on the DIFF, it is ephemeral.— Shibbolethink 18:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Tewdar

    If you view a diff using a mobile web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Opera...) and hit "thank", it gives you two seconds to cancel, without confirmation.  Tewdar  18:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Just tested with Shibbolethink 😁.  Tewdar  18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Nableezy

    What was the diff Tryptofish? Because personally I'd be willing to buy it was an accident that I will make sure will never be repeated if it was a diff from a discussion SR was involved in, but if they just randomly trolling through Tryptofish's contributions to go through them for god knows what then I personally would say it doesnt matter if it was an accident, block for the IB vio anyway. nableezy - 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    oh nvm see it linked in your statement. Given that SR had already commented in that discussion I suppose it was possible they were just going through more recent comments. But honestly I dont get why youd even be on somebody's diff like that to be in that position in the first place. nableezy - 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Objective3000

    I’m no fan of Sashi, !voted neutral with TBan last time and block on all previous times. I’ve also been sarcastically “thanked” in the past by another editor. But, my feeling on this is Meh. Sashi will have to try harder than this to get blocked again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Just not enough evidence to convict, as I would say as a jury member. If convincing evidence appears; I'll wholeheartedly support an indef. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Sideswipe9th

    I've just sent two videos to ScottishFinnishRadish demonstrating the two different ways that en.m.wikipedia handles sending thanks for contributions. If you're looking at the history for a page, there is a confirmation requirement prior to sending thanks. However if you're browsing by the diff views, sending thanks has no confirmation, and only a 2 second window to cancel as other editors have said. I don't know of any other ways to send thanks via the mobile site. I'd be happy to send these videos by email to any other admins who'd want to see, but I don't want to upload them to files/commons if I can avoid it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    To nableezy, I often find it significantly easier when reading a highly active page to read through the contributions made since my last view or edit via the diff view. This makes it easier for me to identify which comments/contributions I've seen already and which ones are new. Sometimes I'll do this just as a block of all changes since my last view, and sometimes I'll step through each one at a time, depending on how my attention span is behaving at the time. I imagine other neurodiverse editors will do something similar when catching up on active pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Mr Ernie

    Let me at least use this opportunity to thank everyone who chooses to contribute to Misplaced Pages. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Floq

    Would the same uninvolved admin who closes this with an assumption that this was an unfortunate coincidence and a weak reminder that SR shouldn't thank TF also remind SR that using terms like "accuser", "immediate escalation, "gotcha filing", and "agf failure" above, about someone they're ibanned from, is also an iban violation? I presume this is SR on their best behavior, and they still can't help but test the boundaries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Buffs

    Error or not, the worst punishment appropriate here is a WP:Trouting, but more appropriately "be more careful". I recognize that Tryptofish effectively has no other recourse and find no fault bringing it here. As with above, I too thank all the people who have made solid edits to Misplaced Pages (since when is such gratitude a punishable offense? If he were spamming with "thanks" all over the place, you'd have a point, but two things that appear to be nothing more than a misclick? Tempest in a teapot perhaps?).

    As for reading through old posts, I know I've done so to see where I could have done better and that means looking through diffs to see what others said too. It seems to be a reasonable mistake...SR, please avoid being even close to such behavior in the future. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Re:Floq's comments, he's being accused of violating his IBan by the same person. Kinda hard to point out the (potential) problematic behavior of another editor here otherwise. Both would do well to drive down the temperature by WP:AGF more, but due to the IBan, there isn't another avenue to ask and clarify. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Politrukki

    Tryptofish claims "I actually have no idea what edits, if any, SashiRolls has been making", but also admits checking that SashiRolls didn't edit the RFC after TF's edit. The two statements are contradictory; either TF was checking SashiRolls's edits or they weren't.

    Based on the timeline of SashiRolls's edits and Tryptofish's edit, it could be argued that Tryptofish creepily followed SashiRolls to the page, but I think if TF wished to annoy SashiRolls, TF could have found a better way.

    Even though a technical violation happened, the filing is unnecessary escalation. As the two-way IBAN is yet to be reinstated, a peaceful resolution could have been reached by assuming good faith and leaving a message to SashiRolls asking them to refrain from using "thank" function. Moreover, Tryptofish, your claim that "IBAN has no exceptions, footnotes, or special circumstances, full stop" is both objectively and subjectively false. You should know better.

    SashiRolls shouldn't say they were accused of lying if they weren't accused of lying, but I believe this is moot after their last comment.

    What more there is to be done? Close with no action. Politrukki (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Cullen328

    I guess that I am involved because I have commented on the conduct of SashiRolls in the past although not in the recent unblock request, where I was sincerely undecided and chose to remain silent. As is pretty well known, I edit using the fully functional desktop site on Android smartphones, and my thank function requires an affirmative verification before it goes through, because I choose to use fully functional software instead of slipshod WMF software deviations. All that being said, I am perfectly willing to accept that WMF software botchery may well yield a less acceptable result when using any of their less than fully functional sites and apps. But what really concerns me here is the snide, confrontational remarks by SashiRolls that Floquenbeam points out above. This editor is fresh off a lengthy block for this type of behavior, and I was prepared to assume that this editor would refrain from stuff like this, but I guess that I was wrong. Maybe they will now stop behaving this way, or maybe they will continue and get blocked again, this time forever for real. Time will tell, I suppose, but after the comments by SashiRolls above, I am not optimistic about their future as a Misplaced Pages editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by starship.paint

    @Isabelle Belato, ScottishFinnishRadish, Bishonen, Tamzin, and Vanamonde93: - can we wrap this up? starship.paint (exalt) 07:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning SashiRolls

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • @SashiRolls: I've tested on the app and on the mobile view on Android and both of them request a confirmation. The app even opens a big window warning you can't undo a thanks. I'd appreciate if another univolved user could confirm this, but right now this appears to be a clear case of breach of sanctions. Isabelle Belato 17:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
      I just downloaded the app to check, and it certainly asks for confirmation when I did it from the diff view and history view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
      I've now seen that in the mobile web interface in the diff view there is no confirmation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
      Thanks Shibbolethink. That's a very odd behaviour and should probably be changed. In that case, this should probably be closed with no action.
      @SashiRolls: Apologies if it appeared that I called you a liar. Exactly because I couldn't reproduce that behaviour (and was unaware of it till today) that I asked for other users to confirm whether it was an actual thing or not. Isabelle Belato 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    • It seems completely incredible to me that this was done on purpose. I could imagine Sashi sarcastically thanking Tryptofish for something meaningful, but Tryp's edit in this instance was the most uncontroversial gnoming. Surely Sashi could and would have found a better way to either annoy or "reach out in a friendly way". Bishonen | tålk 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC).
    • Just to avoid a whole lot of debating about technical things, and keeping in mind that it would be a lot harder to sell this as an accident twice (even if it really were an accident both times), could we compromise on SR agreeing to disable the thank button by CSS? (I can take a stab at the correct CSS, but would probably best to ask at WP:VPT.) This would be considered an extension of the IBANs, i.e. as long as SR is subject to an IBAN, they would be expected to keep this CSS rule active. Once pblocks from thanking go live (which has seemingly been a month away for ~18 months), we could switch to that if desired. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
      @Tamzin: I guess if SushiRolls agrees with it, then sure. Otherwise, my recommendation to them would be to avoid checking the diffs by users they are iban'ed with while on mobile to make sure this doesn't happen again. Isabelle Belato 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Based on the evidence that no confirmation is required on a tiny mobile screen, and that this was a discussion SR was already participating in, I don't any action needed on the original complaint. I'm a little less impressed by the language used by SR in response to said complaint, and also in the responses to the response (Mr. Ernie, what exactly does your statement above achieve?) per Floq. I would support closing with a reminder to SR both about the IBAN and about temperate language at AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    Minaro123

