Misplaced Pages

:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MastCell (talk | contribs) at 18:48, 5 January 2022 (→Encyclopædius: closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:48, 5 January 2022 by MastCell (talk | contribs) (→Encyclopædius: closing)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) "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

    Encyclopædius

    Encyclopædius is indefinitely topic-banned from material related to Covid-19, broadly construed and across all namespaces. Investigation revealed a number of alternate accounts operated by Encyclopædius; as he is subject to this sanction, he is not eligible for a clean start and is not permitted to use alternate accounts without clear disclosure.Several admins expressed concern about Encyclopædius's behavior in the American-politics and gender/sexuality topic areas, where he has made inflammatory and uncivil remarks. While there was some administrative support for a topic ban from these areas as well, this request will be closed with a warning for those topic areas, given the lack of consensus for stronger sanctions. MastCell  18:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    Request concerning Encyclopædius

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Hemiauchenia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Encyclopædius (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:COVIDDS
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 08:44, 24 December 2021 Sadly even the Church has been infiltrated by the globalists/Big Pharma, Justin Welby is saying Jesus would have had the vaccine. I bet Pfizer gave him a nice check. Even the Salvation Army, who my grandfather's brother was once the leader of in Australia and Canada has gone all woke and saying white people should apologize for their racism. As Elon Musk rightly says, wokeness is a "mind virus" intended to divide the masses and eat away at society. Institutions we used to trust can no longer be trusted. These comments, which do not appear to be in jest, show that Encyclopædius appears to hold a conspiracist worldview.
    2. 17:15, 27 December 2021 Describing a tweet by the FDA advising against using Ivermectin to treat COVID-19 as "propaganda"
    3. Talk:Ivermectin_during_the_COVID-19_pandemic##Pure_propaganda (27 December 2021) Total failure to understand WP:MEDRS, uses newspaper articles and single trial studies to support Ivermectin as a COVID-19 treatment, against general medical consensus.
    4. Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#And_now_the_pushback (27 December 2021) Same as above
    5. 08:24, 28 December 2021 There are a number who want a more globalised system of governance, that's not a conspiracy theory. Many of them have invested heavily in Big Pharma and are profiting from the vaccines, those I was referring to. Sure, there's a lot of disinformation and crazy claims on social media, and it's often not easy to find the truth, but I believe I'm well justified in personally believing that COVID is a planned pandemic and that controls such as passports and passes could lead to a global social credit system gradually being introduced. I believe the media, various institutions and various prominent people have been paid off to optimize the number who are vaccinated, and suppression of alternatives goes hand in hand. This was posted in response to this AE request, but was subsequently removed by Encyclopædius. I don't think I need to comment on why this is problematic.
    If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
    They are aware of this request. They reverted the notice, with the reply Utter nonsense. What's the matter, the truth is a threat eh?.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    This is far from Encyclopædius's first rodeo with COVID-19 misinformation. They were pushing the exact same line about Ivermectin back in September, see Talk:Ivermectin#Misinformation, and still appear, months later, to have absolutely no grasp of WP:MEDRS. Their comments on their talkpage from the 24 December appear to show that they have a conspiracist worldview, which is incompatible with editing an encyclopedia. In a conversation back in July at Talk:Antibody-dependent_enhancement#Misinformation_related_to_the_COVID-19_pandemic Encyclopædius also displays a conspiracist worldview, talking about Big pharma diff and claiming that Youtube/Twitter/Facebook delete most videos of non anti vaxx scientists claiming this and "credible" mainstream sources won't cover it because there is an agenda to vaccinate everybody. diff I think a permanent topic ban from COVID-19 is the minimum necessary sanction. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

    In response to XOReaster, I should note the edit they made to their talkpage in June 2021 implying that there was voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, referencing the Maricopa recount. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Discussion concerning Encyclopædius

    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 Encyclopædius

    I strongly disagree with the way Misplaced Pages echoes a certain narrative put out in the media when there are sources which contradict them. As somebody who believes in a neutral encyclopedia which is free to edit, I detest this level of control and response to anybody questioning the "narrative". I've tried to ignore COVID on Misplaced Pages but the propaganda with the horse and tweet is very obvious. I do believe that there is a global agenda to vaccinate the world population and that many people and institutions are bought and paid for, including sources we often use to claim key points. I have good reason to believe that. I don't care enough about the subject matter to feel the need to edit it or discuss it often though. I will avoid editing articles on this subject as I largely have been doing, even if I believe they are compromised, so any ban or response is unnecessary.₪ Encyclopædius 22:52, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

