Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
![]() | Important information Please use this page only to:
For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard. Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions. To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.
|
Marcelus
Pofka subject to a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus and given a final warning that any further misconduct will almost certainly result in a topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:59, 9 April 2023 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Request concerning Marcelus
There also was a report two months ago regarding Marcelus's editing of content in Lithuania, Poland topics (see: archived discussion). Multiple users agreed that Marcelus violated WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:GRUDGE, WP:ICANTHEARYOU, WP:NOTHERE by trying to insert claims to the article that Zigmas Zinkevičius (personally described by Marcelus as " Since limited scope, time sanctions don't stop Marcelus, I think indefinite WP:TOPICBAN should be applied in Poland, Lithuania, Eastern Europe topics.
Discussion concerning MarcelusStatements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by MarcelusPofka created WP:RMT ([2]) regarding the Paweł Holszański page, undoubtedly knowing that this is a controversial move that needs to be discussed, as it is not the first discussion about what name should be used in article about historical figure of similar background. I protested againt RMT by checking the results from Google Search and Scholar in English (per WP:COMMONNAME, in short: we use English sources) which were radically different ([3], [4]). When this was moved to WP:RM#C I reiterated this argument ([5]), I also gave a brief historical context as to why I think the Polish-sounding version of PH's name is so popular, then a bit later I also added results from Google Books ([6]). In the meantime, I expanded the article on the basis of the sources available to me ([7]) and told Pofka that he would find the answer to his question about the sources there ([8]). On March 11, 2022, Pofka received a total ban for Lithuania and Poland for attacks on me ([9]), but also for previous offenses (similar situation as now, I explain why the "Polish" name is popular Pofka attacks me for Polish nationalism, etc.) Pofka since October 12, 2022 is also blocked completely on lt.wiki for personal attacks ([10]). The ban on en.wiki was lifted on January 5, 2023, which I supported ([11]), Pofka declared: Contrary to what Pofka says the Zinkevičius case did not end "without a clear decision." - Pofka also used my 0RR to get the upper hand in content discussions (1, 2,3. When I asked him to stop doing this, he simply deleted my question from his talk page). There were also some occassional WP:HOAX accusations ([12]), but these are thigns I used to when interacting with Pofka. I reported this to HJ_Mitchell without asking for any sanctions on Pofka, because I think there is no problem for both of us to edit on Wikipedia, even more so in a topic where there are not many active users. I still hope so.
Statement by Volunteer MarekIs there a revert here? The restriction on Marcelus is 0RR. But all the diffs provided by Pofka are ... talk page comments. This is just a complaint that Marcelus dares to disagree with Pofka (on talk pages, civilly). Pofka also, when referencing the restriction, quotes only irrelevant portions (that it's indefinite etc) but manages to omit what the restriction actually is. Maybe a WP:BOOMERANG is in order. Volunteer Marek 01:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC) The exact comment from the admin on their talk page [13], made on March 14, was: " Your two posts between them are over a thousand words. If you want me to take any action, please make your point concisely. Preferably a tenth of that length. Otherwise you can file at WP:AE but note that walls of text are not accepted there either.". Volunteer Marek 01:17, 19 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by TBThere is nothing to see here. TrangaBellam (talk) 09:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Shadow of the Starlit SkyHello, I am an editor who in uninvolved with these interactions between Marcelus and Pofka. However, I have collaborated with Pofka once before while WP:NPOV-ing Gediminas. I would like to say that I have looked through Pofka's edit history, block log and global account log. It seems as if Pofka has been indef banned in other wikis in the past for incivility and ad hominem attacks ([14]). And, Marcelus isn't immune to blame, either. This interaction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Marcelus#Your_evidence) seems like an indication of a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality to me. Not to mention his past conflicts regarding Polonization of Lithuanian names somewhat suggests a WP:NATIONALIST mentality regarding this user too. I think that an interaction ban between Pofka and Marcelus may be necessary at this point. Shadow of the Starlit Sky (Talk) 03:19, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Ppt91This case has little if any merit. In addition to what others have already said about Pofka misinterpreting the extent of/nature of the original sanction, I am also troubled by Pofka's overall framing of these spelling disputes which to me exhibits a degree of WP:RGW mentality. From the diffs presented, the most inappropriate and inflamed comment by Marcelus I see is the one including the term Statement by GizzyCatBella
I'm noticing consensus tipping slightly towards the restoration of the topic ban among you admin folks. I understand that, and I understand that Pofka did precisely what they promised not to do in their Topic Ban appeal but can I ask you, admin folks, to offer Pofka another chance? A powerful logged warning + a one-way interaction ban with Marcelus for example? (with possibility of appeal in 6 months) Pursuing that particular editor (Marcelus) appears to be the cause of Pofka's problems. We have only a few editors interested in Lithuania's topic area (it's a small country), and I believe Pofka's contributions are important. In my humble opinion, if they stay away from Marcelus, that will be enough. - GizzyCatBella🍁 21:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC) Statement by Cukrakalnis@Shadow of the Starlit Sky This is relevant: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1104#User:Marcelus repeatedly breaking WP:NPA and doubling-down on it. I myself asked for
Cukrakalnis (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC) Result concerning Marcelus
|
InedibleHulk
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 InedibleHulk
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Sideswipe9th (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- InedibleHulk (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/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons#Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] Despite the talk page consensus from 28 March, the FAQ at the top of the page, and being asked by multiple editors InedibleHulk continues to use Hale's deadname and misgender him throughout ongoing discussions. This is an outright refusal to follow Wikipedia's regular editorial process.