    Minaro123 is limited to maximum of one revert per 24 hours on all articles and limited to using articles for creation for creating new articles on any topic.--RegentsPark (comment) 18:54, 28 January 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 Minaro123

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Minaro123 (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:ARBIPA
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 24 January 2023 Claims the "official" map of the district to mention a certain region. It took minutes to disprove the claim and establish that he had cited a map by a barely known publisher. Minaro123 reasoned that if the map had any problem, it should have been banned by the government and the lack of a ban established the official status. Wow!
    2. 18 January 2023 I do not know how to explain this.
    3. 18 January 2023 Representative chat-bot behavior; their replies have little relation to the topic under discussion.
    4. 18 January 2023 Claiming that Misplaced Pages has an exhaustive list of reliable sources and accordingly, removing sources from prominent Indian media!
    5. 11 january 2023 Cavalier attitude with sources; citing scholars who do not support the content before being forced to concede grudgingly.
    6. 3 January 2023 Claims that "Brokpas had never claimed to be Aryans at all." This is a 180-degree misrepresentation of content and shows the insistent POV-pushing; see the current version of Aryan Valley where multiple scholars note the Brokpas to have claimed themselves as Aryans for decades!
    7. Talk:Aryan_Valley/Archive_1#Lead_dispute (3 January 2023) - An example of "discussion" with Minaro123.
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    1. 18 January 2023 Indefinite P-block from Aryan Valley and t/p under AC/DS. This arose out of an AN3 complaint.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    I argue that Minaro123 has a CIR issue; his contributions are essentially disinformation and the noise-to-signal ratio is too high to be a net positive. Right after being subject to a sanction, he is misrepresenting sources and defending the same using ridiculously tortous arguments!

    He can either be indefinitely blocked from the project or sanctioned with an indefinite T-Ban from anything that has to do with Brokpas (broadly construed). I, Joshua Jonathan, and others have wasted sufficient editorial resources in the process of engaging him and trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

    @Elinruby: You wrote, The central issue here is however that it isn't up to TB to decide what ethnic group belongs to. Provide the diff where I tried to "decide" (or even comment) on Minaro123's ethnicity.
    Bishonen, thanks for chiming in on the applicability of REDACT. I did not restore the new text because I was unsure about the extent to which it was to replace the old post. Hence, I chose to alert Elinruby of the revert at his t/p and the REDACT policy so that he could reincorporate his edits in compliance. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
    Elinruby, thanks for your compliance with REDACT. That said
    My request for the diff where I had decided on Minaro123's ethnicity remains unanswered. Do note that I have to comment on Minaro123's ethnicity explicitly; not on the ethnicity of Brokpas, to which he belongs to (per you).
    Also unanswered is K3's query about how Minaro123 — who is editing for months and has raked in about a thousand edits — is a newbie. Actually, you have doubled down on the claim by accusing me to be "biting" him citing the very evidence, that I had cited as the latest example of their incompetency!
    Can you please double-check your diffs? The diff linked to your claim that obody in this story here claims that they are — thereby contradicting scholars like Mona Bhan, D.S. Bhagabati et al and about a dozen journalists — has no relevance. Frankly, there is not a single source which notes that the Brokpas do not claim being Aryans!
    Minaro123 removed information sourced from OPEN, Mint etc. by claiming that the sources were not featured in Misplaced Pages's list of reliable sources; it is obvious that he took it as an "exhaustive" list. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    I won't reply to Elinruby in any substantial manner (unless requested by RP or other admins) since I believe he is spamming the board with irrelevant stuff to take the focus away from Minaro123. I have no clue about which ethnologist got dismissed and by whom. That said, my edits were supported by K3 and JJ, two of the most veteran editors in S. Asian topics; frankly, it was JJ who had overhauled the content before I jumped in. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    @RegentsPark: I disagree with your approach. If I am picking up a single edit, how do you explain Minaro123's claim that "Brokpas had never claimed to be Aryans at all" when scholars and journalists note Brokpas to have even changed their surnames to Aryan and garnered political mileage citing their (distinct) Aryan-ness! That is not a competence issue but blatant POV-pushing; the precise reason why we have a sanctions-regime covering all South Asian social groups. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    @RegentsPark I will concede to such a perspective.
    But, in addition, some sort of (logged) warning needs to be provided about participating in discussions at the t/p in a coherent fashion. As I (and JJ) noted at the 3RRN thread, it is quite a feat to discuss anything with him. You ask him about X, and he replies about Y. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
    Latest edit. If admins agree that

    According to geographer Frederick Drew,It is made up of a very narrow strip, ledge, or flat irrigated ground. Between two distinct stages of the great river cliff. As a result, there is a precipitous drop in ground on one side. While on the other side of the vertical cliff, overhanging the narrow fields, which received their registed heat and quickly ripped the crops, the palaces did not drop their heat even at night. Water flows across the field from a ravine on the high mountain. Apple trees, apricot trees, mulberry trees, and vines are all grown. In association with the cereal, on the narrow space and thrive well with the mixture of moisture and warmth.

    is mainspace-worthy content, what can I say? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Elinruby: You write, Kargil, one of the villages in question, is *on* the line of control and is occupied by the Indian Army. - Kargil is a city, and the headquarters of the eponymous district but it is not a village. Two of the four Brokpa villages lie in Kargil, and the remaining two in Leh. None of these four villages lie *on* the LOC. None of these four villages are "occupied" by the Indian Army. If you persist in misrepresenting sources, the next AE thread will be on you.
    @RegentsPark: I guess the sanction is decent and there really isn;t any way to enforce coherence in t/p discussions. I can only hope that we are not kicking the can down the road :) TrangaBellam (talk) 10:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified


    Discussion concerning Minaro123

    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 Minaro123

    1 I have welcomed TrangaBellam to welcome a have a constructive critisim here regarding the Map and i told him I could be wrong , and since Indian book deport was established before 1936 ,i added it only in a talk section to have a opinion about others editor.
    2,4: I have added the information cited by international reliable newspaper like BBC news,The hindu , Aljezerra , The Hindu says which cited that" One theory says they arrived from Gilgit, Pakistan in the seventh century; a popular story is that they are descendants of Alexander’s army, while many argue that the Aryans are the indigenous inhabitant of india. I talked about it in a talk section ,but TrangaBellam have ignored it and added the newspaper like Mint which have a no mention under the reliable newspaper by wikepedia .
    3: I tried to explain to TrangaBellam to add a geographical boundaries in a lead because Aryan valley is a geographical area and have a boundary , because TrangaBellam have removed the part which was backed by reliable sources here .
    5: I wanted them to add about geography and History of Aryan valley , now i have added the content in geography section of Dah, Ladakh.
    6: I wanted them to emphasis the Aljezerra cited that " Brogpas do not associate their Aryanism with its ‘dirty and cruel’ history in Germany and elsewhere" . TrangaBellam and other were adding mainly about 'Aryan association ' in the history section so I was afriad that i could go against the reality. I have said the statement in this context.
    6: I have created a 13 Topic in active discussion page Aryan valley ,and has a actively participating in talk page .

    My major contribution related to the topic of Aryan valley is: In a old revision of Brokpa page ,the population of the Brokpa was false however i have discussed in Brokpa talk section title=Brokpa&oldid=1124611839 And add a corrected it .

    The Aryan valley articles was created by me and was nominated for deletion by kautilya3 and was suporting by TrangaBellam , , However me and Elinruby have provided evidence to save it. However after the decision of Aryan valley was to keep, k3 and TB has did a edits without having a discussion on a talk.

    Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1135290132
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1135290132
    3. https://www.ibdmaphouse.com/pages/about-us#:~:text=Indian%20Book%20Depot%20(Map%20House)%20was%20established%20in%20Lahore%20(,flourished%20pretty%20quickly%20and%20extensively
    4. https://www.bbc.com/storyworks/travel/india-up-close/the-tribal-soul-of-india
    5. https://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/travel/the-ladakhi-village-of-dah-offers-a-lot-for-the-inquisitive-traveller/article30800281.ece/amp/
    6. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/2014/7/14/in-pictures-the-last-aryans
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Diff/1131153683
    8. https://doi.org/10.1080/09735070.2008.11886318
    9. https://www.aljazeera.com/amp/gallery/2014/7/14/in-pictures-the-last-aryans
    10. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Aryan_Valley/Archive_1
    11. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Aryan_Valley/Archive_2
    12. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Brokpa#/editor/5
    13. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?
    14. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aryan_valley

    Statement by Elinruby

    The thing that strikes me the most here is the utter certitude of TB and K3 of the correctness of their actions. Bookku is correct in saying that this is fundamentally a content dispute. My issue is the way it's been addressed. I first became aware of the article at AfD, where the rationale was that the residents of Aryan Valley weren't *really* Aryan.

    Nobody in this story here claims that they are, mind you, but the important part is that the article survived AfD because it was about a place, not a people. That night it was edited into an article about how the people of the area are not really Aryans, over repeated attempts to discuss, as recent as yesterday.

    I did want to address Bookku's concern about quality. Recent deletions include cited work by me about apricot and barley cultivation, and cited ethnography]. Nobody is suggesting that the article should not meet normal standards, which is why I suggested AfC. I would not oppose requiring him to publish that way, if my assurances that I will help don't seem sufficient. Meanwhile, having edited Aryan Valley into something unrecognizable, TB filed a 3RR complaint, and this complaint, and is currently trying to redirect another village article to the article about how the people who live in Aryan Valley aren't really Aryan. all within the last couple of days. Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    (Earlier) Minaro123 wants to write an article(s) about a group of villages. I was under the impression that we encourage that. He is willing to learn the standards and apply them. For example, Misplaced Pages does indeed have a list of perennial sources. I don't know where "exhaustive" came from. He really does need to figure out how to run spell-check however, yes.

    I remain baffled as to Trangabellam's goal. I think Mindaro123 should work on his articles, offline if necessary, and publish them through AfC. I will continue to help him. TB should be admonished about newbie, biting, and encouraged to find something else to do.(later: besides the Aryan-ness of the Minaro, that is)

    The current version of Aryan Valley should be moved to Aryan Valley (problems Trangabellam has with the name) The central issue here is however that it isn't up to TB to decide whether Minaro123 is competent or what ethnic group he belongs to. To the extent that he's a problem, it's being addressed. At this point it may as well be in Draft, since the article he was writing is gone. At that point the AfC process can be a failsafe, if anyone is worried about his English. I don't think he realizes how bad it is, but I do and will work with him on ways to deal with that, by editing the article myself if need be.Elinruby (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

    TB reverting my statement

    Could someone please explain to TB that they are involved? I'm under the impression that the policy they cited doesn't apply here. If I'm wrong about that, I will rework the statement to include the words they questioned, although it all seems off-topic to me. I would appreciate a clarification that TB is a party here. I now need to be offline for a while, will address this on my return. Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    Housekeeping

    TB presents themself as a subject matter expert, so it did not occur to me that this editor would not realize that Minaro123, participant in many a discussion about the oral history of the Minaro, is a member of the Minaro ethnic group. Apparently TB believes that the above account somehow accuses them of outing an editor who has their name and all of the IP addresses they have used on their user page. It would not have occured to me that it could be read this way. I am not interested in TB. I just want Minaro123 to be allowed to contribute an article. Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Kautilya3:. Yes. My question is why? Elinruby (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Bishonen: Thanks. I stand by it fine. I just think it's off-topic. But by all means if somebody disagrees.

    @TrangaBellam: (trying again) You keep telling Minaro123 that the Minaro are Bropka Elinruby (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    @RegentsPark: sure. That is why I called the whole ethnicity thing off-topic. Just saying, my neighbors would get upset if someone assigned them some other ethnicity. Some exasperation is understandable, especially when it was cited ethnologists that were getting dismissed, not just the elders of Dha. All of the effort that went into discussion here was completely one-sided. I don't pretend to understand what TB is trying to accomplish, but they essentially gutted the Aryan Valley article and are now piously lecturing me on my talk page about the integrity of content. I will be offline most of the day but will check this when I get back to see if there are questions Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Bookku: I strongly support the adoption of the articles. I am particularly concerned about Aryan Valley, which was transformed overnight into something other than the article that survived AfD. By the people calling his objections disruptive editing. Please let me know if I can help.