    Comment Regardless of what I think about the pandemic being very suspicious based on extensive research I've done, my viewpoint has no place on Misplaced Pages and is certainly not threat to content. I just believe that articles should be neutral and there's something gravely wrong with immediately trying to ban me from a topic for pointing out mainstream sources (not fringe) in India and Philippines which say Ivermectin is a success in treating Covid and linking some scientific papers to point out that the claim in the article not entirely true. I don't have a history of editing medical articles and am not interested, why would I be aware of guidelines for writing medical articles if I never edit them? Articles I've strayed into with biology and earth sciences I've always used scientific papers along with books and presumed for this they were valid sources. The bottom line is I want Misplaced Pages to be neutral and accurate and not try to suppress certain information to meet a narrative. I'm seeing the same editors editing and protecting articles, particularly those who've spoken out about the vaccines, and I am concerned that they are not neutral editors and operating in a coordinated way. Other than this I have no interest in pursuing this or anything related to COVID.₪ Encyclopædius 08:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Comment In two years, where is the evidence that I've been trying to pollute the encyclopedia with bizarre COVID conspiracy theories to warrant a ban? I don't edit medical or COVID articles and have never been of that mindset. I don't think I even mentioned Covid or conspiracies on my talk page before. All I asked was for articles on a few people speaking out against the vaccines to be neutral, and use stronger sources to make big claims. If the Ivermectin article was more neutral I wouldn't have commented. For somebody innocent without an agenda Alex you sure don't act like it. Banning me would just prove I'm a threat to your operations. ₪ Encyclopædius 09:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Question for arbitrators Why do you think I am liable to edit COVID-related articles or speak about it again in a problematic way, do you not think I get the idea from this that it's clearly a no-go zone if you want peace? Where is the evidence that I'm constantly causing problems in this field to warrant a ban? All I've asked for is to try to be more neutral and use good sources for strong claims in articles on claims related to questioning the vaccine and alternatives. If I promise to not edit or talk about it on here again, why wouldn't you trust me on that?
    Comment I have no problems with gender, sexuality or racial equality, I am all for equality and justice, I have a problem when it is used in an extreme, unpleasant way to push an agenda and it creates divisions with people and problems. I don't edit articles in this field but to dismiss me based on half a comment seems outrageous. On my political test I was slightly on the left and am very tolerant of race and sexuality when there is genuine injustice. Such comments are extremely rare from me and were more about feeling that the Salvos were singling out white people as all racist.₪ Encyclopædius 16:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Reply to Slatersteven That's been there a while, but do you see me frantically going through articles neutralizing them? Nope. I'm British and centrist in outlook, I see issues with both sides in US politics. Both should read neutrally, but it's a fact that articles were trashed on anybody claiming fraud or has an issue with the vaccines. Maybe they are indeed bogus claims, but we should still strive to write neutral articles. My stance remains but that doesn't mean I don't have the self discipline to avoid the articles or rant about them. I have no problem agreeing to avoid articles and will do if respected without being so heavy-handed, I just wish editors like Alex would respect our neutrality guidelines more and act like somebody editing in good faith who is open to suggestions. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Response to valereee Spot on, and thank you, I agree to a self-imposed avoidance of editing and commenting on COVID-related articles, it's a non-issue as I largely avoid the articles anyway. If my promise isn't kept then this would be appropriate. All I ask is for the regular editors to be a bit more respectful towards the article subjects even if they personally disagree, and not display so much ownership of them. Alex does not own our articles on COVID and related topics. ₪ Encyclopædius 21:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Response to Shibbolethink How do you define "disrupt". Two sources were mainstream newspapers in India and the Philippines. I did not intentionally want to "disrupt" anything, merely question the claim and why the horse and tweet was used. I acknowledge that Alex, Slater and a few others have put in a lot of work on this subject and there's other content I've seen that I don't have an issue with. I concede that it wasn't in good faith to accuse them of propaganda, but the horse pic and tweet didn't seem right to me. I don't have a history of editing Covid treatments, and I certainly have no intention of doing so again, I think I've only questioned the Ivermectin situation, given that I've seen two sets of completely different claims, but I don't want to pursue it further. There's been a mixed bag of information from the media in all fairness, contradictory a lot of the time, and difficult to know what is the truth or reality at times. Even the health officials have said various different things. I certainly don't fully trust certain sources as I did anyway. Y₪ Encyclopædius 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

    Response to Vanamonde Where is the evidence that I've pushed conspiracy theories in the mainspace or have a history of this anywhere? Given that I rarely even look at COVID articles, why wold you not take my word for it to avoid this subject again? ₪ Encyclopædius 20:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