- [21], [22] Implies that because of Hale's actions, we can disrespect his gender identity.
- [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28] In many edit summaries, InedibleHulk makes comments that skirt the boundaries of what is acceptable in a CTOP article/talk page
- [29] Edits a comment to describe Hale as
an emotionally disturbed loner with a history of lying
. As far as I know, I've not seen any reliable sources describe Hale as a person with a "history of lying".
- 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)
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Many of InedibleHulk's talk page contributions are very likely WP:BLPTALK violations. While Hale died during the shooting, BLP continues to apply for some time after death.
This type of disruption has a serious impact upon other editors, and can lead to them disengaging from the article and talk page due to stress and aggrivation.
These diffs show a pattern of bludgeoning discussions, making unsubstantiated controversial claims about a recently deceased person, and making incivil comments from InedibleHulk, that have resulted in a massive disruption to the editing of 2023 Covenant School shooting and its talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:53, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste: Take a look at the sixth diff I've linked above (current link number 19). InedibleHulk doesn't seem to recognise that Hale was transgender, or even self-identified as transgender. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- On the topic bans, this is a complicated one as the article that lead us to this point falls under three or four; GENSEX, BLP, Gun Control, and depending on how you look at it post-1992 US Politics. The issues that I've seen and documented here mostly fall under the first two, GENSEX and BLP. I agree with Seraphimblade that a single topic ban wouldn't cover all of the issues raised. A dual GENSEX and BLP (in the sense that it includes recently deceased) TBAN would cover the majority of the problem, if InedibleHulk can recognise that this article and any with similar circumstances would be covered.
- On a site block/indef. I was initially thinking that despite InedibleHulk's rather lengthy block log, a temporary or indef site block would have been too much, even with the wheelbarrow of TBANs being proposed. But, in the time that I was writing this reply, InedibleHulk has directed three edit summaries on his talk page to me. The first of these [32] is fair. But the second [33] and third [34] are crossing the line of unacceptable per the civility policy. So now I think a site block is warranted. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Discussion concerning InedibleHulk
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 InedibleHulk
Police, old friends and Audrey Hale's mother seem to believe she was a woman, and though she seems to have perhaps denied this implicitly by preferring male pronouns online, she also has a reliably sourced history of lying offline. It doesn't seem like misgendering to agree with the majority of those who knew and cared for her. It seems like gendering. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Considering BDP only applies to material with implications (presumably meaning negative) for living friends and relatives, I think telling a woman who told ABC News "I think I lost my daughter today" her daughter was a man (if she reads that page) is probably erring on the side of least caution (and contradicting her teammates, who one said were "like a family", second least). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:30, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- According to Sideswipe, both of this BDP's living parents' opinions are "highly suspect". That's even worse than slinging mud at the dead, by my understanding of how sensitivity works. I'm not the judge here, of course. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Also, I haven't been disrupting editing by any of my comments, the page is locked (I've probably edit-conflicted a few people by making minor followups, and I'm sorry for that, as always). InedibleHulk (talk) 17:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Keep in mind, too, trusting a dead mass murderer (not even always the kind who kill children at random) when he, she or they seem to be the only one who ever shared an opinion on a matter is a slippery slope toward all kinds of fringe bullshit being treated as the opposite of fringe. Even if it's only applied to "Aiden", for some reason, there's still a lot of manifesto to leak or be released. Will we be so sympathetic if the coward blames Christianity? Bullies? The American educational system? A living Tennessee politician or two? TV? Straight people who just don't understand? The victims? God? Living relatives police say she may have also planned to kill? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if I'm supposed to ping Maddy or what, but: "This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise." The "person" in question is not in a phase of life nor legally recognized as a person. The accusations of transphobia against these particular parents (who are people) were made by an anonymous source to The Daily Mail and propped up by OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