    @RegentsPark: I noticed you crossed out the part about Minaro123 taking a break. He has exams coming up and needs to take a break. I am encouraging him to focus on his exams. He is upset about this episode however. As for what to do about this complaint, yeah, I proposed the AfD restriction. I have said I'll help him, but a formal process won't hurt him, since we agree that there's a problem there, and nothing is stopping me from helping him on a draft. I would like to mention that when I first encountered him at the AfD, he was citing the elders of Dha, so the fact that he is citing ethnologists is vast progress in a couple of weeks, and he does learn. I have some concerns about 1RR however, since I would have thought that it would apply in any event to all parties given that the area in question abuts the Line of Control. Could you please clarify what discretionary sanctions apply to these articles? And that they apply to all editors? I'd appreciate it. Elinruby (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    @RegentsPark: I admit that I am out of my area of expertise here, but frozen or not, that conflict is ongoing, is it not? Kargil, one of the villages in question, is *on* the line of control and is occupied by the Indian Army. Dah is 40-some miles from the front. I don't claim to fully understand this dispute, but I can understand why Minaro would object to repeatedly being told that his ethnic group believes they are Aryan. The point I don't understand is why TB is so adamant in saying it, based on that one sociologist they keep citing, to the point of promo. Clearly, strong feelings are involved, is all I am saying, and if DS is going to be applied then I personally think it should be applied to all involved. Thank you for your previous reply, btw. I am not trying to give you a hard time, but I'm just not sure that the proposed solution addresses the entire problem. I will of course abide by whatever you decide and will try to help Minaro123 to do so. I do think there is a lot of merit in Bookku's suggestion, fwiw. Elinruby (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Bookku

    Uninvolved opinion.

    • Two very recent edit summaries 1, 2 by User:Minaro123 seem to have expressed psychological depression as co-Wikipedian I feel concerned.
    • Above complaint in part seems to be content dispute brought here before completing protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE and in part legitimate linguistic abilities concern.
    • IMO content disputes are best resolved through regular WP:DR
    • Info @ User:Minaro123 and writing style indicates that Minaro123 seem to represent some linguistic minority, though they seem to understands English reading, they would need little more improvement in English proficiency and some support while writing. Another user seem to willing to provide such linguistic support to them (appreciated).
    • IMO We certainly allow them continue to write in own user space, Draft and AFC.
    • And also allow participate in main space talk page discussion in spite of linguistic difficulties. Many say, even billion plus populations feel they are not best represented on Misplaced Pages, if some one from very small communities feel so, we can not do much about it if Reliable sources do not support.
    Still I feel we should not take their right to represent their and their community's encyclopedic concerns on the respective talk pages. And not curtail right to WP:DR through WP:ARE.

    Bookku (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    As I already admitted and again pointed out by @TrangaBellam concerns about English grammar of @Minaro123 even in their good faith edits seem quite legitimate as of the day.
    • Let @Minaro123 focus on their studies.
    • Shift all concerned articles to draft namespace.
    • Each of us experienced users will adopt two two articles each develop in a years time with minimum expectation of WP standard.
    • I am ready to adopt two such drafts for non-disputed content from my side.
    Bookku (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Kautiya3

    I am not writing a full statement here since the user seems to be voluntarily withdawing. But to drive home the CIR issue, he was told on 20 November 2022 the need for WP:Full citations and the guidelines for WP:RS. Yet, he provided within the last 24 hours this link (a book titled "My Unskooled Year" by a certain "Sagarikka", published by "Notions Press").

    The user has been editing for more than a year and is extended-confirmed. If he still appears to Elinruby as a "newbie", that itself is an indication of a CIR issue.

    We have also had to face edit-warring/tag-teaming from apparent members of the ethnic group, who are variously called Brokpa/Dard/Minaro/Aryan. So this doesn't stop with one supposedly "newbie" editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

    A gentle reminder to Elinruby that he is editing a section titled "Discussion concerning Minaro123". It is not a discussion concerning TB or K3 or AfD's or page titles or barley cultivaion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
    RegentsPark, I would also like to request a prohibition against creating new pages, though he can go via the WP:AFC route. Notice here a wild claim that Tsewang Namgyal conquered "Lhasa" using an absolutely junk source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

    Result concerning Minaro123

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • This conflict is above my paygrade, but I want to comment (only) on Elinruby changing their statement and Tranga Bellam reverting that change, per Elinruby's request. I don't understand why you would think the guideline WP:REDACT does not apply here, Elinruby. If you redact, in a significant way, something that has been replied to, you wrongfoot the person/s who replied. Don't do it. Even if there were no policy or guideline about it, it's confusing and discourteous. What's wrong with crossing out? However, a problem with Tranga Bellam's revert is that it removed the quite different text that you added in place of your original statement. You are most welcome to re-add that text yourself. (It needs a spellcheck, though.) Feel free to change or shorten it in any way you like, or leave it out, since nobody has replied to it. But please use cross-out for your original statement, if you no longer stand by it. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC).
    • In a nutshell, it appears that, while editing in good faith, there are competence issues with Minaro123's edits. The question, I guess, is which one outweighs the other. I'll take a look but, meanwhile, Elinruby, please note that the stated ethnicity of any editor is not something that should be used as a pro or con in an argument. Misplaced Pages is a reliably sourced encyclopedia, not a crowd sourced one. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
      After reviewing Minaro123's edits, yes, there are competence issues. I see examples of improper sourcing (e.g., here where did the literacy rate come from and the household number is less than half of what is in the source), and lots of moving stuff around breaking the relationship between the content and the citation (e.g. here). And then there is the unskooled book mentioned by Kautilya3 as well as the use of raj era sources. That said, the editor appears to be taking a break and has made an incremental contribution to wikipedia. I'm inclined to just let this pass lightly, perhaps by placing a 1RR restriction to reduce the probability of edit warring when they return. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
      @TrangaBellam: my thinking is that a 1RR restriction will alleviate problems associated with the sloppy sourcing. Perhaps I am wrong but they do seem to be adding content in a relatively underserved area and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
      @Kautilya3, Bookku, TrangaBellam, and Elinruby:. I guess the draft space restriction is reasonable. So, a 1RR restriction and article creation and submission through AFC? --RegentsPark (comment) 15:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
      @Elinruby: The appropriate contentious topics area is WP:ARBIND. The existing 1RR restriction that you refer to, afaik, pertains only to articles related to the Kashmir conflict. --RegentsPark (comment) 20:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    CanterburyUK

    CanterburyUK has been page-blocked indefinitely from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson. Bishonen | tålk 11:47, 31 January 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 CanterburyUK

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    CanterburyUK (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
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Within the past month or so, has become a quasi-WP:SPA promoting favorable descriptions of Jordan Peterson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). In doing so, they have violated DS (1RR) and WP:TPG in numerous ways.
    2. Violates 1RR to re-insert preferred text with more favorable descriptions of Peterson and disfavorable of others: Edit: See also: and second 1RR vio: Edit: (also adding meta-commentary to page )
    3. bludgeons discussions by repeatedly raising arguments in new sections (user has made 15+ on talk in the past 20 days) ( - more diffs available upon request) despite warnings by myself and others: . Forcing others to fix fragmentation
    4. placing their comments above others or otherwise increasing prominence
    5. replying to multiple users' with the same argument () and demanding users respond to past arguments when users have already replied (WP:AGF and WP:SEALION).
    6. adds "close and summary" to thread they started, ignoring others' comments and asserting preferred outcome
    7. Repeatedly placing usernames in talk section headings in violation of WP:TPG: despite warnings
    8. Using blatantly unreliable sources: Google drive, twitter, "countersignal", "thepostmillenial" to support pro-Peterson insertions despite warnings
    9. Justification for behavior is to make the page "most helpful to the reader" and to "rebalance the bad influence the page has been" AKA righting great wrongs.
    10. This is not the first time they've been brought to a conduct board regarding NPOV, sources, TPG, and edit warring (though it was a long time ago, 2017): or warned about disruption (2018)
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    N/A