    As I have said Vanamonde93 I have already agreed to stay well clear of COVID-related topics and discussing it on here again, which I have pretty much done every day for two years. In a normal wiki environment it would be fair game to ask why a horse would be used to illustrate an article on a drug administered to humans for 6 years and question how accurate one of the statements was. If there is large-scale medical census in journals and big organizations globally that Ivermectin isn't backed to treat COVID then by those guidelines we have to follow that, but one would presume that if the drug has been formally approved for domestic use in the countries the article identifies then in those countries you'd think there would be some kind of central medical consensus that considers it an effective treatment.₪ Encyclopædius 10:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    I have nothing else to say Slater.. Have a good day/night everybody, see you next year... ₪ Encyclopædius 19:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    Response to Dennis The question is Dennis Brown, why is any ban whatsoever is necessary when I've promised to now stay well clear of COVID topics after this closes. Self-imposed. I've barely even looked at COVID articles in two years. If I challenge a Covid article or talk about conspiracies again on here then it might be warranted. A number of editors are driving by and saying I was intentionally "disruptive", but that illustrates a complete lack of understanding in me as an editor who only wants the project to be neutral and accurate. Editors question neutrality and dispute accuracy all the time on here and all I did was reveal sources which contradict the claim. I hadn't even seen that big guideline before, otherwise I would have looked in journals in Japan and Mexico etc. And I haven't been monitoring sanctions and arb behaviour surrounding Covid articles to know that something like this would ever be brought here. Topic bans should be served to editors who repeatedly cause major disruption on articles. I have not done so. † Encyclopædius 09:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Response to Alex All I did was question why a bog standard "fact checker" website would be considered a reliable source to dismiss the viewpoint of a seasoned medical professional (you'd think the standard for sourcing would be the same as medicine articles) and to take care in making bold statements about misinformation. Just make sure they're neutral and the dismissal are reliable sources. I've barely looked at COVID articles, where is the evidence I've caused mass disruption in the article space and have a long history of it?. Given that any accounts I have used can be easily checked in a checkuser and has been done probably half a dozen times since I started I'm hardly likely to use accounts for nefarious purposes. I object to this unnecessary heavy-handed treatment and attempt to impose upon my freedom, Valeree seems to be the only one who gets that. It is quite frightening actually that things have come to this.† Encyclopædius 12:43, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Alex, I have NOT blown the trumpet of these people. I've never been an anti-vaxxer type either and have had lots of jabs over the years. It is valid to ask how such people who are supposed to be very respectable, highly knowledgeable medical professionals in their given fields got things so wrong. People who should on paper not be an anti-vaxxer type and who should know a lot better than this if they're in the wrong. This is not a healthy environment to build an encyclopedia if nobody can question the accuracy of a statement in a COVID article without being topic banned. A desire for neutral articles doesn't mean that I expect them to cover a Fringe viewpoint in detail or claiming that they are right against wide mainstream consensus, you're way off on this. It means a well-balanced, comprehensive coverage of their careers. Articles often have undue weight on their conspiracy claims using poor quality sourcing in relation to career or make bold claims in the lead saying they put out misinformation or are anti semetic etc. It is understandable given the widespread media coverage that articles should contain this content, but it shouldn't be a determining factor in article tone and weight of coverage. † Encyclopædius 14:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    Geert Vanden Bossche, DMV, PhD, independent virologist and vaccine expert, formerly employed at GAVI and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. According to his site. GAVI approves funding for malaria vaccines in Africa, and you think he's an anti-vaxxer? I think Geert was the one who challenged the WHO for a collegial, balanced debate on the vaccines and was dismayed at the lack of response. † Encyclopædius 14:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    Question for arbitrators The big question is why won't you trust me to agree to fully avoid editing COVID related articles and commentary? My level of activity on Misplaced Pages is nowhere near what it was, and how many COVID articles have I actually edited much less disrupted in two years? I am not a threat to actual content. All I removed from that article has stayed that way. And it's not as if I can't be check usered in the future to ensure that I've complied if that is a concern. I get the message to stay well away from this.† Encyclopædius 11:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Generalrelative

    Picking up on what Black Kite noted about the dog-whistle for "Jewish", I will point out –– without assuming bad faith, since this could just be a coincidence –– that the meander symbol which Encyclopædius has chosen to incorporate into their signature bears a striking resemblance to the logo of the Greek neo-Nazi party Golden Dawn. If this is not an intentional connotation, Encyclopædius, perhaps you could explain what it does mean? Generalrelative (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

    Thanks for the context, MrOllie, though it still begs the question of why they would choose to use that symbol in this way. And of course it is possible for the symbol to be typeable because it represents the new shekel and at the same time work as a dog-whistle because it resembles the Golden Dawn logo. Again, I don't intend to assume bad faith here, but I'd suggest that it might be informative to hear Encyclopædius comment on this. I see that until recently they used the Christian cross in the same position, e.g. in the diff Black Kite provided below: . What prompted the switch? Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Striking my previous comments since there seems to be a consensus that Encyclopædius probably doesn't intend for this symbol to convey the meaning I suspected it might. Perhaps I'm just a bit scarred from seeing it plastered all over Europe during the years when Golden Dawn was at its height. In any case, happy to drop this line of inquiry in the interest of a more focused discussion. Generalrelative (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    How on earth does such an experienced editor justify heavily redacting their previous comment –– without striking or leaving any other visual indication of what has taken place –– after it has already been responded to? For anyone not following the history of this conversation, some of the more conspiratorial stuff referred to below was removed by Encyclopædius here: Generalrelative (talk) 17:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by MrOllie

    @Generalrelative: That's the symbol for the Israeli new shekel. - MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by XOR'easter

    To the examples listed above, I'd add We also seem to be censoring when it comes to COVID, most of the people who've spoken out against the vaccines have had their biographies somewhat unfairly trashed and editors seem to be protecting them in that state . Perhaps also relevant is the claim that CNN and MSNBC and numerous mainstream media sources controlled by the left are as unreliable as Newsmax and OAN for American politics, just in the opposite direction . It is hard not to see this as a conspiratorial mindset. XOR'easter (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by Alexbrn

    How does a user with 600,000 edits not use WP:INDENT? How does an editor who used to indent now not? I appreciate this account has been CU'd and is apparently technically secure, but my mind is boggling. Alexbrn (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    • From this it is sadly apparent that for whatever reason, ‎Encyclopædius is completely in thrall to conspiracism. They're correct that this "has no place on Misplaced Pages", but their editing has put it here. Medical misinformation, such as they are promulgating, also has no place on Misplaced Pages. Given the vaccine comments, I think a TBAN from all biomedical topics is a minimum, but predict if they start on about the Archbishop of Canterbury is in the pay of Big Pharma (etc.) then their editing onward career in wider topics is likely to be a short one. Alexbrn (talk) 08:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • From the alt accounts which were temporarily (?) revealed, it appears there are ground for suspecting WP:UPE from this person. Is this something that's going to get considered here, as it seems significant? If indeed UPE did occur, I would support a site ban. 19:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Other COVID discussions

    I think Encyclopædius' edits in this area are a bit more extensive than is currently apparent in this AE

    e.g.

    At Talk:Sucharit Bhakdi (bio of extreme COVID denier and antivaxxer)

    • "Oh you again, funny that. ... Somebody of his level of expertise should know what he is talking about."

