Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request concerning Ludwigs2

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against an editor 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 a previously alerted editor who engages 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 fewer 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.

The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

A couple of reminders:

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

Closing a thread:

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

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Göycen

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Göycen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Sanction being appealed: Indefinite block for topic ban violations, see block log and see enforcement log

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

Notification of that administrator: I'm aware. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:59, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Göycen

I am writing to appeal my indefinite block. I fully understand that my editing on contentious topics led to this, and I want to explain the context to show that I have learned from my mistakes.

When I first started on Wikipedia last year, I began contributing without a full understanding of some important guidelines, which I now recognize is not an excuse. My extended confirmed status was revoked for WP:GAME. This happened because right after getting the status, I started editing contentious topics. To get the status, I had tried to align Turkish Wikipedia's geographic naming conventions with the English one. In Turkish Wikipedia, village names are organized under city names, but there was no clear standard for Turkish places on English Wikipedia. Without looking for a guideline, I moved many pages. I genuinely thought this was a helpful contribution that would also help me gain extended confirmed status. I now understand this was disruptive. I should have checked for country specific guidelines first, or used the main geographic naming and redirecting guidelines. My extended confirmed status was rightly revoked.
My extended confirmed status is an important part of this context. I used to mistakenly believe that reverting disruptive edits in good faith could not violate guidelines(including my last appeal). I now understand this was wrong and why I received warnings. In the time between gaining and losing my status, I was in disputes with two other users. This was discussed on the ANI board, and because my status was revoked during the discussion, I was no longer allowed to participate. During ANI board discussion, I was advised to use talk pages instead of edit warring or going to ANI. So I started writing on the talk page of each disputed topic and pinging the editor involved. This was another violation, with aspersions and civility issues. My continued involvement was inappropriate. At the time, I did not fully grasp that this meant I also had to stay away from the talk pages itself after losing my status. Continuing to reply earned me a 24 hour ban and indefinite topic ban from AA related pages. Immediately after the 24 hour ban, this time in a more civil way I wrote again to a talk page of an article, which led to another week of ban.
My most recent indefinite block was for reverting edits on Armenia Azerbaijan related food pages. The edits were from a suspected sockpuppet user, and one the page is connected to the Armenia Azerbaijan conflict. I genuinely believed I was improving the articles and knew the edits were borderline. However, I mistakenly thought my good faith intentions justified my actions, Since I was not really editing heated topics. On the Pekmez page, which was not protected at the time, I made an obvious violation by reverting an edit based on Armenia Azerbaijan dispute.
Finally, it is important I explain why most of my edits were in contentious areas. It became a personal issue. Outside of the problems with the two editors, most of my edits were reverts of a single user. When I started editing, I found an IP address making disruptive edits, pushing POV with sources that were impossible to check. I took this very seriously and even went to city libraries to verify the sources, which did not support the edits. After more research, I found this was a sockpuppet of a known disruptive user. Looking at long years of edits from related sockpuppet accounts, I saw major disruption on Azerbaijan related pages, and these edits were often the latest versions, left unchecked. Seeing the effort and receiving a lot of Personal attacks from this user, which still continues, I began a personal mission to systematically revert these edits after careful verification. I did not revert edit contents that were supported by sources and check sources for each edit. As you can imagine, this took a lot of effort. I started sockpuppet investigations¹ ², asked for admin protection on culturally significant pages. When the banned the user returned with another IP after couple weeks, I again reverted the disruptive edits, which violated arbcom guidelines and got me a warning. The only solution seemed to be gaining extended confirmed status. Shortly after I did, I went back to reverting the sockpuppet edits. This led to more disputes, my topic ban, and finally, my indefinite block. After these events in last june and july, I only made a few scientific edits. Recently, I saw the sockpuppet had returned because the IP range ban expired, and I once again made the mistake of reverting their edits and violating guidelines. I provide this context not to excuse my actions, but to show that I now understand the entire situation, what I misunderstood or partly ignored before, and how I must act if I am unblocked.
Following my latest appeal and after reviewing of Wikipedia's guidelines by reflecting, I now clearly understand that good faith alone does not justify making edits in contentious areas, especially when under a topic ban. I mention my "good faith" only to explain my past intentions and to assure you that my future contributions, if my block is lifted.

If my block is lifted, I sincerely promise the following:

I unconditionally agree to not edit, comment on, or participate in any way on any page or discussion related to the Armenia Azerbaijan topic area, broadly construed.
I will be cautious when dealing with disputes and interactions, especially those involving sockpuppet concerns.
I will not take issues personally. In case of a dispute, I will always ask other editors or admins for help or consult the guidelines. I will avoid creating civility problems.
If I receive a warning on any issue, I will immediately stop and learn about the related guidelines. I now recognize that not knowing the rules is not an excuse for my edits.

I deeply value Wikipedia and want to be a responsible contributor. I kindly ask you to reconsider my block in light of my sincere intentions, my clear understanding of my past mistakes, and my commitment to following the rules. Thank you for your time.

Here is my previous appeal, which lacked full explanation and was vague and had a bit of WP:Listen. Göycen (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear asilvering, it could be any edits, excluding good faith mistakes, that disrupt the Wikipedia articles, it could be obvious and major or hidden. Besides major and obvious ones, writing unsourced information, removing sourced information, disrupting a page to align with certain political agenda or POV. For sockpuppet, as I already referred in my case, I would gather evidence and as I did before I would create a report in the necessary board. In case of big disruptive edits I would ask for temporary or permanent page protection in ANI. I know my topic ban also covers sockpuppet investigations in AA topic area. Göycen (talk) 12:45, 5 July 2025 (UTC) Copied reply to asilvering from user talk page. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 5 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Guerillero, Göycen already has an indefinite tban from AA, placed in June 2024. Topic ban violations led to a 1-week block in June 2024 and the indef block placed last month. One issue with their last AE appeal was that they did not initially mention the tban; this time, they do mention it in their second bullet point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:17, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping this can get a little attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Asilvering, I'm sure there's no written rules about consideration of more than one AE unblock request. I'd suggest to you that we'd be better off without an unwritten rule. We don't have such an abundance of AE admins that we can afford the attrition of multiple unblock requests, and this sort of appeal is not at all a review of the previous decline's merits. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade, TBAN already exists. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by asilvering