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    In summary, per the diffs above, this user has recently focused a single-minded effort on providing more favorable coverage of Jordan Peterson (righting great wrongs), violating 1RR, using very low quality sources, SYNTH, and POV text to do so. In the process of arguing for these insertions, they have strayed into WP:SEALION territory, repeatedly arguing their points and adding many multiple new sections, in essence taking over the talk page for their campaign. They have violated numerous other talk page guidelines despite warnings, and appear to have no interest in fixing these behavioral problems, raising WP:CIR and WP:IDHT concerns. Several editors have advised the user this is a contentious area, not a good place for those unfamiliar with the guidelines or policies. It appears the user is too invested in this topic to comply with WP:PAG, especially considering how complex, sensitive, and treacherous this topic area is. Perhaps worst of all, their conduct in the area has become a massive drain on others' time and effort, as calmly answering their many long and drawn out threads, reviewing their edits, etc. has taken up many hours of nearly a dozen experienced editors.

    I propose the user be indefinitely topic-banned (or page-banned) from Jordan Peterson, as the most narrowly-targeted remedy which would stop this disruption. Thank you for your time and attention.— Shibbolethink 17:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)(06:53, 28 January 2023 (UTC) edited to strike confusing diffs, replace, and lay it out in chronological order below)

    Note: I apologize for the number of diffs and words. I think I have probably exceeded the 20 diff limit. I request an exception in this case given that the behavior in question from this user involves many repeated actions which require diff evidence for each. Happy to remove some of the repeat diffs and/or reduce word count as requested. Thanks — Shibbolethink 17:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    Pinging other editors involved in the linked discussions

    @Firefangledfeathers, Trakking, Sideswipe9th, ScottishFinnishRadish, Newimpartial, Girth Summit, Tacyarg, Springee, Snow Rise, North8000, and Aquillion:— Shibbolethink 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    17:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    @Mr Ernie
    Evidence of 1RR vios
    1. 22:32, 6 January 2023 CUK inserts header, cites twitter, Daily Mail, and other deprecated sources.
    2. 22:57, 6 January 2023 SFR reverts to stable.
    3. 14:55, 8 January 2023 CUK reinserts header and deprecated sources. (That's revert #1)
    4. 15:50, 8 January 2023 I revert to stable.
    5. 22:00, 8 January 2023 CUK again reinserts header and deprecated sources. (That's revert #2)
    Later....
    1. 11:53, 12 January 2023 CUK reinserts header and adds protest content with unreliable source (That's revert #1 - the header)
    2. 16:03, 12 January 2023 FFF removes header and the UNDUE protest content
    3. 23:07, 12 January 2023 CUK reverts FFF trimming of UNDUE (That's revert #2)
    4. 23:16, 12 January 2023 SS9 restores stable
    5. 24:19, 12 January 2023‎ CUK re-inserts Poilievre comments (part of the content block from 6 January 2023) (That's revert #3)
    1RR says: An editor must not perform more than one revert on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period (emphasis mine) Neither of these were "consecutive reverts" aka sequential edits, to my understanding. Unless I'm missing something? — Shibbolethink 06:16, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    Sorry for the delay, I was waiting to see if CUK would respond! But I suppose he's had 48 hours now, and hasn't popped in. Regardless, I am not sure his response would change much about this situation. I am inclined to agree with Sideswipe, FFF, and Girth Summit, the degree of passion CUK has displayed here, and the WP:IDHT tendencies on their talk page, together lead me to believe they will likely spread these behavioral problems onto another related page. That said, I don't think we lose that much if we default to the PBAN for now, and revisit at that future junction, if it comes to pass. Worth giving them a chance I suppose. More than anything, this should serve as a warning for CUK to slow down, read the WP:PAGs, and consider carefully how they behave on talk pages and in reverts/bold edits in controversial areas. Hopefully they correct they behavior and nothing else will be necessary! Thanks for all the help and input here, I think the PBAN will at least serve to stabilize that article space for the future.Best,
    Shibb — Shibbolethink 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)


    Discussion concerning CanterburyUK

    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 CanterburyUK

    Statement by Sideswipe9th

    My thoughts on CanterburyUK mirror much of what Shibbolethink has said, so I'll keep this brief for now. I think a PBAN or TBAN from the Jordan Peterson article and talk page would be the narrowest remedy that applies here. However with Canterbury's propensity for sealioning and repetitive arguments, I do worry that such a narrow sanction would just shift this problem to another article and talk page in the same content areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    As I said before, while a PBAN from the Peterson article and talk page is the narrowest remedy that'd apply in the circumstances, I do fear that such a narrow sanction will just shift this behavioural problem to another article and talk page, in the same or closely related content areas. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by North8000

    (Pinged) I did a quick read of the entire talk page and a quick scan of the edit history of the article. I did not analyze anything related to 1RR nor do an in-depth analysis. I don't see sanctionable behavior. The "favorable" coverage described looks like mostly straightforward informative info, something that persons desiring a negative article on him would want left out. The "above other editors" posting looks like proper talk page protocol where doing otherwise would have been wrong. While IMO the current level of talk page activity is IMO not problematic, my advice to CanteburyUK would be to dial it back a bit. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Mr Ernie

    I’m not seeing a clear 1RR violation in the posted diffs (sequential edits are considered to be counted as one). And the bludgeon thing can be a bit subjective. Shibbole you made a couple hundred edits to a recent AN thread, and nobody really thought that was sanctionable. That said, I would support a warning related to making sure to use reliable sources. Mr Ernie (talk) 01:09, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Firefangledfeathers

    I doubt advising CanterburyUK to "dial it back a bit" will work. I worked hard to help them understand 1RR after their first violation (discussion), ending with a warning "not to make it the beginning of a pattern". They broke the rule four days later.