    At Talk:Antibody-dependent enhancement (reason given by antivaxxers why the COVID vaccines should be avoided)

    • "... there is an agenda to vaccinate everybody. No media outlet we consider a 'reliable' source will allow this to be discussed fairly with two sides to an argument."
    UPE

    I have spent some time looking at the contributions of the alt accounts which were temporarily named in this AE, and despite looking suspicious, ultimately I think there is no compelling case they are UPE, rather than just idiosyncratically detailed about certain companies' activities. I do think it would be good to have something out of this AE which clarifies whether Encyclopædius in permitted to make/use alt accounts. Is their strong desire to avoid a formal sanction connected to the ability to use alt accounts in future? Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    • Response to Encyclopædius - It's not "all you did" though is it? By dog-whistling with your "you again, funny that" and referring to "your operations" you are bringing your conspiracist worldview into Misplaced Pages and using in your interactions. And here you are banging the drum for Geert Vanden Bossche, another extreme antivaxxer. Basically, I can sort of understand that an editor has no clue about standards for scientific sourcing, or about WP:GEVAL but if that gets weaponized into arguments on Misplaced Pages then it becomes a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Response to Encyclopædius: You write "the articles don't even attempt to cover things neutrally, that's my issue". If this is what you now believe, then you just don't understand NPOV. Which, with 600,000 edits, is quite a sad indictment. Alexbrn (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by PaleoNeonate

    I agree that Encyclopædius edits more constructively in other areas. I doubt that the account is compromised, some previous talk page posts also lacked proper indentation. As for the COVID topic, I wonder if it's also an AP one. Those conspiracy theories are unfortunately typical. Instead of being a great effort and a step forward to mitigate the pandemic, vaccines must only be some Big Pharma money hoax, ineffective COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin must be competing establishment-suppressed magical solutions, major reputable medical bodies must be corrupt disinformation outlets (and their public health education campaigns be commercial-driven propaganda)... And for whatever strange reason "woke" is thrown in. I initially thought that an AE report was a bit early, but from some presented diffs I understand. —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Generalrelative: User:Encyclopædius/Sig (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) just fun, I presume, other characters were also used. —PaleoNeonate – 04:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    The last comment contains more of the same. "Articles should be neutral" WP:GEVAL and WP:YESPOV, part of the WP:NPOV policy, specify that a false balance should not be promoted between mainstream consensus views and fringe theories or primary research. The only part that I recognize as having merit is that some organizations have warned about the potential for some authoritarian regimes to take advantage of the situation for human right abuses. You'll find no reputable source claiming that the pandemic was manufactured and no MEDRS that claim that ivermectin is effective against SARS-CoV-2 (if there were, WP should reflect that). Non-effect or low toxicity at low doses also doesn't mean anything: most people recover without treatment, the problem is that they also transmit it and that a high enough percentage is vulnerable to severe disease, to be overwhelming. Cherry picked statistical glitches and primary research like individual trials are also very prone to error and that's also why MEDRS matters: we can only really know from a higher level when enough data is available from properly run trials. Not being a journal, WP is not to do the science, but to report about its results... If we worked with primary sources, all editors would also need to be experts in review, how to evaluate in-silico, in-vivo, in-vitro, animal studies, human trials... —PaleoNeonate – 09:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    a threat to your operations. or simply to the accuracy of the encyclopedia (and spent community time for otherwise trivial matters)... —PaleoNeonate – 16:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Hemiauchenia: But only the CSM, —PaleoNeonate – 04:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by TheresNoTime

    As noted above, I checked Encyclopædius as a potential compromise - maintaining the security of accounts with template editor permissions is fairly important as they are able to do quite a bit of damage. In the course of the check, I noted a number of accounts which were  Confirmed to Encyclopædius:

    I must however stress that TBAN notwithstanding, they have been used in a matter consistent with policy. -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    No. I said "I will out of politeness not block them as long as you either cease to edit from them or disclose your connections to them, and stick to one account (or disclosed alts) in the future." - seeing as my request was ignored, and this AE opened, it seemed pertinent to any result to mention them directly. Where do you believe I said that I wasn't going to "reveal the identity"? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 09:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC) ( Clerk note: was a reply to ProcrastinatingReader)
    @ProcrastinatingReader: I was hoping for an affirmative to "not edit further" - perhaps I should have been clearer on that expectation. I will address your other comments on your talk page if that's okay with you? -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) I didn't want to drive away Encyclopædius, which it seems I may have done - I've removed my listing of their accounts and revision deleted those revisions. That revdel is quite out of policy so I will undo it if anyone complains -- TNT (talk • she/her) 10:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

    ( Clerk note: the below were split from a threaded discussion in TheresNoTime's section)

    @TheresNoTime: didn’t you say you weren’t going to reveal the identity of the other accounts as long as they didn’t edit further from them? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    It seemed implied, since you didn’t mention the names of the account in the original message, and then gave the editor a choice to either disclose them OR stop operating them. If you’re going to disclose them anyway, it doesn’t make sense to give the choice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    I’d add by saying it's not clear he ignored your offer, since there are no edits on any three of the accounts recently, and since none edit in any relevant area it's not relevant to this AE. Plus you disclosed content in emails onwiki. Perhaps none of this violates policy but it all seems like bad practice to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Feel free, although don't feel like you have to spend more time on this matter; you've more than rectified the situation since my last comment and I don't have outstanding concerns. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by Slatersteven