While I'm here, I may as well challenge anyone to find an edit which even hints at an anti-trans sentiment from me since 2006. I'm only in this mess because this article started off as one about the next big shooting, which is my bag here, historically. If it weren't the mountain of evidence that nobody alive today with firsthand experience seems to believe Audrey Hale was a man, even after learning she disagreed, I'd appreciate how this is misgendering. I've accidentally used the wrong pronoun on a colleague once or twice, and made sure enough to not do it again, out of common human decency. I don't edit articles about trans people or topics very often at all, not through any active avoidance, but just through their scarcity. I think the idea of switching gender identities is cool. But the dead have no identities, including gender-related. I've always known this, it just hasn't needed explaining to so many people yet, by chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
No, Feathers, I'm not confused. "This" refers to the preceding guideline and "holds for any phase of the person's life" pretty clearly implies it does not hold beyond that point. And yes, Hale did have a life, and this would have applied to it then, while she was a person. InedibleHulk (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Since my opinion on this particular former person is broadly (though wrongly) construed as something against every single trans person, current or former, I can see how keeping my voices away from that subject might seem warranted. But banning me from all gun, living people and American politic articles would be too much, given the reported problem here. And rebanning someone for previously having served a ban would be a double jeopardy in the real world. It would be more (but still not) reasonable to keep me away from churches, schools and Nashville. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Finally, that "pop culture banality" diff should be taken to mean don't let your children grow up to be mass murderers, not don't let them question or answer their genders (that goes for other living relatives, too). InedibleHulk (talk) 11:17, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Only one of Sideswipe's latest diffs refers to them, the next two to the content. I also find it disturbing how closely they still watch my page, after I asked them to unwatch already. For what, laying in wait? InedibleHulk (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
I quit. Those who don't trust me can do whatever on top of it. Those who do, thanks again. InedibleHulk (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Maddy from Celeste
It isn't a BLP violation to point out that parents often misgender their children, and that only the subject's own identification counts for MOS:GID. InedibleHulk, on the other hand, has been consistently incivil in his edit summaries and comments on that page. Also, the more he comments, the more I feel he is opposed to the MOS:GID guideline and will make that everyone's problem. his current arguments about the shooter's credibility, for example, seem like a useless distraction from our established practice of not misgendering people. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 19:03, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thryduulf: I'm not actually certain if "transgender people, broadly construed" is a subset of "gender-related disputes and controversies and associated people". Sure, you could interpret all trans people as inherently associated with gender-related disputes and controversies, but that is overbroad in my opinion. I would much rather require a person to be associated with a specific controversy, rather than just painting all trans people, even those not personally involved in any notable controversies, as "associated with disputes and controversies". Now in my opinion GENSEX itself is also extremely ill-defined, so I'd propose a ban from just one topic which arbcom specifically states falls thereunder:
any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender
. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)- @Funcrunch: I think he was undeniably
self-identifying as transgender
, though. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)- Re Swideswipe and Crunch, I don't see anything denying that Hale self-identified as trans, only denying the validity of his identity. And if such a claim does exist or come into existence, that would not be a GENSEX problem, but a reading comprehension problem. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Funcrunch: I think he was undeniably
Statement by Firefangledfeathers
IH, are you genuinely confused about GID? Hale did have a life, and GID applies to every part of it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to hold InedibleHulk in high esteem. He's one of those editors who I frequently disagree with but find to be incisive and likely to present the hardest to counter arguments. I'm surprised not to be seeing that at all here, and I do wonder if he should be encouraged or required to edit in other topic areas. IH, I'd be happy to talk more with you at one of our talk pages about how MOS:BIOGRAPHY applies to people even when they're dead; I worry doing so here would exacerbate your overage on the word count limit. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:51, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Funcrunch