    Shibbolethink tried here to get them to dial back their talk page section creation, but they've created four more since. I'd be less (though still plenty) concerned about the bludgeoning if they didn't take silence as agreement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    North8000, did you only review the first diff when it comes to The "above other editors" posting? The second diff is problematic; I'd be surprised to learn you countenance that behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:11, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Firefangledfeathers: Thanks for pointing that out, I looked at the second one too quickly and missed that. North8000 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Girth Summit

    I think that Shibbolethink is correct that this user's contributions do essentially amount to disruptive sealioning. The issues first came to my attention when I realised that they had added some stuff to 'balance' critical comments in the article about a meat-only diet, when the source was actually comparing vegetarian diets to diets that contain some meat - in other words, it was irrelevant, and a misuse of the source to push a particular POV. A rookie error, perhaps, and not really something to worry about, but the have continued in the same vein, attempting to crowbar in Peterson-friendly material using primary sources, Tweets and so on, and their habit of adding numerous, needlessly verbose and repetitive comments have turned the talkpage into a completely impenetrable wall of text. This habit is a bad combination with their willingness noted above by Firefangledfeathers to interpret silence as consensus - the impression I get is of someone trying to wear everyone else down by relentless argumentation, in hopes that other editors will let them get on with what they want to do out of sheer exhaustion. Some time away from this article, and editing others that they are less personally invested in, might help them develop their understanding of how talk page discussions and the consensus-building process work here. Girth Summit (blether) 13:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    Bishonen - I can't speak for Shibbolethink, but I predict that a TBAN will ultimately be necessary to stop this spreading elsewhere. I'm happy to wait and see, and will be happy to be proved wrong, but I can't say 'I told you so' if I didn't tell you so. Girth Summit (blether) 18:29, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Snow Rise

    I'm a little torn here. On the one hand, the issues with the bludgeoning on the talk page (at least such as I observed in the brief window of my recent participation there) are quite pronounced, with the impact of the sheer number of rapid fire discussions opened (and the high volume of responses to other editors in those discussions) being further exacerbated by the size and wall-of-text nature of those replies, as well as a problematic unfamiliarity with standard talk page formatting and protocol. To understand what I mean, one need only do a superficial, high level visual review of the state of the TP as it presently reads. And that is before one even explores the details of what CanterburyUK actually advocates for, which to my eye, seem to suggest a fairly consistent confirmation bias when reviewing the sourcing, such as to exclude information which casts Peterson in anything less than a hagiographic light, regardless of the overall WP:WEIGHT of RS.

    On the other hand, we are talking about a relatively inexperienced editor here: yes, they have been on the project since 2008, but have only logged a little under 600 edits in that time, with gaps up to years in duration. With a pattern of involvement like that, it's possible that this is a sleeper sock account running parallel to others during that time, but I've seen no suggestion of that by any other community member, and absent at least that, I AGF this is just someone who occasionally gets the bug to edit on very particular political/BLP topics with hyperfocus over bursts of time: we do afterall get some genuine serial-SPA editors in that respect. That being the case, I'm not seeing a whole lot in terms of brightline policy violation just of yet. Obviously something substantial needs to change with regard to this editor's approach, and their talk page is kind of a mixed bag of concessions to that fact when engaging with some editors who have used a softer approach, while verging on WP:IDHT with some other community members who have been more blunt. But for a certainty, over the last couple of weeks, Canterbury's volume of engagement on the Peterson talk page has reduced dramatically, following the discussions opened on their personal talk page. So there seems to be some positive progress.

    Perhaps Bish's action in implementing the current pageban is the correct approach in threading the needle, removing CanterburyUK from a very narrow space (where they are being particularly activist) for the time being, while maintaining most of their editorial permissions. Again, afterall, I can't say that I don't think that was where we were headed eventually anyway. But by the same token, had I arrived here before that action was taken, I think on the balance of things I would have advocated for no formal action just yet, purely to be pro-forma with giving this editor time to adjust their approach short of sanction. SnowRise 21:55, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    Yeeps, had to shorten this after I realized I had blown past the word count: in order to expedite that process, I simply removed an entire paragraph, in addition to other cuts, no doubt leaving my comments a little disjointed: anyone interested can see my original un-amended comments here. SnowRise 22:03, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by SchroCat

    Rather like Mr Ernie above, I don't agree with the characterisation of the diffs (they can be hugely misleading without context), and sequential reverts are often considered as only being one, (except when people want to weaponise 1RR or 3RR restrictions). I also agree that bludgeoning is subjective and just counting comments doesn't give evidence or proof of anything. As to SEALIONING (dear lord, where do these ridiculous terms come from), again that's a subjective thing. CUK has made 44 edits on Jordan Peterson (they are 9th on the list of most active editors on the page); the person bringing this case has made 57. If you want the stats on bludgeoning accusation, CUK has made 138 edits to the Peterson talk page and are only 7th on the list of editors by volume on the page; the person who opened this thread has made 193.

    While CUK may not be a model editor, I don't see their behaviour as sanctionable, particularly on the "evidence" presented. - SchroCat (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning CanterburyUK

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I've page-blocked CanterburyUK indefinitely from Jordan Peterson and Talk:Jordan Peterson per Shibbolethink's diffs. That seems both obvious and minimal. Leaving this open in case somebody thinks there needs to be a topic ban as well, to prevent the Jordan Peterson-related disruption from moving to other pages. What do you say, @Shibbolethink:? Bishonen | tålk 13:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC).
    • Everything here relates just to the JP page, so I think Bishonen's page block is sufficient for now. If further issues develop in other related articles, we could consider a TBAN at that point, but it feels a little overbroad to me at this juncture. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 01:07, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Since the evidence presented here relates to just the Jordan Peterson article and its talk page I agree that action only about that page is needed. @Bishonen: I'd suggest an indefinite page ban instead of a partial block due to the limitation with partial blocking - that is, if CanterburyUK is temporarily blocked for something else it'll override and effectively remove the partial block whereas a page ban will remain in place. But that's about the method of paperwork rather than resolving the issue. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    • Ah, the page ban, a rare bird. Something for the paperwork feinschmecker. Of course you're right about the page block problem. On the other hand, the problem with page bans is that it's up to the user to abide by them — there's nothing technical keeping them off the page. That's awkward when there's a bit of a CIR issue. We don't want to set the user up for a series of escalating blocks just because they don't understand their ban. How about this: I try to keep an eye on CanterburyUK and their block log, to hopefully notice any shorter siteblock that destroys the partial blocks, and after such a shorter block expires, I restore the partials. Of course that would need a bit of bookkeeping, but I've done it before. Bishonen | tålk 12:41, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
    • I was thinking "both" myself. But surely that would make it even harder for the user to understand. The bureaucracy of sanctions is hard enough to grasp for experienced editors. I have talked with several who assume page blocks also imply topic bans (one today by e-mail, actually). In fact, I'd sooner keep an eye on the partials than do any more <expletive removed> explaining. Bishonen | tålk 15:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC).
    • Everybody seems OK with my partial blocks, so I'll close. Bishonen | tålk 11:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC).

    Dan Palraz

    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 Dan Palraz

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Tombah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Dan Palraz (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
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Dan Palraz has been exhibiting what I see to be extremely disruptive conduct and agenda-pushing on ARBPIA matters for a considerable amount of time. He is often edit warring to push his own viewpoints:

    Six Day War: see

    White phosphorus munitions:

    Judaean Desert:

    Ramot:

    In addition to the obvious edit-warring, he occasionally refuses to leave edit summaries despite repeated requests (see here and here). When he does, he often just mentions the minor changes rather than the major ones. See this edit for example: while claiming to only update the population, he removed a chunk of information from the article.