    The fact they have announced they are retiring due to being topic-banned from COVID is not a good sign. I have no idea about what they were in the past, but that is a pretty good sign they are not wp:nothere now, whatever their past was.Slatersteven (talk) 15:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Maybe they have not said "due to a TBAN" but comments like this "Since the outbreak of the COVID-19 and the 2020 US election I've strongly disapproved of the way Misplaced Pages echoes the endless lies put out by the media and the way we've become censored. I'm particularly appalled at the trashing of articles and completely disregard for neutrality on anybody who has spoken out about election fraud or against the vaccines, in areas which should be as neutral as the rest of the encyclopedia." are in fact declarations of wp:rightgreatwrongs, hence why I do not give them the benefit of the doubt.Slatersteven (talk) 19:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    It maybe stale but it seems they did make a stand on election fraud claims ] ]. But OK, lets give them a chance. No TBAN but an explicit warning that if they breach their agreement there will be a TBAN.Slatersteven (talk) 11:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

    In order to demonstrate you will abide by a gentleman's agreement, it might be a good idea to stop arguing about the stuff you are being reported for. It is very hard to take seriously your offer to walk away when you are so determined to argue your case.Slatersteven (talk) 11:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by Serial

    Re. to Slatersteven, and answering the query what they were in the past: they were User:Dr Blofeld. ——Serial 18:51, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by Shibbolethink (Re: Encyclopaedius)

    I don't know much about this user, other than that they have dipped their hand into COVID matters from this perspective before (especially with regards to Ivermectin) .

    At the same time, I would say it's clear they have no interest in editing around these controversial COVID spaces on Wiki, because they know the ire it draws. I think the project would be safe, and disruption satisfactorily minimized, if Encyclopaedius were just TBAN'd from COVID-19 treatments.(see latest comments- 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)).

    This is the controversial area of this topic that the user actually disrupted. And I would actually disagree with any ban from politics or gender/sex topics. I think it's extremely important that we restrict TBANs and sanctions to actions which actually interfere with consensus building and/or involve article-space editing. The diffs presented as evidence for these other TBANs appear to be limited to user talk space, where I think it is entirely okay to have and share these opinions, as long as it is not done in a harassing manner. I think it's important for the health of the project that we do not set a precedent of TBANing based on opinions shared, but instead on actions done.

    Likewise, the core of WP:NOTHERE is counterproductive (or a lack of productive) editing. That is clearly not the case for this user. Sharing controversial opinions in user talk space, but not letting those edits show through in your article space contributions, I think should absolutely be permitted. We treat user talk space more liberally for a reason. I am rarely, if ever on the side of "CENSORSHIP! THOUGHT POLICE!" people, but i think this is the very rare situations in which that fear is justified. Don't restrict people for opinions they hold, restrict them for actions they do. We have no reason based on the conduct presented so far, to believe that Encyclopaedius has any intention to disrupt these other areas.

    Encyclopaedius should be TBAN'd only from the things they actually did disrupt, namely COVID-19 treatments. (see latest comments- 17:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC))— Shibbolethink 19:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    And just to clarify, I have very little sympathy for the "You're going to TBAN me?!? Not if I retire first!" response of this user. I do not think admin sanctions should at all be influenced by that response. It's all about precedents set and standards upheld, in my opinion. Let the restriction fit the offense. And ignore any grandstanding or soapboxing that occurs in the lead up to any sanctions. If anything, it gives me less sympathy for the actions of this user. — Shibbolethink 19:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Given @Alexbrn's recent statements, I would support a wider TBAN for Encyclopaedius from COVID-19, broadly construed, indefinitely. I say indefinitely because Encyclopaedius' approach is the issue, not just his beliefs. He does not appear to support NPOV or MEDRS as written, and is not applying them selectively to these topics. Even if the science changes, I do not believe we have evidence that this user's approach will change. — Shibbolethink 17:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Apaugasma

    Shibbolethink's statement is spot on. I've read the recent Talk:Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic#Pure propaganda discussion, as well as the user talk page discussions from which several concerning diffs were given above, and from this it is absolutely clear to me that this user should not be editing anywhere close to COVID-related issues. I also have a broader concern that the conspirational thinking in evidence is inextricably tied with a failure to identify and defer to expert opinion, both of which lie at the heart of any kind of Misplaced Pages-editing. If the user continues on this path of questioning mainstream expertise (or perhaps rather, the fact that WP should follow –and even emphasize– mainstream expertise), problems are likely to surface in other topic areas as well.

    However, I agree that we should not deal out TBANs preemptively, but only there where articles or their talk pages are affected. I think that with regard to Ivermectin (cf. already "the media is lying" in early September), that line has been crossed. If as a response to the criticism they agree not to edit in the topic area, so much the better: isn't this what a TBAN is, an agreement not to edit in a certain area for a while because other editors have raised concerns? It's meant to restore trust, and I think that could work out well if the user is able to place the concerns raised here in the right framework. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 21:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by Piotrus

    A TBAN from Covid topics seems reasonable. MEDRS exists for a very good reason, and someone who has issues understanding that should not edit medicine-related topics. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by TrangaBellam

    I do not edit in these areas but I had found his commentary on Ivermectin to be disruptive - a TBan will put an end to that. I agree that the comments on CRT etc. are concerning. TrangaBellam (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Encyclopædius