Happy to answer any questions. With Rosguill, I was part of last month's consensus not to unblock, so for the purposes of appeal I think we're both as involved as Firefangledfeathers. (Liz was less of a "no" and more of a "not yes".) -- asilvering (talk) 22:55, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not fully to the same degree, but fully enough that I don't think it's right to take part in the main discussion. I wouldn't touch a regular unblock I'd already declined either. -- asilvering (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, @Firefangledfeathers. We're now at 2:1 on this, which isn't exactly WP:1AM, but I'll take my lumps. I Don't Like It, but I like leaving editors hanging for two weeks even less. Will have another look. -- asilvering (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Göycen

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Göycen

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

Procedural comment responding to asilvering I disagree that AE admins who decline a request are as INVOLVED as the admin who placed the block. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 11 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to this appeal, but the topic ban from AA needs to be real and not an informal agreement. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just posting to prevent bot archiving; I'll try to dig into this more when I can. I don't want to see an appeal get archived without a decision actually being made on it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:13, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I would agree with Guerillero's suggestion, an unblock with an actual topic ban from AA, not just an informal agreement. And a clear understanding that any further misconduct is likely to lead to the indefinite block being reinstated. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:44, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the response, I'm withdrawing my support for an unblock. None of writing unsourced information, removing sourced information, disrupting a page to align with certain political agenda or POV is vandalism. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Göycen, sorry for the "pop quiz" questions after you've already written such a lengthy unblock request, but: can you explain a) what we mean by "vandal"/"vandalism" on Wikipedia, and b) what you would do if you spot an account/IP that you think is a sockpuppet? -- asilvering (talk) 06:15, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Seraphimblade, hold on, I think we can work with this.

@Göycen, I'm glad to hear this about sockpuppetry, in particular that you understand that you can't deal with AA related sockpuppets while under a topic ban. Regarding vandalism, you say it excludes good faith mistakes, which is good. But it's very important to be aware that vandalism excludes good-faith editing of any kind. If someone is here because they are attempting to improve the encyclopedia, even if they are pov-pushing, removing sourced or unsourced information, etc, they are not engaged in vandalism. I asked the question about vandalism partly because you had previously given this as a reason for intervening in behaviour you found disruptive, and this is part of what led to your earlier problems. But the other reason I asked this question is because I hoped your response would also answer a much more important question, namely, "what does WP:AGF mean to you, in practice?"

You don't need to respond - I have more to say here and I think we can work with this appeal, but I have to step away from this and I wanted to get at least this bit up so that your appeal doesn't close as declined before I make it back. -- asilvering (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RememberOrwell

RememberOrwell is indefinitely topic banned from COVID-19 --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning RememberOrwell

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: RememberOrwell (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:ARBCOVID-19

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

02:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Adds image taken from Ivermectin misinformation site c19ivm.org to COVID-19 misinformation. This image has formed part of previous WP:AE report at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#RememberOrwell
03:39, 23 June 2025 (UTC) I revert it
10:14, 23 June 2025 (UTC) Starts discussion arguing for inclusion of misinformation from c19ivm.org
10:35, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "What is up with your and TarnishedPath's apparent aggressive attitude and obsession with this article/topic? Seems to be something you have a close connection to. Do you?"
10:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "You asked a question that had a presumption built into it so that it couldn't be answered without appearing guilty. Do you use logical tricks like that intentionally?"
10:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC) "As you refuse to answer and are using logical tricks, I choose to disengage. You have made it clear I am not welcome here."

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive350#RememberOrwell RememberOrwell warned for personal attacks

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 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

RememberOrwell has previously been warned for personal attacks in relation to discussions of the topic area nothing has changed. TarnishedPath^talk 11:07, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that the discussion which occurred at Special:PermanentLink/1296905548#Your submission at Articles for creation: Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (June 22) is covered by WP:ARBCOVID-19 as the page the discussion is about (Draft:Haro v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals) is covered by the CTOP. In that discussion RO argues that WP:GNG is something different than what experienced editors understand it to be and that AFC reviewers are misrepresenting policy. TarnishedPath^talk 09:14, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1296965136

Discussion concerning RememberOrwell

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 RememberOrwell

Statement by Alpha3031

I was kinda wondering what kind of fights Orwell has been getting up to since January. Claiming an AfC decline is against 5P1 apparently (the one about being an encyclopedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:42, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with fiveby's comment which seems to imply both, or any of the other editors involved have acted inappropriately in any way. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:56, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fiveby

An AE report for this? Looks like a couple battleground editors trying to bait others into "civility violations". Happens often at LL article, it's boring because most editors are transparent and tedious about it—at least they could try for a bit of style. For the supposed civility issues TBAN both or tell both to grow up a little.

However, per BC's WP:NOTDUMB comment the third time trying this with the image should go a long ways toward a TBAN for RO. fiveby(zero) 14:30, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Something's off here. Why a dogged insistence on inserting a screenshot from a site which isn't even discussed in the target article? It is, in contrast, discussed at Ivermectin during the COVID-19 pandemic#Misleading meta-analysis websites where RememberOrwell has also tried to insert it. I am sure there is no failure of intent here, but going to DEFCON ONE on editors for disagreeing isn't wise, especially on a WP:CTOP. Likewise to AfC reviewers.[1] Some toning-down is needed. Bon courage (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fiveby: Expecting "a bit of style" at AE? You want the Moon on a stick, you do ... Bon courage (talk) 09:07, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning RememberOrwell

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

A topic ban for RememberOrwell would probably make sense at this point --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 08:15, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The previous AE thread was closed without formal action, but with an informal warning, as the underlying dispute was moot. Here again RememberOrwell has made personal attacks and then ended the underlying dispute. That shows that this is capable of repetition yet evading review, so I do think some formal action is merited here. That said, I'm not convinced as to a TBAN versus a formal warning. @RememberOrwell: I'd really like to hear from you. Unlike a lot of FRINGE-related disputes we get at AE, this does seem like a situation where both sides are trying to portray misinformation and misinformation, rather than one trying to legitimize it. On the other hand, it's not okay to accuse people of a COI without evidence. So I'd appreciate your thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:37, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As RememberOrwell has had notice of this request and plenty of time to comment at it, I think we should proceed with the presumption that they do not intend to do so (though of course they remain free to do so if desired). Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:49, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given the previous informal warning, I could get behind a topic ban. I might have been persuaded to a formal warning but the ignoring of this isn't giving me good feelings that a formal warning will get through to the editor. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If they're choosing not to participate in this AE thread, then they should not be participating in the topic area, especially given that Jack McCoy—style withdrawn personal attacks are part of the issue here, and this furthers that pattern of evading accountability. I favor a COVID TBAN. In the event of an appeal, what I'd want to see is a credible commitment to avoid personal attacks and take accountability in this topic area. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 07:52, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, not showing up here is a complete refusal to communicate, which means they shouldn't be editing in contentious topics. Valereee (talk) 19:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Editking100

Editking100 is informally warned that casting aspersions without evidence is unacceptable, and that the burden of evidence lies on an editor seeking to retain or reinstate challenged material to find and cite a source which specifically confirms the material in question. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:05, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Editking100

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Azuredivay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Editking100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

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

Account created only 28 days ago, and is being disruptive across Wikipedia.