    Moreover, Dan moves pages without any discussion, despite the fact that it is undoubtedly required in those cases:

    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

    Dan had been blocked twice in the past:

    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

    Me and other editors have warned him about his disruptive behavior previously (for example: #1, #2, #3, and by an admin, Doug Weller, right here), but each time he chooses to remove warnings as if nothing had occurred rather than responding and regretting his actions, often blanking his page (two examples: here and here).

    Additional comments by editor filing complaint
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    notification

    Discussion concerning Dan Palraz

    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 Dan Palraz

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Dan Palraz

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I'm keen to hear what Dan Palraz has to say but on the face of it the evidence of edit warring and controversial page moves indicates to me that they aren't able to contribute constructively in this topic area. Given that I'm thinking that an indefinite topic ban from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly interpreted, would be appropriate. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Jim Michael 2

    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 Jim Michael 2

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Red-tailed hawk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Jim Michael 2 (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
    Discretionary sanctions, as authorized by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#May 2014 (as amended by Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

    Jim Michael 2 has been bludgeoning a discussion on Talk:2022 with extremely repetitive comments regarding whether or not a recently deceased person, Barbara Walters, warrants mention in our 2022 article. He has continued to do so, despite repeated warning from other editors on both on his user talk page (26 January 2023) and in the discussion itself (29 January 2023, again on 29 January 2023, a third time on 29 January 2022 and 30 January 2023). For the sake of convenience, I've broken out some of the repetitive diffs by type. A number of diffs from Jim Michael 2 contain responses to multiple users, so they may be repeated in the different subsections below:

    Repeating the same stuff about Christiane Amanpour over and over:

    1. 16 January 2023 You're greatly overstating her international influence. You portray her as having been at the top of her field, but her international notability is well below that of Christiane Amanpour.
    2. 16 January 2023 ...but few know much about her because she's primarily a domestic figure. Amanpour is far more international, but most people don't know much about her.
    3. 22 January 2023 ...Amanpour is significantly more internationally notable
    4. 26 January 2023 compare her to the more internationally notable Amanpour, or say why Walters should be included but Amanpour shouldn't.
    5. 29 January 2023 I need to mention Christiane Amanpour again. No-one here has tried to refute that she outdoes Walters in everything but length of career
    6. 29 January 2023 I mention Amanpour's notability to refute claims that Walters is - as some here claim/imply - the most notable female journalist
    7. 30 January 2023 Amanpour is far more international & often broadcasts in both countries (and in a response to another editor in the same diff) Amanpour - whose career is in the UK & US - will receive a great deal of media coverage in many countries when she dies.

    We don't do tokenism/quotas/discrimination:

    1. 22 January 2023 We don't have quotas & don't practise tokenism or positive discrimination
    2. 22 January 2023 If you mean 'positive' discrimination, quotas or tokenism, we won't be doing anything like that.
    3. 26 January 2023 There's no quotas, tokenism or positive discrimination, nor should there be.
    4. 26 January 2023 a few people want to radically change things by using quotas
    5. 29 January 2023 I agree that there shouldn't be quotas


    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    • N/A
    If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 26 January 2023 (see also the system log linked to above).
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    At the time of my writing, he has responded to precisely zero of these warnings, and has continued to bludgeon the discussion at will. Long-term editors generally shouldn't need to be warned by four separate editors that they are bludgeoning the exact same discussion in order to knock it off, and I'd ask that the user be given a logged warning as a discretionary sanction as a formal reminder to not bludgeon future discussions involving recently deceased people and a deterrent against repeating this sort of behavior in the future.

    On a more procedural note, it looks like Jim Michael 2 has made exactly 20 diffs in this RfC when the one at 2023-01-16 00:46 is included. I am requesting an extension in both length of my complaint and in number of diffs I can link to (if need be; I'm not sure if my linking to the warning diffs counts) so that I can better demonstrate the extent of bludgeoning present.

    I will separately note that Jim Michael 2 was warned for edit warring over this exact topic on the 2022 page less than a month ago. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:35, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    30 January 2023


    Discussion concerning Jim Michael 2

    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 Jim Michael 2

    I'm not going to even read that discussion on Talk:2022 again, let alone edit it, so this is action is pointless. I'm not going to revert any additions of Walters to 2022, including adding her to the lead & adding a photo of her. All further comments by me on that talk page will be unrelated to her. I'll no longer disagree with people who say that she was at the top of her field & should've been on ITN between Pelé & Benedict. Therefore, any restrictions imposed on me on that page are unnecessary.

    The discussions on her have taken a ridiculous amount of time. I wish I'd stopped editing that discussion much sooner & had I known it'd continue for so long & be deluged with many people arguing for her inclusion I wouldn't have started contributing to it. I haven't edited any of the articles about Walters or Amanpour & don't intend to, so there's no point blocking me from editing those. I'm sorry for any problems I may have caused & for breaking any guidelines. Jim Michael 2 (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Shibbolethink

    As someone completely not involved in this situation and who doesn't know the accused, I think this is a pretty clear case of bludgeoning. If others don't find your arguments convincing, it isn't helpful to keep bringing them up. If others have warned you about bludgeoning, it is your perogative (and at your own peril) that you continue to bring it up. At some point, if others aren't carrying the banner for your arguments, they aren't worth making. I would agree this merits sanctions (and perhaps most of all preventative to stop this user from disrupting the discussion). I would recommend a temporary page block from this page until the RFC is closed or archived, whichever comes first. I say temporary only because this is a time-based discussion and the most narrow sanction is usually the best in cases like this.— Shibbolethink 17:21, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Levivich

    Jim says he quit the discussion sometime between 13:29 (his most-recent comments) and 17:15 (when this AE was filed). What a coincidence. Levivich (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by MarioJump83

    This should bear mentioning that Jim Michael 2 used Anne Heche repeatedly when arguing about inclusion based on fame and popularity. I don't have any other comments. MarioJump83 (talk) 03:27, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Jim Michael 2

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Jim Michael 2's behavior in that RfC is...suboptimal, to say the least, and I agree that it crosses the line into bludgeoning/tendentiousness, particularly in light of all the warnings that weren't heeded. A block probably wouldn't have much preventative value at this point given his promise to disengage, but a logged warning along the lines of what RTH is suggesting seems appropriate to me. More broadly, there's been a lot of bickering and unhealthy conflict (bordering on WP:BATTLEGROUND) at Talk:2022 and related pages, and I'd strongly encourage the "regulars" there, especially Jim Michael 2, to dial down the temperature significantly if they want to avoid being sanctioned in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 08:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz

    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 Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    1. Super Dromaeosaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    2. Mzajac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