Based on our initial interactions on the 2023 Covenant School shooting talk page, as well as on my own talk page, I believed that InedibleHulk was acting in good faith. But his continued, insistent, deliberate misgendering of Hale with she/her pronouns has made it very stressful for me as a transmasculine editor to continue participating in the discussion, the outcome of which I believe has important implications for this encyclopedia. As I said in a comment on one of the page's RFCs, I am saddened when contributors do not take into account the emotional well-being of Wikipedia's trans and non-binary editors. (ETA: I now see that Sideswipe9th linked to this comment of mine in the original arbitration request as well.) Funcrunch (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste: Not to be pedantic, but a potential problem with the suggested wording of your topic ban is that InedibleHulk apparently does not acknowledge that Hale was, in fact, transgender. Funcrunch (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Maddy from Celeste: You and I find that undeniable, but InedibleHulk does not. And that stance might extend to other subjects in the future. So I think it might be safer to focus a topic ban on gender-related controversies rather than, or perhaps in addition to, trans people. Funcrunch (talk) 20:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @InedibleHulk: I'm transmasculine but also agender. My pronouns are they/them, not he/him, as noted on my user profile. Funcrunch (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Noting for the record that my edit above was in response to this edit which was later amended and subsequently removed. Funcrunch (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by FormalDude
The biggest problem I see here is that IH continues to use she/her pronouns for Hale numerous times well after a consensus was developed that Hale takes he/him pronouns. Having been informed of this multiple times, I don't know how it can be construed as anything other than intentional misgendering. Obviously that is not compatible with editing in GENSEX. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Courcelles: Looking at their block log, it does seem to be a broader issue. He was blocked for his edits to Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in 2018. He was blocked in December 2020 by Valereee for BLP violations, and got unblocked with an AP tban. He then violated that a month later in January 2021, and then a second time in February 2021, causing him to be blocked both times by EvergreenFir.
- That was all before I became an active editor, but here is some of the problematic behavior I have seen from IH more recently in these types of articles:
- Talk:2022 Buffalo shooting
- Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting
- Talk:Robb Elementary School shooting
- Talk:Joe Biden
- Talk:Joe Biden
- ––FormalDude (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think a site ban is most appropriate. Given his history, he should be well aware of the standards that are required for editing in CT, but has chosen to edit the way he does anyways. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by LilianaUwU
I'll have to echo FormalDude's statement here: the constant misgendering of Aiden Hale despite being asked multiple times not to do so is unacceptable, and incompatible with Wikipedia editing. So is being very aggressive in edit summaries. This reminds me of the Athaenara situation, but I'd say this is worse: InedibleHulk has repeatedly posted that type of comments, and they're much more blatant than Athaenara's comment (the use of she to refer to a trans man is constant across IH's messages). LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 21:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Kcmastrpc Excuse me, but repeatedly misgendering someone would be worth an indef in my book, let alone a TBAN. Any rando who had just created an account would've been indeffed with no questions asked, no AE, nothing; the only reason we're here to discuss it is because it's an estabilished editor. A TBAN is not only appropriate, but I'd say it's not enough. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 04:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- @Callanecc, with due respect, with how often IH misgendered Aiden Hale (more use of she than on ship pages!), I feel like a TBAN from GENSEX is also, or instead, in order. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 05:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Silverseren
I think this diff given by Sideswipe9th originally above is really exemplary of the issue here. To quote the two comments therein:
Anyone looks like a shitty person if you misquote them. I didn't mean I'd only disrespect a trans bin Laden, but would still disrespect him (for his murders). And I never said anything like this bullshit "policy" you've ascribed to me.
- and
I don't consider it misgendering, I honestly believe she was a woman.