17 June - Making false accusations of racism for this comment
23 June - Removes maintanence tag with misleading edit summary
23 June - Restored largely unsourced material removed by Cerium4b.
23 June - Minutes later editor then hounds contributions by Cerium4b and reverts them in multiple places without any rationale [2][3][4][5][6]
23 June - Never edited this article before,[7] but is edit warring here by falsifying the established consensus found on talk page.
June - 26 June - Not assuming good faith. Writes: "Clearly the motive to raise this deletion is highly questionable, outright biased and definitely not in a good faith."
falsifies this Wire source as "selective addition (especially quoting the Wire source) which says it's not a official gov confirmation but a personal opinion of someone". He also makes a misleading claim that the figure has to be officially from the government then only it can be included.
26 June - Repeats his problematic claims that he made above.

This editor is thoroughly problematic. Their creation of Draft:Piddi Media should leave no doubt. Azuredivay (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Date Explanation
Date Explanation

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics): [8]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Azuredivay's statement contains 406 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@Seraphimblade: Regarding #4 , I have linked many diffs in its analysis, the overlap is at over five pages and in quick succession and the reverts themselves are not constructive, as these two diffs which I already cited above about restoration of unsourced content (tagged with cn as well) prove.[9][10]

That said, a warning could be necessary only if Editking100 was sincere, however, he is abiding by nothing contrary to what he promised here, or what he said on the ANI report earlier.[11] He has resumed edit warring on Shubhanshu Shukla by making 2 reverts[12][13] after making multiple reverts on the same article just a few days ago,[14][15][16] and is rapidly making false accusations of casting aspersions against another editor on talk page.[17][18] Azuredivay (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: I would like to bring to your attention that Editking is still edit warring and has made 2 more reverts[19][20] since my message above. He made a total of 4 reverts in just 32 hours and is making rude messages on talk page by assuming bad faith such as:

"let alone with me and straightaway choose to mass revert content in bad-faith"[21]
"Both IP are doing non-constructive and disruptive mass-reverts here."[22]

I don't think a simple warning is going to work given the continued problematic editing by this user even during this report. Azuredivay (talk) 11:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [23]

Discussion concerning Editking100

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 Editking100

Editking100's statement contains 936 words and is within 10% of the 920-word limit.

Extension granted to 920 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:32, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Seraphimblade my detailed reply after the Azuredivay latest content is put in my talk page here [[24]] Kindly check it out

I wish to respond to the allegations with facts and transparency, backed by sources and contributions that clearly reflect my constructive intent.

1) The issue raised against me has already been addressed in great detail here: [[25]]. Even administrator Rosguill noted that such matters should not be escalated to ANI. I gave a prior explanation on the article talk page, and I’ve worked constructively across hundreds of pages. My editing history does not align with WP:NOTHERE behavior as per said by them.

2) There was nothing misleading in the edit here: [[26]]. I removed a maintenance tag citing improved grammar and based on this wikilink. The same page linked before and after this edit is: [[27]]. It contains sourced data, and the same is supported by this third-party source: [[28]]. I never knew that changing 'Asian airline' to 'airline in Asia' and backing the claim based on a already attached wikilink would land me into huge trouble.

3) Here: [[29]] — a valid Deccan Herald source was already present. The complete removal by Cerium4b lacked justification, so I reverted it to preserve the referenced version. Currently i got sources to back the same data and are attached as can be seen here [[30]].

4) Cerium4b made several deletion requests and removals from Hinduism-related articles. See their contributions here: [[31]]. Their deletions were denied or reverted by others, as seen in the page histories of [[32]], [[33]], and [[34]]. I only restored content that had previously existed; I added nothing new.

5) The discussion here: [[35]] concluded there was no consensus to merge. My edit was unrelated to merging and concerned the fact that there’s no formal confirmation of party dissolution. See edit: [[36]]. I reverted just once to a previously established version, which does not amount to edit warring as also confirmed by Toddy1 below.

6) In this AFD: [[37]] — over 10 users made similar points before me. I highlighted inconsistency in nominating this page while other astronauts from the same mission (with similar or fewer sources) were not. I also correctly referenced misuse of WP:NEWSORGINDIA clause. The closing admin also confirmed that my points were valid: [[38]].

7,8) I made my reasoning clear here: [[39]]. The Wire article cited says “India has not disclosed how much it has paid” in the lead making it speculative. This supports my objection to including unsourced figures. Other editors agreed here too: [[40]]. Here, I suggested an RFC to resolve the disagreement about cost info in the astronaut article, because most similar pages don’t include such speculative claims. This was reverted by a first edit of a IP editor. Another new account: [[41]] and an IP [[42]] made edits suggesting prior involvement and later re-added arbitration warnings to my talk: [[43]]. I also received personal attacks here: [[44]].

This is the summarized version of my statement, for the previously attached long version including reply to user Toddy1, see [[45]]

Thank you! Editking100 (talk) 22:11, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Seraphimblade I got your points completely and have looked into WP:V as you suggested. I'll adress the first 3 Diffs here, as the remaining (4-8) were found to not-violate anything by you and Toddy1 above.

In the case of Diff 3, i would like to inform you that, i along with another editor have already put references to the edits that i reverted back to original (which needed citations). [[46]] As you can see i mentioned in the talk page that the already attached Deccan Herald (source 39) attached above also has the same content (that needed citations) here. I also suggested another source of historyofodisha.in which was latter used by another editor to cite the previously unreferenced information. It can be clearly confirmed in the edit history page given below, that the references are now added to the content i reverted back. [[47]].

In the case of Diff 2, i removed citation needed tag based on the already attached wikilink [[48]] that has sources to back the claim, as i mentioned above (and also in the edit summary). Later on i knew that it wasnt a correct way and so i have never repeated it again. This was merely a one-off incident and i have never removed citation tags neither before nor after this, as you can see from my other 1500+ edit contributions.

In the case of Diff 1, i appolozised not once but twice in the talk page, before the ANI was raised against me. Look at this for confirmation [[49]] here i said "So sorry, I take my comments back and will not come to this page ever again", [[50]] here i also said "Sorry...Sorry, Peace for all...". Even after that an ANI was raised against me. But i also want to add on that my talk page suggestions in the Disney+ Hotstar and Disney Star were constructive, I had sources with facts and data to back my claims like [[51]] and i also provided detailed explainations and counter explainations with previous such cases like in the case of Twitter/X as can be seen on both the talk pages, and i provided the reason as to why i raised the allegation previously here [[52]] which even an admin confirmed in my ANI [[53]] and said that i never repeated it again.