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • Yeah, I did actually wonder if the account had been compromised, but I see that User:TheresNoTime had already checked for that (User_talk:Encyclopædius#Account_checked). Regardless of the conspiracy theory issues, a refusal to follow MEDRS is immediately a red flag for editing COVID articles, and I agree we probably need a topic ban. As a complete aside, claiming that the Church of England has been infiltrated by "globalists" shows that Encyclopædius doesn't even really understand the conspiracy theories themselves, given that "globalist" is a dog-whistle for "Jewish". Black Kite (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Is a topic ban enough? Someone who is practically scuba diving in the kool aid probably needs wider sanctions. At some point, everything becomes a conspiracy. --RegentsPark (comment) 23:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I would say that a TBan would stop the immediate problems. I don't currently see any evidence that articles in other areas are being affected (though I'm not a fan of stuff like this). A lot of Encyclopædius's (good) editing is in areas like music, which are probably immune from such bizarre theories. Black Kite (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
    • As above, Encyclopaedius has done positive work in other areas less prone to conspiracy-type thinking. Hopefully a topic ban will curb the disruption while allowing that to continue. However, I will strongly caution Encyclopaedius that articles should reflect the consensus of the best available reliable sources, even if you personally disagree with it, and you will be required to hold to that standard while editing in any area. Seraphimblade 00:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • A Tban is definitely required given the evidence above, made worse as they reverted the notice, with the reply "Utter nonsense. What's the matter, the truth is a threat eh?." I also am not convinced it's enough. I see that they state that they have retired, but that shouldn't allow them to avoid the Tban. Doug Weller talk 11:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
      Also Support Tban from AP and gender/sexuality per the diffs below. Doug Weller talk 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • A COVID t-ban at a minimum, but I would include modern American Politics and Gender/Sexuality due to these comments --Guerillero 13:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
      The closer should probably remind Encyclopædius that WP:CLEANSTARTs are not allowed for accounts under active sanctions iff this discussion is closed with a topic ban, as it currently looks -- Guerillero 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I've split the threaded discussion between TheresNoTime and ProcrastinatingReader into their own sections. I think the clerknotes should make it clear how the discussion originally went, but please feel free to refactor as necessary to clarify. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure it's fair to characterize the retirement statement as "due to being tbanned from COVID". I read it as "due to being Tbanned from an area I've agreed not to edit in, which seems heavy-handed." I feel like he's got a point. Can't we just accept his promise that he'll avoid topics that are clearly COVID? Realize that a Tban from COVID is practically a Tban from 2020-202?. I'm certainly not comfortable with 'COVID, broadly construed'. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • These diffs are very concerning. A TBAN from COVID-19 is definitely needed. If the problematic comments had been restricted to talk pages, a voluntary commitment may have been sufficient, but if they're pushing conspiracy nonsense in mainspace, a sanction is inevitable. The diffs about AP2 are also concerning, but I'm not certain about a sanction there given that we have no mainspace diffs. I would support a warning about the need to follow WP:RS. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
      I replied to this on my talk page, Encyclopaedius, but the diff removing the FDA tweet and characterizing it as propaganda is quite problematic. To not support a topic ban, I need a commitment about the behavior, not the topic; Covid is relevant to too many things, and the same issues are relevant to too many other topics. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I really didn't want to dive into this, but here I am. Having unpopular opinions isn't against policy (and isn't sanctionable), however, letting that bleed into your work can be. There is obviously a problem with MEDRS/COVID, an area he normally doesn't edit in (by his own admission on his talk page). Long story short, I think a 1 year topic ban on COVID related articles and topics (not broadly construed, I really don't want to be setting a trap here), is sufficient. That will do the job of preventing disruption without going overboard. Encyclopædius is a known quantity, which doesn't justify "going easy" but it does justify keeping the sanction as targeted as possible. From my perspective, anything more than this is either simple overkill, or punishing his ideas rather than his actions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    Encyclopaedius, to be clear, the 1 year tban is the maximum I would support. While I can see there is a problem, my concern was that the sanction would be disproportionate to the disruption, in part, as a knee jerk reaction to other ideas you (seem to) hold that are minority. My observation over the years is that people with minority ideas tend to get the short end of the stick when it comes to sanctions, even when those ideas haven't bled into their edits. Not just by admin, but the community as a whole. To me, "indef" anything here would be overkill, and I see my proposed idea as something that is a compromise that addresses the problem without stepping into indef territory. However, I do see your point that this isn't an area where you have had repeated problems, as it isn't something you normally edit. With that in mind, a shorter topic would be warranted, but I get the feeling the consensus says some kind of tban is warranted, even a short one, simply to prevent disruption. This is probably more of an issue right now, given the surge, than it will be several months from now. As stated, I think 12 months is the maximum, and less would be fine, given your willingness to avoid the area and long history. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:01, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I feel the behavior shown in the evidence above is far below the increased standards that topics under discretionary sanction are under. I feel an indefinite topic ban from the topic of COVID, broadly construed, is required. I do not think retiring changes anything, it may or may not be permanent but either way the topic needs to be avoided by this user. If there is not support for an indefinite duration then I think at least 2 years is in order. HighInBC 12:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    • I agree with the suggestion of a temp ban from the Covid topic area, as some of their arguments here on the talk pages, they should be aware are nonstarters. Wearing ones belief in what they recognize is a fringe position as openly as they have doesn't help. That said, they are right on the sentiment that we (as editors) do a poor job of writing neutrally on topics taken as negative in RS. In that we tend to pile on as much negative criticism as RSes offer at the expense of covering noncontroversal aspects of the topic. Eg in Covid it absolutely is a must not to give weight to alternatives to vaccinations that don't have any widespread scientific approval. But we should still be trying to document how these all treatments came about and how they have influenced the politics of Covid. This can be done without giving credence or validity to these treatments, and can typically be using RSes. However as a group of editors, this type of approach tends to be eschewed because some feel that gives validity to the alt treatments and may seem counter to what RSes present. There is something about the focus on short term and current opinion instead of writing for the long term view here. I don't think everything they have said for is actionable and hence the need for a temp ban, but they are right in the concern about neutrality in these topic, just that there are different approaches within policy to correct them than what they have suggested. --Masem (t) 16:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