It seems pretty clear that InedibleHulk has no intention of editing neutrally in this contentious topic area and is quite open about that. SilverserenC 21:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Kcmastrpc
I believe a TBAN is inappropriate in this instance. This is an unusually charged issue that I suspect anyone involved with editing has some emotional feelings towards, additionally, we have a large number of reliable sources who continue to use Hales birth name further aggravating the situation and creating what some might argue is a conflict with wikipedia principles. Perhaps we should ask IH to step away from editing this article in general and show grace for everyone involved (assuming he agrees to step away)? Kcmastrpc (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Zaathras
Observations. One, in Sideswipe9th's 3rd listed point, InedibleHulk's commentary-via-edit-summary is their modus operandi. Ranging from antagonistic to pop culture banality, it is honestly becoming un-collegial. Two, this is reminiscent of GooDday's AE. If one cannot be respectful of the gender of Wikipedia editors and/or subjects of Wikipedia articles, they really do not belong in the topic area. A topic ban is most appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zaathras (talk • contribs) 22:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by starship.paint
To me it seems like at most a transgender topic ban. Anything else is stale and/or not that serious. starship.paint (exalt) 15:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by Nableezy
A site ban???? Ok, so we have a topic that for whatever noble reasons has this established carve out from our normal rules on sources and due weight, but to edit in opposition to that carve out is now cause for a site ban? Yall wildin. nableezy - 17:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- And an edit summary on his own talk page is what seals that for one admin? Boggles the mind a bit. nableezy - 18:38, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Statement by (username)
Result concerning InedibleHulk
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- My first impression is that this is a very clear and repeated violation of WP:GENSEX (and BLP in general in some cases), and the doubling down despite advice and warnings from multiple other editors does tend tend to suggest that a topic ban would be appropriate. A topic ban obviously needs a scope, based on the evidence presented here (at least so far) I think "transgender people, broadly interpreted" would cover everything problematic without being too broad. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith I don't see how this is an unusual circumstance at all or how there is any scope for different interpretations of the policy.
Give precedence to self-designation as reported in the most up-to-date reliable sources, even when it doesn't match what's most common in reliable sources. [...] Any person whose gender might be questioned should be referred to by the pronouns, possessive adjectives, and gendered nouns [...] that reflect that person's latest expressed gender self-identification.
covers this exact situation. - Regarding the topic ban scope, I've read the comments but I want to think on them further before reaffirming, amending or withdrawing my suggestion - all three options remain firmly on the table (with the British English meaning of that idiom). Thryduulf (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Courcelles in that I think we're going to need three topic bans, and at least a warning about civility and not misusing edit summaries. In isolation the event that precipitated this report doesn't justify a site ban, but considering their other actions and that previous topic bans have not successfully dealt with the disruption it does at the minimum justify active consideration of whether someone is worth the volunteer time and energy required to manage them, and the time and expertise that other volunteers choose not to contribute to the project because of them. I don't know whether I would support a site ban at this point, but I'm certainly not far off doing so and if one isn't imposed here it will be if their behaviour brings them back to this board. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- The recent edit summaries noted by Sideswipe9th, particularly this one have removed all the doubts I had about a site ban. If your behaviour and civility is being examined that is the time to show yourself at your best, but this is not acceptable let alone best. It's always a shame when someone who clearly can make positive contributions to the encyclopaedia chooses to do the exact opposite, but there simply is no space in a collaborative environment for them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Courcelles in that I think we're going to need three topic bans, and at least a warning about civility and not misusing edit summaries. In isolation the event that precipitated this report doesn't justify a site ban, but considering their other actions and that previous topic bans have not successfully dealt with the disruption it does at the minimum justify active consideration of whether someone is worth the volunteer time and energy required to manage them, and the time and expertise that other volunteers choose not to contribute to the project because of them. I don't know whether I would support a site ban at this point, but I'm certainly not far off doing so and if one isn't imposed here it will be if their behaviour brings them back to this board. Thryduulf (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- @The Wordsmith I don't see how this is an unusual circumstance at all or how there is any scope for different interpretations of the policy.