To sum it up. I vow to follow WP:V and be civil forever in addition to the constructive editing i am doing in my topics of interest like sports, travel, aviation etc in wikipedia. Thank you all. Editking100 (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Toddy1

Toddy1's statement contains 302 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

@Editking100: You said both here and at WP:ANI that you have a clean history. What do you mean by that?

You proved that you are capable of spotting and reporting a suspicious editor - see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1191#User:ইমরান ভূইয়া suspicious mass edits - the editor you reported got blocked as a sock.

It is surprising that an account that is about a month old is editing at a rate of 46 edits/day. Did you have previous experience with Wikipedia?-- Toddy1 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the complaint is an over-reaction to a series of minor and non-existent problems. For example:

Editking100 was wrong to talk about racist statements on Talk:Disney Star;^[54] it was the wrong page to do this on. He/she should have done it at WP:ANI or WP:AE.
Editking100's edit-summary described his perception of part of his/her edit, but did not mention deleting the maintenance tag.^[55] He/she probably did not realise that deleting the maintenance tag was important. A warning on Editking100's talk page explaining this was all that was needed.
A reasonable edit by Editking100, with a sensible edit summary.^[56] Nobody reverted Editking100's edit. Nor is there discussion of it on the article talk page. So why are you complaining about it here?
Having spotted what Editking100 perceived to have been a bad edit by an editor, Editking100 looked to see whether the editor had made other questionable edits and reverted them. Experienced editors and admins do that all the time.
You call making one edit^[57] an edit war! I could have understood that, if other editors had been edit warring, and Editking100 had joined it on one side. But that did not happen.

-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:51, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Editking100

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

Editking100, if this is your first time at AE, you should really read the instructions at the top of the page that are in the pink section. AE has word limits and diff limits, both of which you have exceeded. Also, you should note that The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported which means that you should not use your limited number of words talking about other editors here as no action will be taken against them. This discussion is about your editing and that of the complaint filer. Also, keep your comments to your own section. I have moved some you made to Toddy1 to your own section. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editking100, the word limits are not suggestions, and you have had plenty of time to trim your statement. If you have not done so shortly, it will be truncated at the 500 word mark; I presume you would probably prefer it to look differently than that. If you really feel you need more than that, you may request an extension after you have trimmed it to 500 words or less. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:08, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's at least substantially better. Given that I'll give an extra 120 words, but please don't add to your statement unless you request more. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, having a look through the provided diffs:
Diff 1 ([58]) is concerning. It is not "racist" to simply state the geolocation of an IP, and that's a serious accusation that should not be made lightly. This appears to be casting aspersions.

Diff 2 ([59]) is indeed inappropriate, as a "citation needed" tag is removed but no citation was added. If that's the only time it happened, I'm willing to presume it was mistake rather than malice, but Editking100 will need to be careful not to do that again. The only time you remove a citation needed tag is if you have actually added a citation that confirms the fact in question, or if you are removing the challenged material as well.

Diff 3 ([60]) is again concerning. When material is challenged as unreferenced, the burden is on any editor who wishes to restore it to find and cite a source which confirms the challenged material. Editking100 did not do so; they just added the material back, "citation needed" tag and all.

Diff 4 ([61]) is a revert of an edit that Editking100 apparently disagrees with, and there was no further edit warring after that. One overlap does not hounding make, either, so I don't see anything actionable here.

Diff 5 ([62]) was not any kind of edit against consensus, as the cited discussion, first, had a "no consensus" outcome (in the interest of full disclosure, I closed it as such, but I was not a participant nor do I have any opinion regarding it), and secondly, that discussion regarded an article merge, not article editing. One edit is not edit warring. So, again, I don't see anything actionable here.

Diff 6 ([63]) could do without the hyperbole, but it's pretty mild as AfD comments I've seen go, and the AfD indeed did close with an overhwelming "Keep" result. I wouldn't sanction based on something like that.

Point 7 has no diff link to an on-wiki edit, so I'm not sure what's being claimed here.

Diff 8 ([64]) is a discussion of a source; this is a content discussion and not for AE to settle.

In sum, I think Editking100 needs to carefully review the verifiability policy, especially as regards challenged material. If they will agree to do that, I would not impose any sanctions at this time, but I think an informal warning that continued breaches of that policy are grounds for sanction is in order (and if you're going to call someone racist, you better have very solid evidence for that claim; else knock that off). AE requests are limited to discussion of the filer's and respondent's conduct, so I do not and will not address claims made against any third party here; if anyone thinks it's necessary, file a separate request regarding them. I'll give Editking100 an additional 300 words (above the current 620) for the purpose of replying to this; please keep your response confined to what you intend to do. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zanahary

Not a 1RR violation. (De minimis non curat lex.) No other allegations of user conduct issues. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 08:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Zanahary

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:58, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Zanahary (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:PIA

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

01:32, 8 May 2024 and 01:29, 8 May 2024 About a year ago removes a sentence “When used against Jews, it may take the form of the pejorative claim of "self-hating Jew"”, together with all four of its sources. Rationale was disputing whether the sources were clear enough.
07:13, 29 June 2025 After sources were strengthened, returns to remove an equivalent sentence, again with all its sources, this time with the rationale Lead must follow body; no mention of this anywhere but in lead
08:29, 29 June 2025 After it was added back and a section was then added to the body, removes the section added to the body, removes three sources, and cuts a quote.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 19 Oct 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Onceinawhile's statement contains 152 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

See the discussion at Talk:Weaponization of antisemitism#1RR_and_removal_of sources. Zanahary refused to self-revert, and stated You’ll have to take this to a noticeboard if you want to settle it as a 1RR violation—I just don’t agree with you that my first edit in contention was a revert.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [65]

Discussion concerning Zanahary

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 Zanahary

Zanahary's statement contains 457 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

This morning I removed a clause from the lead of Weaponization of antisemitism as being a violation of WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. After Oiaw restored it with a new piece of body text, I reverted his change and replaced it with different body text, keeping the lead phrase I’d earlier removed (with fewer citations attached to it—I removed those that didn’t support the prose or even relate directly to the article topic). Oiaw indicated on the article Talk that my initial removal was a reversion. I told him that I don’t agree. New to his argument is the first diff linked from last year, showing me removing similar content once before. The latter diff from 2024 doesn’t appear to be relevant.