    Kendalandrew

    Indefed by Cullen328 for Disruptive Editing as a standard admin action --Guerillero 10:37, 31 December 2021 (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 Kendalandrew

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    ProcrastinatingReader (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    Kendalandrew (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
    Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#May_2014
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 24 December 2021 Abuse of primary sources and WP:OR to add negative material to a BLP
    2. 14 November 2021 Ditto
    3. 19 December 2021 IP socking to edit war and evade scrutiny
    4. Permalink of recent article history
    Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
    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

    Editor was previously reported at ANI and BLPN. Additional problematic diffs there:

    Those helped get more eyes on the editor, but it was archived without admin action. If the fear is wading into 'content disputes', I'm hoping the additional power of DS will help here.

    I'd further note that, having been appraised their editing is widely disputed, they've disappeared a few times and then returned some weeks later and engaged in more-or-less the same editing. Zero substantive participation in WP:dispute resolution -- they have zero edits in the Talk namespace, despite attempts to engage with them. The editor's single purpose is adding negative content to certain BLPs (Robert Courts, Lubov Chernukhin, Brandon Lewis, and some other now-deleted bios), which seems a lot like a grudge at this point. The thousands of characters added are pure OR, UNDUE, and much doesn't even appear in the source at all. PerpetuityGrat has broken down the issues by violated policy in separate diffs in article history (permalink) so I won't repeat those. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

    Given the edit warring rather than responding here, does someone mind making a preventative block to stop the ongoing disruption? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    diff


    Discussion concerning Kendalandrew

    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 Kendalandrew

    Statement by (username)

    Result concerning Kendalandrew

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • We aren't here to decide on content, but I can't help but notice a lot of UNDUE content. Reading his own words on his talk page make me think he has great difficulty understanding what is and isn't appropriate, so I'm torn between a competency concern or more malevolently, a NOTEHERE concern. Neither requires Arb sanctions to deal with. Regardless, I do see a lot of negative BLP entries, a singular focus in fact, and ample previous warnings. I think something radical and permanent is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Rather than come explain here, the one edit he has made since this report was filed , which was SYNTH at best (and earned him a short block for a long string of edit warring), reconfirms my previous statement. I would prefer more eyes, but I'm for an indef NOTHERE block, which is possible without AE authorization. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Dennis Brown: Kendalandrew has been around longer than NOTHERE is normally used for. But, DE would do the same amount of lifting -- Guerillero 13:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    Fair enough, and a valid point, however, people's motivations can change. People change. His focus does appear to (no longer?) be on improving the encyclopedia but instead to wedge in negative information on the thinnest or most tangential of evidence and without any consideration for neutrality. DE certainly applies here, particularly since we are talking about BLPs where there are real world consequences. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Kendalandrew will not be able to respond here for the following 31 hours, which, however, does not prevent us from continuing the discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Given the editor's lack of communication in general, I see little reason to believe that they would respect a topic ban. That being the case, I think an indefinite block for disruptive editing would be in order. As always, "indefinite" need not mean "permanent", but the editor would have to indicate a clear willingness to improve their communication, listen and respond to feedback, and change their approach going forward. Disruptive behavior in BLPs cannot be overlooked or taken lightly. Seraphimblade 19:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
    • @Kendalandrew: seeing as your block has now expired, do you have any comments to add? Strongly suggest you reply here before resuming editing any other pages. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I expected to do something definitive this evening since it's been a couple of days since the block expired but I'm stuck only with the phone which I don't like to use for administrative purposes. I don't think that running out the clock until we forget about it is going to be a solution that works. I think the solution is pretty obvious actually. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    • I find Dennis Brown's analysis persuasive, and I have no problem carrying out administrative actions with my phone. Accordingly, I have indefinitely blocked Kendalandrew for disruptive editing. This is a standard block by me as a normal administrative action, not a formal AE action. Any unblock should be along the lines described by Seraphimblade. Cullen328 (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

    RafaelJC12

    RafaelJC12 is blocked from editing Human shield for 61 days. This is the least amount of sanction I could think of that would prevent disruption at that article, and allow him time to get up to speed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:43, 2 January 2022 (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 RafaelJC12

    User who is submitting this request for enforcement
    Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    User against whom enforcement is requested
    RafaelJC12 (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
    Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel_articles_4#ARBPIA_General_Sanctions
    Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
    1. 20:37, 30 December 2021 violation of the extended confirmed restriction
    2. 20:28, 30 December 2021 same
    3. 18:30, 30 December 2021 same
    4. 05:06, 30 December 2021 same
    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)
    • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above (here)
    • Was warned repeatedly on user talk to take his concerns to the talk page and not edit the article, continues to edit-war and violate the restriction.
    Additional comments by editor filing complaint

    Pretty much every edit the user has made has been a. after being informed they may not do so. b. is edit-warring. The source distortion is also pretty severe, using Amnesty International reports to claim that they accused Hamas of using human shields when they very explicitly say "this stuff is illegal but it is not human shielding" is somewhere between POV-pushing and outright source falsification.

    Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

    Notified

    Discussion concerning RafaelJC12

    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 RafaelJC12

    When I first saw the warning in my page, I had never seen a warning like that before. The warning didn't state (or at least that's how I understood it) that I could not make edits. The first person that explicitly stated that I wasn't suppose to do that was nableezy, but after I saw this edit made by an IP address, I just assumed it was fine for me to edit too. I also received a "thanks" notification from another mod in that page, so that reinforced my perception (why would a mod "thank" me for something I wasn't supposed to do?). Anyway, I guess I'm just going to stay on the talk page until I get 500 edits so I can join the cool kids of this platform. RafaelJC12 (talk) 18:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: Saying that I "don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook" because of that edit is extremely unfair. I was using her own social media as primary source, which is something that the article was already doing before I got there (so I could only conclude that I could do the same). If you check this version of the article, her personal Facebook was the first reference. By the way, the current article is still using her personal Twitter as a primary source. I also had a secondary source to write that text. Any honest person can see that the mods of that article were doing everything they could not to protect the rules, but to hide any mention of an event that was very important (unless you think it's absolutely fine that someone that writes comics for kids is a p3d0phile, and you think any mention of the p3d0philic NSFW art they drew should be destroyed). I think my frustration in their talk page was pretty reasonable, since the arguments they provided ware just as bad as yours. RafaelJC12 (talk) 18:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Dennis Brown: The are very well-written biographies that, seemingly, "don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook", the article about Elon Musk, for example, uses his personal Twitter account as a primary source three times. RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    Hey @Dennis Brown:, if you disagree with anything I wrote, you could provide an argument. RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

    @Valereee: You said "This is not a platform", but this article states "Misplaced Pages is the world's only practical platform for facilitating collaboration among people who have highly specialized interests and a strong desire to share the encyclopedic information which promotes those interests with the world." (I'm not sure why you would say this is not a platform, seems like a bad way of making your point. The word "platform" doesn't imply informality, as you seem to suggest). Also, "When an editor who is more experienced than" me gave me a "thanks" after breaking the rule, I think it was reasonable for me, as someone inexperienced with this platform, to be confused as to what exactly the rule entailed to. That was the point I was trying to make. RafaelJC12 (talk) 22:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

    Statement by Cullen328

    There is no need to delve too deeply into the content of the edits (which are problematic). The fact of the matter is that this person should not be editing in the Israel/Palestine conflict topic area until they have made at least 500 edits, even if their edits were golden. Their current count is 88 edits, and so the math is obvious. I am unsure at this point what sort of sanction is needed, but it seems sure to me that this defiance of the extended confirmed restrictions cannot be allowed to continue. Cullen328 (talk) 06:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by Shrike

    The user should understand that he must abide and follow the rules I think a stern warning from admin will do the trick as the previous warnings came from the users that he is currently in dispute if he will continue probably blocks should follow also it seems that user has stopped to edit the topic. --Shrike (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

    It seem right now that user participate in talk page and stopped editing of the article space. Shrike (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

    Statement by Selfstudier

    A rather unprepossessing start, perhaps leave the IP area alone entirely, talk pages included, until 500 useful worthwhile edits have been amassed and then try again? Selfstudier (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

    @RafaelJC12: I think you meant to ping valereee not DB.Selfstudier (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

    Result concerning RafaelJC12

    This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
    • I believe at this point an appropriate response would be a long-term, possibly indefinite block from Human shield.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    • The forth diff isn't as big an issue because they weren't notified of the issue until after that, but that still leaves us with 3 edits after it was abundantly clear they couldn't edit that area, and they have ample opportunity to just read the page notice. Unrelated, but this diff at BLPN demonstrates they don't understand the difference in an RS and Facebook. Their overall demeaner on their talk page demonstrates they don't really care what the "rules" are, that they are somehow special. The more I look, the more I find someone who wants to add material to article, but isn't going to listen to anyone about how to do it within policy. ie: here to add salacious, poorly sourced and/or undue content, but not here to actually build an encyclopedia. I'm ok with a disrespect for authority, but they have a disrespect for everyone, actual distain that is bleeding into everything they do. A "everyone is stupid except me" attitude. We noticed it only because it landed at AE, but there are larger issues. I'm at a loss as to a solution at the moment. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
    RafaelJC12, your responses, which focus on how everyone is wrong except you, speak for themselves. You aren't the first new editor who thinks they understand better than all the experienced editors. I'm not impressed and a bit worried. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    I'm recommending a tban of any duration, to at least prevent further disruption in a few hundred edits. Can't really justify more, although I can feel it coming. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
    • RafaelJC12, you may not realize yet that WP works very differently from social media, gaming, and forum sites. As someone who is not very experienced, your best bet is to stay far away from any controversial subjects until you understand better how we work. That's one of the reasons fo 500/30 bans, which are indeed real. When an editor who is more experienced than you tells you there's a rule, don't just look around and see if you can find someone else who isn't following that rule and decide that means you don't have to either.
    You said Anyway, I guess I'm just going to stay on the talk page until I get 500 edits so I can join the cool kids of this platform. That seems to be indicating you 1. think you can game the system and 2. think there's a "cool kids of this platform". This is not a platform. It isn't a game. It's an encyclopedia. There are tens of thousands of adults here trying to create a useful reference guide, not a MMRPG. Again the reason we have the 500/30 rule for some subject areas is to give you a chance to see that Here Be Dragons and you need to tread carefully. —valereee (talk) 22:11, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
    I removed that dob source as not good enough for full dob, which is a BLP privacy issue and requires either wide publication in RS or very clear self-source statements like "Today is my 32nd birthday" or some such. —valereee (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2022 (UTC)