    3. Jeppiz (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:ARBEE
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. Ianbrettcooper promoting rhetoric like that Ukraine is a genocidal country run by neo-Nazis should get blocked on the spot. IMO, this is WP:UNCIVIL and rises to a WP:PA (by Super Dromaeosaurus) Cinderella157 (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2023 (UTC)}
    2. Shows the subsequent posts by Mzajac, Jeppiz and Super Dromaeosaurus. Viewed overall, the posts by Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz have collectively acted in a concerted way that can reasonably be characterised as: WP:BULLYING (specifically intimidation); uncivil; and, rising to the level of a personal attack.
    Other relevant diffs
    1. Deletion of OP by Jeppiz
    2. Reinstatement of OP by Cinderella157 with summary: Removing comments from an ECP user in good standing as far as can see is probably not appropriate and as to the general issue raised, it is not resolved. issue raise
    3. "Warning" posted to User talk:Ianbrettcooper by Jeppiz
    4. ANI matter closed by El C, and linked in the subject thread at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine by Mzajac. Mzajac was warned against using the term "hate speech" inappropriately. and other participants were generally cautioned: ... others who, intentionally or not, are stoking the flames are also cautioned to dial it back. Jeppiz and Super Dromaeosaurus participated in the ANI discussion.
    5. a recent edit at 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine evidencing that the matter of "falsely claimed" is not a settled matter.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    In my view, the OP has directly addressed a matter of content and therefore, it does not rise to WP:NOTFORUM. The ANI thread link clearly and directly relates since it was linked in the subject thread. I am following the recommendation of the closer by bringing this matter here rather than ANI.

    Like most people, I abhor the Russian invasion. I firmly believe in the principles at WP:OUTRAGE. I believe we should be circumspect in our writing and avoid the appearance of being partisan. My position does not mean that we must give undue weight to fringe theories but sometimes we must discuss them - civilly. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Paul Siebert, the first diff was by Super Dromaeosaurus (which I have just clarified) and not Mzajac. Cinderella157 (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2023 (UTC) This would suggest the OP's thousands is not unreasonable. Cinderella157 (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
    1. Super Dromaeosaurus
    2. Jeppiz
    3. Mzajac

    Discussion concerning Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz

    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 Super Dromaeosaurus

    Statement by Mzajac

    Statement by Jeppiz

    Statement by Ymblanter

    It is clear to me that Mzajac is not capable of editing in the topic area impartially. They are completely uncritical to what they say and hypercritical to what others say, often not really listening and assuming everything their opponents say is a personal attack. As a result, we see things like this (linking the whole thread, from two days ago), this, or this (whitewashing a Holocaust perpetrator). As something else, note for example low quality of argument here: This is a good example of IDONOTHEAR. I would also argue that this behavior is incompatible with being administrator (for example, the last link was doubling down in response to this, which contradicts ADMINACCT), but this is not an AE story. I would argue however, that Misplaced Pages would benefit from a topic ban of Mzajac from anything related to Ukraine. And this topic ban must be not time-limited, like it was last time - the topic ban expired, and Mzajac continued the same behavior - but unlimited, only lifted after an appeal.--Ymblanter (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Paul Siebert

    I have a long history of disagreement with Michael, and he even submitted a totally ridiculous complaint against me whish was immediately closed. That demonstrates that I by no means is sympathetic to Michael. However, upon having looked at the evidences presented by Cinderella, I have to concede that they are unconvincing. Thus, the first diff is the Michael's reaction on the statement Also, the bombings of civilians in Donbas between 2014 and 2022, which caused thousands of civilian deaths, clearly meet the UN definition of genocide. The word "falsely" should be taken out of this section. Come on, that is a TOTAL BULLSHIT!. Where the figures of "thousands of civilian deaths" came from? As far as I know, the number of civilian deaths in 2018-20 didn't exceed 10-20 people annually, and that were the figures provided by separatist authorities! Therefore, my conclusion is that Michael's rhetoric was even redundantly soft (in this case). The second diff actually redirects to the same talk page discussion, so I see no need in this duplication. Other diffs are not related to Michael, but they also seem relatively innocent.

    I partially agree with Ymblanter that Michael's behaviour is somewhat problematic. He is editing Ukraine related topics from the positions of Primordialism, which is a generally discredited concept. He does not understand some of our policies (thus, he repeatedly accused me of OR during talk page discussions, despite the fact that, as I already explained to him, WP:NOR does not apply to talk page space (so, as soon as I am not posting this information in the article's space, I cannot be accused of NOR violation). However, all these problems are minor and forgivable ... for an ordinary user. But Michael is an admin! IMO, the fact that the admin is being discussed at AE (and, Michael was even topic banned once) is hardly consistent with WP:ADMIN. I disagree with Ymblanter that Michael should be banned from Ukraine related topics. However, his redundantly emotional behaviour and insufficiently competent judgements are hardly consistent with his admin status.

    I may be wrong, but Michael's user page information suggests he has relatively close ties with Ukraine. There is a war in his country, a terrible and a totally unprovoked war. Therefore, Michael's redundantly emotional behaviour is totally understandable and forgivable. I think, a correct solution in this situation would be if Michael voluntarily suspends his admin rights (or just takes an obligation not to use them) until the war in Ukraine ends (with Ukrainian victory, of course). After that, when all passions settle, we may return to this story.--Paul Siebert (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by GizzyCatBella

    @Paul Siebert, note that there are two more editors against whom enforcement is also requested. - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:55, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Regarding Mzajac:
    Since my recent unpleasant encounter with Mzajac was already carried up here by Ymblanter, please note my renewed appeal to provide a diff or strike acusations of - repeating disinformation and defending lies (in this discussion) My comment will depend of further developments in the issue, but I'm already mostly agreeing with Paul Siebert. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by Tamzin

    I comment just to discuss one particular habit of Mzajac's that I find concerning. I neither propose nor oppose any particular remedy for it, and I note that I have had both pleasant agreements and pleasant disagreements with Michael on the topic of Russia and Ukraine. But in light of the quote above about "UN definition of a genocide", I do want to raise two past interactions I've had with Michael: At Talk:List of invasions and occupations of Ukraine § Missing items, he argued that the list should include several items that no reliable sources characterize as invasions or occupations of Ukraine. When I objected, he referred to the dictionary definition of "invasion" and an appeal to common sense. And at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Atrocities in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, regarding a disambiguation page he'd made, he argued to keep because the page was in keeping with the legal definition of "atrocity". Whether or not any sanctions are needed, I do think this is a troubling misunderstanding of all three of our core content policies (Misplaced Pages:No original research, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, and Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view)—one that has apparently come up in three separate contexts now, all related to Russia and Ukraine. All editors in such a sensitive topic should understand that general definitions of a term do not give you license to add unsourced and/or non-neutral material. -- Tamzin (she|they|xe) 07:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Super Dromaeosaurus, Mzajac and Jeppiz

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