I don’t see how the first 2024 diff implies that this morning’s removal was a reversion. My edit did not restore the page to a previous version or undo an edit—it was just the removal of old content. Unless Oiaw is arguing that my edit reverted the page to this state, which it obviously did not. It would be appreciated if he clarified whether that is the argument he is raising with that diff. As I see it, I performed a non-reverting edit (removing the lead clause), then reverted Onceinawhile, then self-reverted (for technical reasons; Oiaw is not talking about this edit) to adapt what Oiaw had written using some of the sources in the previously reverted material. That’s four edits, in order:

1. Removing a lead phrase, not undoing anyone else’s edit nor resulting in the restoration of a previous page version.

2. Reverting the phrase’s restoration along with the addition of new body text by Oiaw.

3. Self-reverting the previous edit, so that I could…

4. Write a bit of prose in the body, allowing the lead phrase to remain (as now reflecting the body).

That’s one reversion.

Just for clarity, the self-revert was so that I could cite some of the sources attached to the removed lead phrase in my new piece of text. It was easier to work from that version of the article than it would have been to copy over the Wikitext from the old version. This is, again, not one of the reverts Oiaw is alleging. Oiaw says that the first two edits above were reversions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanahary (talk • contribs) 22:15, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that context Aquillion—my answer to your question is yes: I took that text to be longstanding and status quo when I edited it (though I hadn't gone in the history to look at how old it was; I just remembered it having been there awhile (probably from a combination of its latest monthlong tenure and its previous life)), and I still believe in this assessment. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 14:54, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Aquillion's statement contains 80 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

For reference, the text removed in the first 29 June diff above was added a little over a month ago, here. I can understand the frustration around how any removal is notionally a revert and how easy it can be to brooch the WP:1RR as a result (I even wrote an essay about it), but I guess I'd ask Zanahary this - do you believe the text you removed is longstanding (and therefore represents the status quo) or not? --Aquillion (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Zanahary

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

I do not see a violation of 1RR here, and so would close this with no action. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to think that if text has been in an article over a month, that removing it is no longer a revert for 1RR purposes. I don't see a violation of 1RR here. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:16, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan f1

Blocked indefinitely with the first year as a CT block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Jonathan f1

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Bluethricecreamman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Jonathan f1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:PIA5

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

2 July 2025 edits here sum up to at least 1000 words
27 May 2025 I'm counting at least 1000 words here, up to about 1.5k words
6 June 2025 at least 1.5 k words here again too
[66] warning from SFR about the word limits as well in yet another section in the Gaza Genocide talk page.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

November 2020 Article-space ban due to Jonathan F1 doing WP:TE

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

Warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 1 April 2025, and 2 July 2025 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 1 Nov 2023 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Bluethricecreamman's statement contains 496 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Significant reports by multiple users to ask to stop foruming in general (myself included) on many contentious topic areas. Generally engaging in WP:TE regardless.

[67] - related to Gaza genocide
[68] - related to Killing of Brian Thompson (technically not part of the PIA area)
[69] - gaza genocide again
[70] - ask to not forum again
[71] - collapsing a giant thread cuz Jf1 was doing foruming

Pinging @Sameboat, saw they were thinking of doing an ANI thread on User_talk:JzG#Request_for_talk_page_topic_ban_for_Jonathan_f1. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Seraphimblade: apologies, I could have been more clear about stating that Jf1 is violating the 1000 word limit sanction that was passed between PIA4 and PIA5 [72]. Its my first time filing a report here, and I don't know how to show word counts easily for these types of reports

[73], the word count for his contributions when posted into a google doc is 1214 words [74]
[75] word count here in a google doc is 1825 words [76]
[77] the word count here is 1774 [78]
[79] the word count here is 1805 [80]

Though the wordcount in the google docs would not reflect the carveout for quotes, links, and refs, most of these would probably surpass the 10k limit. Sidenote:Is there a better way to show word counts in the future? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:35, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Moved to already existing section for filer; please don't open a separate one since you already use this one. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

to Liz, i agree. additionally, the word count is most certainly exaggerated, some of the links and quotes in the google docs are being counted as multiple words. but in lieu of any other way to present a count, and as im certain at least some of these are way past the word limit even with limitations of google docs, i didnt know what to do. apologies if there is a better way to have done it Bluethricecreamman (talk) 06:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SFR suggested a wordcount tool on my talk page, but I can't make it work. As SFR has been warning JF1 for awhile, i'll assume that other could verify the word count vios. Here are more traditional diffs characterizing behavior in the topic area.

forumy post - As an analogy, imagine if a group of right-wing academics invented a field called "critical woke studies," invented their own journals, reviewed each other's work, and were demonstrably involved in political activism. I doubt Wiki editors would deem such research reliable. [81]
forumy post - I need a verifiable source do I? Where is the evidence that has moved whole academic fields to consensus, anyway - [82]
passive aggression about trying to disqualify a source because its not "science": I'm also going to asusme this NRC article uses a very European definition of "science" (ie a system of knowledge) and is not using the term as most English-speaking people understand it.[83]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested: [84] Bluethricecreamman (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Jonathan f1

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 Jonathan f1

Jonathan f1's statement contains 1426 words and exceeds the 1000-word limit.

Extension granted to 1000 words. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was offered a chance to respond to some of these accusations, but I don't know how many additional words I'll need. I suppose I'll try to address some of the more serious allegations in 3/4 bullet points, namely that I "misrepresent sources" and "assume bad faith" against editors/"outside parties":