- It may well be that a topic ban is appropriate, but this case is a little unusual because not only is IH confused about how to refer to the subject, our reliable sources themselves are confused about how to do so and we have good sources using both sets of names and pronouns. I haven't examined every diff yet (will try to do so later tonight), but so far I don't see malice or intent to cause harm. It seems more like a disagreement about how to interpret policy in an unusual circumstance. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:45, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- After looking into the issue further, I'm leaning towards the behavior being enough of an issue that a topic ban of some sort would be the right move here. I'm just unsure which of the several scopes proposed would be the best a containing the problem. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- InedibleHulk's behavior in this noticeboard has been less than ideal. That, in conjunction with the provided diffs, makes me think a topic ban is appropriate. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 22:23, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- I like HJ's suggestion of and support a one year site ban in conjunction with an AP2 and GS topic ban. This isn't IH's first rodeo with topic bans and they should know we expect better behaviour from editors in contentious areas. Isabelle Belato 🏴☠️ 17:19, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I would be interested in seeing evidence, if any exists, of problems within either the GENSEX or BLP areas beyond the recent mass shooting before opining on a topic ban. Courcelles (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- My point is I wonder if we are looking at a AP2/BLP problem being presented as a GENSEX one. Courcelles (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, looking over everything I think we have a messy situation that is going to take at least three CTOP actions to contain the disruption. 1) A GENSEX topic ban from making any edits relating to the gender identity of any person. 2) A ban on articles about mass shootings. 3) An AP2 topic ban. Here's the problem, IH has previously treated an AP2 topic ban with a rather cavalier attitude, being blocked twice for violating a three-month topic ban. And incivility is a running concern throughout the various CTOP areas being discussed here. Courcelles (talk) 12:22, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Following on from Courcelles' point, looking at InedibleHulk's block log and the links from Formal Dude I'm thinking rather than rather than dealing with this under GENSEX CTOP, a topic ban from mass shootings, broadly construed, under gun control as well as TBAN under AP2 (not sure whether to go all post-1992 or narrower yet) might be more effective and targetted at the topic area where problems lie. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I tend to agree with Courcelles and Callanecc—this isn't a case where just saying "Topic ban from GENSEX" completely addresses the issue. I still would topic ban from GENSEX, given how poor IndelibleHulk's behavior has been in that area as demonstrated here, and would also topic ban from AP2. Given how political the issue of mass shootings has become, I think any articles about American mass shootings after 1992 can already be considered covered under AP2, and so a separate topic ban on those specifically is not needed. And though not formally, I'd warn that if this type of behavior continues on in other areas, I'd strongly be considering an indef next time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- When I was on the committee, if I felt the need to propose this many topic bans in a PD, a site ban would be included in the PD to at least be voted on. I would not oppose one here given how significant the disruption is. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I know I am supposed to stay out of AE as a current arb, but I can recuse if this comes to the committee. Seeing the block log, my first choice would be an indef block with my second being the wheelbarrow of topic bans suggested above. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think there's enough here to support either or both of a site ban or indef, so if that's what's agreed to, I don't object to that. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I know I am supposed to stay out of AE as a current arb, but I can recuse if this comes to the committee. Seeing the block log, my first choice would be an indef block with my second being the wheelbarrow of topic bans suggested above. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- When I was on the committee, if I felt the need to propose this many topic bans in a PD, a site ban would be included in the PD to at least be voted on. I would not oppose one here given how significant the disruption is. Courcelles (talk) 15:58, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support a one-year site ban as the maximum we can impose at AE (with an indef on top as a regular admin action). My first thought was there IH had some semblance of a point that the shooter had been inconsistent about their gender identity but when I see that there's a talk page consensus on the matter, it starts to look like tendentious editing. Add in the tone of talk page contributions and the edit summaries and I start to think this isn't someone who should be editing controversial topics. With the recidivism, based on the block log, this clearly isn't the first time and it's clearly not limited to one topic area so a site ban seems the appropriate response. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:07, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not averse to the topic bans. I slightly favour the site ban because there seem to have been a variety of issues with IH's editing in a variety of topic areas going back years. If it's to be a site ban, I would have no issue with it being a one-year finite duration. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:11, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'd support the one-year ban at this point followed up by the topic bans, due to their history of violating topic bans and their edit summaries referring to SS9th today. Initially I was thinking that the topic bans would likely be sufficient to stop the disruption here, but looking over their block log, and seeing incivility in the their edit summaries (something else they've been blocked for) makes me think that something a bit broader than just the topic bans will likely be necessary. I would not be opposed to just the topic bans if there is a reasonable belief that they'll abide by them and adjust their behavior in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:43, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
JCJC777
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 JCJC777
- User who is submitting this request for enforcement
- Shibbolethink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- User against whom enforcement is requested
- JCJC777 (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:ARBPS
Specifically (emphasis mine): Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia
...comply with all applicable policies and guidelines
...
follow editorial and behavioural best practice
...refrain from gaming the system
....You should err on the side of caution
...
- Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
- 10:47, 12 April 2023 Editing against consensus, whitewashing POV, repeated content blanking, see also: [36][37][38][39][40][41]
- 13:11, 13 April 2023 Repeated mis-representation of sources, or only deriving the most favorable POV from sources: [42] [43]
- 10:09, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of low quality news-org and WP:PRIMARY sourcing to make claims of medical efficacy. See also: [44] [45] [46] [47][48] This is also not the first time this user has been warned about this: DocJames and Jytdog and Donlago and many multiple users across their talk page
- 10:47, 12 April 2023 [49][50][51][52] Repeatedly uses bare URLs despite being warned about this 16 times, even saying others should clean up their mess "
Hi Doniago, I know with your brilliance and your love for making Wiki maximally rich, that you'll find the ref. Go well
":[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68] - 12:00, 8 April 2023 Repeated tagging of content already sourced in the body, or in the same sentence as "citation needed" despite multiple talk page discussions about this. e.g. WP:IDHT. See also: [69]
- 04:35, 13 April 2023 Repeated use of wikipedia links as sources. See also: [70] Been warned about this before ([71] as far back as 2012)
- Violation of our policies on edit warring (repeatedly reinserted material over several days without engaging meaningfully on talk, and broke 3RR)
- 07:00, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
- 21:02, 8 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
- 19:57, 11 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV
- 03:37, 12 April 2023 Re-adding, whitewashing, and re-interpreting and cherry-picking a source (Cuijpers 2020) in the lead and elsewhere (as was also done on 4 April: [72])
- 10:47, 12 April 2023 Removes passages which disagree with user's POV (same passages as #1)
- 11:13, 12 April 2023 Again removing content from section/ converting "is" to "was". Similar to #1 and #4.
The above diffs 3-6 demonstrate 4 reverts in a 24 hour period which restore this user's preferred version.
- Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
- 11:15, 19 November 2021 Indef'd from Multiple Sclerosis for many of the same behaviors as above (using poor quality sources, disruptive edits, edit warring, repeatedly not listening to others about bare URLs)
- If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
- Alerted about contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 12:02, 8 April 2023 (UTC) (see the system log linked to above).
- Additional comments by editor filing complaint
In summary, this user is doing basically the same thing here at Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing as they were previously doing at Multiple Sclerosis, behaviors which got them indefinitely blocked from editing that page. (using poor quality non-MEDRS sources to make medical claims e.g. PRIMARY, news-org, using bare URLs, disregarding advice from editors on the talk page, disruptively blanking, edit warring, etc.) When they were confronted about these issues on their talk page, they simply replied "many thanks" before disrupting some more ([73][74]) and then adding the Retired template to their talk. This is a common behavioral pattern for this user. Perusing their talk page, they always just respond "many thanks" or "cheers" before repeating the same disruptive pro-FRINGE behaviors dozens more times.
I see no reason why this behavior should be tolerated at a contentious topic page when it was so clearly not tolerated at a featured article. This user very clearly has a WP:IDHT/WP:CIR problem. They apparently cannot simply format their own citations, follow MEDRS, or understand the consequences of a contentious topic. The time-sink they provide on these articles is reason enough to sanction.
I recommend a page-block from Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing at a minimum, TBAN from pseudoscienceat a maximum as a reasonable next step.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Clarification 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC): I am not opposed to a site-wide indef, it just isn't my first choice in this particular situation. I wish this user could get the message that these behaviors are not okay, and resume their past editing in less-contentious areas, with more knowledge of the PAGs. But I also acknowledge that has not been their response at every previous juncture.— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 19:32, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Also pinging other involved users: User:MrOllie, User:LokiTheLiar, User:Bon courage, User:Cedar777, User:Roxy the dog, User:Firefangledfeathers, User:Feoffer, User:XOR'easter, User:Darknipples, User:Bakkster Man, User:fiveby— Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:52, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Discussion concerning JCJC777
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 JCJC777
Statement by (username)
Result concerning JCJC777
- This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
- That’s quite a lot of FRINGE pushing. Absolutely support a PS topic ban, but wondering if that’s enough. Courcelles (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I took a 30-second look and my inclination was to indef. But it was only a 30-second look. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)