Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive357

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.) [1]

Administrator imposing the sanction

SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

• Notification

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. [2] 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. [3] Here's MSNBC, since it appears you like that source: [4] 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]

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]

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. [5] In my opinion, Flavor of the Month got off lightly with a topic ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding starship.paint's offer below to "engage Flavor of the Month on their talk page to explain what went wrong", while I can understand the thought behind it, I would have to suggest that this would very likely devolve into a discussion clearly in breach of the topic ban. I'd also add that even if such explanations were appropriate, they might be better coming from someone who hadn't just chosen to involve themselves in the Loughner content dispute at the same time. [6] Starship.paint is naturally as entitled to discuss such content as anyone else, but doing so while engaging with FOTM, topic-banned for their behaviour in the same place, seems less than optimal, in my opinion. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since I reverted FOTM twice at James Boasberg [7] [8] 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]

I've added a CT notice for Covid, since it has come up here. Acroterion (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The fact that FOTM spends nearly 100 of their allocated 500 words relitigating Hunter Biden's laptop, which has absolutely nothing to do with their behaviour on Talk:Jared Lee Loughner for which they were sanctioned, does not give a great deal of reassurance that they are not going to treat this topic area as a battleground. Especially given that, despite repeatedly making claims that they are just noting "facts" (e.g. [9], [10], [11]), and specifically making note of the very, very careful timing, all of the dates they give are wrong. The Hunter Biden laptop controversy did not break in October 2016 but October 2020; the FBI investigation into the laptop was not in 2015 but 2019. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to engage Flavor of the Month on their talk page to explain what went wrong. It will be necessary to examine their past actions and I hope admins will grant that latitude despite their topic ban. Thanks. Disclaimer that I've edited James Boasberg before but I have never engaged with this user. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well. I haven't really interacted with our appealing editor nor the areas they have edited in, but I must say that if the dotpoints mentioned in their appeal indicate the next CTOP they intend to edit in, I'd expect it to be equally poorly received. BANEX covers the limited exception of discussing a topic for the purpose of appealing a ban. It does not mean that one should drop a... let's say "learned discussion or discourse", on how one is actually completely factually correct on a matter and it is the allegedly reliable sources that are wrong, while complaining about how one is not being allowed to prove it so. The intent of the exemption is for the appealing editor to make a case that they will not be disruptive in a topic area. Whether one is allowed to make a statement does not make commentary on how "epic" or "legendary" a "smackdown" is relevant (the editor is evidently aware of the concept of editorialising given this edit summary) and such comments are unlikely to engender confidence on one's likelihood to adhere to expected standards of behaviour, at least in my opinion, which is the actual matter at hand. Alpha3031 (t • c) 15:52, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While it appears to be true that sources did a poor job initially with Biden's laptop, I'm not sure how that's relevant. This is a good block as the WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior is intense. There's also more WP:SYNTH here than in a 1983 album; when FotM uses a reliable source, it's used to support or link to conclusions they personally draw and argue for. This is most apparent on the Zeitgeist discussion. By design, we don't connect the dots, but report the reliable sources connecting the dots. FotM may become a net positive, but while they learn how Wikipedia works, it's clear there's zero benefit to the encyclopedia from their involvement in WP:AMPOL. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]
• I would agree with Femke. Flavor of the Month, I think you need to gain some experience editing in less controversial areas before you return to this particular contentious topic. I would decline the appeal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:57, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, the editor needs significantly more experience editing before editing in this highly contentious topic. FotM, learn to edit by editing something noncontentious; other editors in those articles tend to have a lot more patience with newbie mistakes. Valereee (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]