The academic paper on genocide studies (linked here[85]) concludes on two big points: that 1) GS has a promising future; but 2) there's a problem with activism in the field that needs to be corrected. The second point is made clear when the author says "severe methodological and ideological implications hamper the further development of the field.... There is no consensus on how to define genocide... Activists and profit-oriented actors have entered the stage and dominate the external perception of the field... Whereas scholars are bound to scientific standards and objectivity, activists want to mobilize public opinion through the spread of simple truths... we need more Lemkin and less Clooney...the influence of activism in the realm of genocide scholarship must be clarified."(p.254). When I raise these issues in talk and suggest that perhaps we should consider reducing weight in the article (considering how contentious the subject is), there are editors who act like I'm making it all up, when in fact it's exactly what the source says, and seems to be supported by other academic work (I want to say more about this but I'm trying to make this brief as possible).
I assume bad faith against other editors do I? Notice no names were mentioned, and that's because I never directed bad-faith sentiment at any particular editor. If you read that entire discussion, and not just the cherry-picked segment, a group of editors were concerned about the potential of "far-right" canvassing during the next move request, and I simply responded by saying there's no evidence of any "far-right" manipulation anywhere in the I/P space, and if anything the problem is coming from the other direction. In the past year at least 8 editors were topic-banned from I/P and 6 of them were the so-called "Pro-Palestine" side. One of the editors even apologized for using the term "far-right" when I reminded him that disputing the genocide allegation isn't far-right or even right-wing -it's the mainstream position of the Democratic Party in the US, and was the position of the previous Biden government and, last I checked, the majority of EU and Western governments.
I don't know what it means to assume "bad faith against outside parties," but Amnesty is an advocacy organization and I'm far from the only editor who's had reservations about this source in controversial topic areas. I've nothing more to say about this as this is getting too tedious.
This is already a lot of text so I'll wrap it up. A final point I'd make is that assuming good faith applies to me as well as my accusers. That means that if you're faced with three possibilities -an editor misinterpreted a source, you misinterpreted a source, or the editor deliberately misrepresented the source -you give the editor the benefit of the doubt. Assuming that someone who disagrees with you is "lying" or "misrepresenting" or doing something underhanded isn't good faith. And piling on baseless accusations mixed in with accusations that are not entirely baseless but happen a million times a day on here and particularly in the I/P area seems to me to be an abuse of this process. This noticeboard does not exist to act out personal vendettas, but is rather for serious and consistent conduct violations. I did not derail any talk page, edit war, harass anyone, or disrupt any process.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 16:53, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do I request a word count extension? I tried doing this last night but never heard back, don't know how this process works. I also need to respond to more accusations that have just been made...I'm just going to delete the first part and leave the relevant responses up. Jonathan f1 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More cherry-picking by Blue...

Discussions about the reliability and weighing of sources is not forumy -it's exactly why talk pages exist.
Nor is it forumy to ask for evidence that every academic field that studies genocide has reached a consensus, as claimed by another editor.
If you had bothered to read that entire conversation, it was about 2 sources that were seemingly at odds with each other. I wasn't really trying to 'disqualify' the source, but it contradicted another source published a few months prior, and my point was that there wasn't any new info in it. The way that you are cherry-picking these statements and characterizing them is completely inconsistent with the way these conversations went down.

I tried removing superfluous text to reduce the word count but I'm still probably well over the limit and hoping I don't need to respond to any more of this type of allegation. All I see here is multiple editors scanning everything I've said to see if something sticks, but there's nothing of any significance. I also see Sean Hoyland has produced evidence backing my claim that I'm not very involved in I/P articles -more than 90% of my revisions have been outside the I/P topic area (which sounds about right), and I'm going to guess the ~8% in this area are on the same article, which just happens to be a current event and not anything I'm passionate about or personally connected to (I'm not Jewish, Muslim, a Christian Zionist, a religious believer or 'right winger'). Not a good look for this space when newcomers who don't conform to the status quo are ganged up on like this. Jonathan f1 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, but there have been more accusations, now from an uninvolved editor, and I need an opportunity to respond. I'm requesting another extension on my text, but do not know how much I'll need, only that I'll have an opportunity to respond around lunch time (a few hours from now). Hopefully this will cover everything important and we can put a cork on people jumping up with more allegations. Jonathan f1 (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sameboat, for whatever reason, is still struggling to make sense of the conversation I had with DavidA. It's very simple: Dave was concerned about 'far-right' activists trying to rig the next requested move (which is inevitable there), and all I did was remind him that I/P doesn't have a far-right problem. Neither Dave nor I directed our remarks at any particular editors.
I also take exception to the claim that my response was any more inflammatory than the characterization 'far-right.' The far-right are associated with racism, antisemitism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia -all things I reject. Whether the phrase "Hamas sympathizers" is worse than "far-right" is completely subjective and irrelevant to the fact that neither description was directed at any editor in particular.
An ADMIN named 'Ealdgyth' has now joined in with an observation that I've never produced any value for this encyclopedia, before or after my article space ban. A couple of things to say about this...
I've actually managed to contribute more to Wiki post-ban than pre-, mostly because I was banned almost immediately after joining or getting active ~5 years ago, a decision that was unreasonably punitive and unnecessary (I was new and unfamiliar with the rules and processes). I was able to manage this by, for example, writing out text for an article on the talk page and having another non-banned editor insert it into the article for me, which would count as his edits and not mine. I was ready to cite examples of this, but on second thought, I think I'd rather not waste more of my time.

If you want to ban me, then do it. It won't affect the encyclopedia one way or the other, but Sameboat and Blue will sleep well tonight, and my life will go on completely unscathed. Jonathan f1 (talk) 23:08, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But this does seem personal to you Sameboat -your outrage is highly selective and you present a subjective assessment as a statement of fact. The only people I had in mind when I made that remark (and the only way that conversation makes any sense) were the types who were banned from I/P over the past year, and so one cannot 'assume bad faith' against editors who were already judged to be bad-faith editors by administrators. This last point alone takes all the air out of this balloon.
I think I was clear last night that I'm done entertaining the merits of this inquisition. Enjoy blocking me, bye.

Jonathan f1 (talk) 14:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

Objective3000's statement contains 22 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Having just read Jonathan f1's statement here, this is an attitude that is simply not compatible with contentious articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:15, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sameboat

Sameboat's statement contains 437 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Misrepresenting sources:

not every woman and child killed is a civilian[86][87].
- The Amnesty report from 2004 about "a 16-year-old Palestinian child was found to be carrying explosives" has no bearing to the Gaza Genocide topic.
Research on genocide studies has described the role of these academics as "scholar-activists,"[88] which would explain why they all have the same political profiles[89]
- The cited source does not condemn that activism-motivated study exaggerates certain genocides, rather it argues that activism "plays down other instances of mass violence".
another news report offering more evidence that the IDF has been evacuating civilians from bombing targets before commencing[90]. Note also the Palestinian man shouts "we're tired of war!" -implying that he recognizes what's going on around him as a war and not an extermination[91]
- The news report merely cited the IDF's statement of order of evacuation, nothing remotely "evident". Citing anecdotal evidence by quoting a random civilian's opinion, even if it was being reported by a reliable source like Channel 4 News. Civilian opinion is only considered having sufficient weight when it is conducted through academic polling, not interview with a random civilian on ground. Not to mention that the interviewee in question did not deny that he was experiencing a genocide/ethnic cleansing/systemic displacement by Israel.

Assume bad faith against Wikpedians and outside parties:

respected NGOs like Amnesty have jumped on this [Gaza Genocide] bandwagon[92]
NGOs like Amnesty are at this point no more or less reliable than a think tank or other advocacy group[93]
there is also some evidence that 'far-left' activists (or whatever you'd call Hamas sympathizers) are coordinating on and probably off Wiki[94][95][96].
- Then proceeded to cite ADL and repeat ADL's accusations against Wikipedians, despite knowing it is banned on the IP topic on Wikipedia.

-- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) ~~00:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)~~ 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC) (minor grammar change)[reply]

For context, Jf1’s remark referring to 'far-left' activists (or whatever you'd call Hamas sympathizers) was made in response to a comment by @David A. While David A did use the term "far right", his usage was explicitly directed at external sources and public figures, not fellow editors. Although I do not endorse the use of such labels in general, Jf1’s invocation of "Hamas sympathizers", even without naming specific Wikipedians, is far more inflammatory. It constitutes a serious breach of WP:CIVIL. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 02:02, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take the [I] will sleep well remark personally, as it implies that I’m pursuing some kind of vendetta for personal satisfaction. This is an example of the kind of incivility that Jf1 should take time to reflect on. I’m not calling for an indefinite ban, but a short-term talk page restriction would be a proportionate and constructive measure. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk · contri.) 23:42, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by guninvalid

I can't speak much to Jf1's behavior on PIA pages since I don't typically follow that area for my own sanity. But I can speak to Jf1's behavior at the Talk:Killing of Brian Thompson page, where Jf1 veered straight into WP:NOTFORUM off of a tangent multiple times despite multiple warnings, and potentially violated WP:BLP several times in his characterization of Mangione. While this conduct could be tolerably problematic on a merely BLP page, I am disappointed to see that their conduct is no better in an active arbitration area. guninvalid (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My statement is already a bit off-topic so I won't bother to provide diffs. If diffs are wanted nonetheless, let me know and I can provide. guninvalid (talk) 09:39, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Maybe talk page chattiness is an unintended consequence of blocking an editor from article space. Anyway, Jonathon made some statements about 'involvement in the I/P conflict space'. You can measure this. The number is 8.6% of revisions. Sean.hoyland (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Jonathan f1

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

Bluethricecreamman, if you're requesting us to sanction someone for some particular behavior here, please show specific diffs actually indicating that behavior, rather than diffs of claims of it. Especially in this topic area, it is, shall we say, far too common to see baseless accusations of misconduct thrown around (I'm not saying these either are or are not baseless, just that I'm not going to accept them at face value without backing evidence). I would agree that the thread in diff 5 ([97]) drifts into NOTFORUM territory by the time it was concluded, but the responsibility for that lies with several participants, and it looks to me more like it just drifted off track than that any individual deliberately derailed it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Sameboat, specific diffs are a lot more helpful. I'll take a look at those as well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:42, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan f1, if you need an extension to word count to reply to claims against you, you're able to request one, just say about how much you think you'll need. As long as you're going to use it to respond and not just continue the underlying dispute, I'm generally inclined to grant additional words to the respondent to, well, respond. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Will grant the extra 500 words accordingly to Jonathan f1. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:47, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Guerillero. The attitude shown here is incompatible not just with editing contentious topics, but largely incompatible with editing Wikipedia. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:53, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't spend a lot of time at AE but since when do we take Google docs diffs as evidence of behavior done on the project? I'm not sure what these links are meant to represent with their word count displayed. These are user-generated, I don't think we can take them as reliable indications of edits an editor has made here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So from my reading, the ban on article space was supposed to help J1 learn how to collaborate with others to form consensus for desired edits. Frankly, I'm not seeing that they've learned a thing about trying to collaborate. Instead, what I'm seeing is a bunch of forumy posts that don't do much to advance actual editing. Some attempt it, but most are borderline battlegroundy. It looks like J1 just gets to hang around and make the same sort of talk-page posts they did before Nov 2020, without any change. Therefore, it's unclear to me what benefit they provide to the encyclopedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:00, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan f1, if by "there have been more accusations, now from an uninvolved editor" you mean my observations, those aren't accusations, but the observations of an uninvoled ADMIN, who is one of the people deciding what, if anything, will come from this filing. I suggest that you take that into account, if you were referring to my observations. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with an indef. If no one takes care of it in the next few hours, I will. (I just got in from gardening and need a shower... bad). Ealdgyth (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jonathan f1, you're asking for yet another extension, but you're wasting your words. Things like I was offered a chance to respond to some of these accusations, but I don't know how many additional words I'll need. I suppose I'll try to address some of the more serious allegations and This is already a lot of text so I'll wrap it up. give zero info, yet use nearly 10% of your original 500. Write, then edit to make shorter by removing anything that isn't necessary. You don't need to tell us it's hard to write short. We know. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have reached the point of an indef block --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:10, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer

TenPoundHammer blocked for one week for clear topic ban violations by Guerillero. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:41, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning TenPoundHammer

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: JFHJr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 06:28, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct_in_deletion-related_editing#TenPoundHammer_topic_banned_(1)

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

Each diff invites a deletion discussion of some sort at WP:BLPN. Note that the topic of notability and wording as such to avoid saying deletion does not mean it's not about deletion.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive339#TenPoundHammer 29 August 2024: "By consensus of uninvolved administrators, TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is reminded, as presently topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, to not make comments on noticeboards or elsewhere on Wikipedia that suggest editors take an article to AfD."
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#TenPoundHammer topic banned (1) 2 August 2022: Initial.

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

Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
I WP:NACd the threads at BLPN linked above with commentary to the effect of renotification.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Here.

Discussion concerning TenPoundHammer

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 TenPoundHammer

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TenPoundHammer

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

The 4th of July diff is a clear deletion request. Blocked for a week --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Guerillero, the 4 July diff is a clear wink-wink "This should be deleted", and not something an editor banned from deletion discussions should be doing. The 10 June diff regards the appropriateness of part of an article; "deletion", despite its colloquial use, means the deletion of an entire article, so TenPoundHammer is allowed to discuss whether portions of an article are appropriate or should be removed. I don't see that one as a violation. The 7 June diff is also suspect, it also seems to be implying that the article should not exist, so I think that also crosses the line. I don't think there's anything further to be done here, so will close shortly as already resolved unless there's any objection from an uninvolved admin. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:00, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Flavor of the Month

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user: Flavor of the Month (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Banned from discussing American politics on any Wikipedia page for a period of one year by User:SarekOfVulcan for posting "excessive contrafactuals" on an article Talk page. (His words, not mine.) [98]

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

Notification

Statement by User:Flavor of the Month

Flavor of the Month's statement contains 343 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Review my diffs. I am fully prepared to back up every word I've said with sources that anyone, even the most rabidly partisan editor of Wikipedia, will agree are reliable. I ask that the ban be lifted for this page, so that I can prove my case. Sarek put me in a Catch-22. My defense is that everything I post is 100% true, but I'm not allowed to prove it -- because that would violate the topic ban. Flavor of the Month (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if you haven't heard a particular fact yet, or if your favorite sources have called it a "conspiracy theory," perhaps you need to find some more reliable sources. The most notorious "conspiracy theory" that turned out to be 100% true is "Hunter's laptop is NOT Russian disinformation." That happened in October 2016. The FBI had already authenticated the contents of the laptop in 2015, but chose to remain silent. And we finally found out that yes, it was authentic .... 2-1/2 years after October 2016. Take careful note of the very, very careful timing.

• Then there was "COVID vaccines are NOT safe and effective."

• And "The COVID virus DID come from the Wuhan lab."

• And "If you take the vaccine, you CAN get sick, you CAN die, and you CAN spread the virus."

And there were many more, focused on politics rather than public health (so they're affected by the topic ban), all labeled as "right-wing conspiracy theories" until they turned out to be 100% true. You may believe that what I've posted are "conspiracy theories." To that I would respond, "Wait six months, or a year or two. Even your favorite, allegedly reliable sources won't be able to deny it any more." Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They're not "conspiracy stories," and I say again, I'm prepared to prove every word I've said, with sources that even you will agree are reliable. But Sarek has put me in a Catch-22 here. I'm not allowed to discuss it, so how am I supposed to defend myself? Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Am I allowed to respond? Because Boasberg's starting point -- that district court judges can issue nationwide injunctions against the entire executive branch and are, therefore, the de facto co-presidents of the United States -- has, in fact, been reversed by the Supreme Court. [99] And if I may say so, Justice Barrett's smackdown of Justice Jackson was epic. Legendary. Several legal observers, on both left and right, have made the same observation. Boasberg's conflicts of interest are fully discussed in that diff, and the "appearance of impropriety" standard is well-known. Flavor of the Month (talk) 00:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

I didn't say the left "applauded" it. Please stop putting words in my mouth. Legal experts on the left recognize that it was a smackdown of epic proportions, and that we've seldom seen anything like it before between two Supreme Court justices. [100] Here's MSNBC, since it appears you like that source: [101] Flavor of the Month (talk) 01:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You were trying to make it sound as if they thought it was a good thing. Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Boasberg's starting point was, in fact, overruled. He can no longer issue nationwide injunctions against the president to prevent the deportation of dangerous criminals. Read the CASA, Inc. decision. I decline to engage in greater detail, since the topic ban is still in place, even on this page. So if you continue, please bear in mind that you're beating up a guy in handcuffs with duct tape over his mouth. Not very sporting. Flavor of the Month (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2025 (UTC) Comment moved to own section. Please only comment or reply in this section; threaded discussion is not permitted at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC) [reply]

Statement by User:SarekOfVulcan

Statement by MilesVorkosigan

MilesVorkosigan's statement contains 577 words and exceeds the 500-word limit.

The clearest argument against revoking the TBAN is the user’s own words. In response to being asked to not put their own commentary into an article, they posted *this*:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFlavor_of_the_Month&diff=1282562336&oldid=1282359864

Personal attacks, extreme NPOV, several different conspiracy theories, plus it is almost all opinion, not the claimed “facts”. The editor claimed that this diff shows they’re a MODERATE.

And as SCOTUS said, clearly wrong on the law.

I see no sign that they’ve learned to put less trust in disinformation and conspiracy theories since. We’d just have to go through this all over again.

I would suggest trying to get a reputation for quality work in non-controversial subjects before appealing again.MilesVorkosigan (talk) 00:08, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re just providing further proof that you are incapable of even *attempting* to edit with a neutral point of view. And confirming what I said about how much of your posting is editorializing instead of facts.

The weird choice to bring up a “smackdown” (and lie that people on “the left” applaud it!) is more of the same. You are here to “win” for your ideology. We are here to write an encyclopedia.

If you can’t even avoid such extreme partisanship an ANI, how could you be trusted as an editor? MilesVorkosigan (talk) 01:34, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, you could not, which is why you lied just now and claimed that this video supported your (then) claim. Don’t assume people won’t check citations.

Or when you claimed that SCOTUS over-ruled Boasberg. Misinformation like this doesn’t work as well on Wikipedia as it does on Twitter, people read the sources. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right, as I said, you got two entirely different cases confused and are now appearing to admit that you knew this, and lied deliberately.

If you can’t stop lying even while appealing a ban, then the ban should not be overturned.

We are not here to be a debate club, or be “sporting”. We are here to write an encyclopedia and you have made clear that you Are Not. MilesVorkosigan (talk) 02:31, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by involved AndyTheGrump

AndyTheGrump's statement contains 170 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

To be honest, I was always a bit unsure as to whether the reasoning given by SarekOfVulcan for the ban ('"excessive contrafactuals') had rather missed the point. The actual issue at Talk:Jared Lee Loughner wasn't so much the random 'contrafactuals' but the total failure of Flavor of the Month to acknowledge that Wikipedia policy is built around sourced content, rather than politically-motivated speculation accompanied by demands to disprove the same. What was supposed to be a discussion on content turned into an exercise in soapboxing, driven by someone with an obvious agenda, and an equally obvious urge to impute sinister motives on anyone who disagreed. Time and time again, we got the same facile because-I-say-so refusals to contemplate any evidence beyond that supposedly 'proving' their exercise in mind-reading. This didn't come as the slightest surprise to me, having already been on the receiving end of exactly the same thing on my talk page. [102] In my opinion, Flavor of the Month got off lightly with a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Acroterion

Acroterion's statement contains 104 words and complies with the 500-word limit.

Since I reverted FOTM twice at James Boasberg [103] [104] I will recuse from the resolution, apart from removing FOTM's inappropriately placed response in the administrator's section and to remind them that they may not post in sections other than their own, and to limit their total responses to 500 words. I placed the contentious topics notices on their userpage after that revert, and I don't see that they have made any effort to take the notice seriously, or to stop treating Wikipedia as a battleground. That this conduct continues into this appeal to me confirms that the topic ban is necessary. Acroterion (talk) 02:40, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by User:Flavor of the Month

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by User:Flavor of the Month

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

It's a sad state of the world that there is a large-scale (social) media landscape supporting these conspiracy stories. Flavor of the Month, I would recommend a website like groundnews to you which tries to find coverage from different political leanings. In the meantime, I do not believe you can constructively edit this topic area when you seek to right great wrongs using conspiracy stories. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

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