Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive361
ItalianTourist
[edit]| ItalianTourist is cautioned to follow the extended confirmed restriction in the future. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust đŹ) 02:36, 30 October 2025 (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 ItalianTourist[edit]
In addition to the templated CTOP introduction, Rosguill specifically said that their comment from Diff 1 was in violation of the ECR restriction, and included links to WP:ECR & WP:ECREXPLAIN, which explains that, whilst non-XC editors may post on Talk pages, they are restricted to non-controversial edit requests that follow WP:EDITXY. Instead of following this restriction, ItalianTourist tried to make a very similar comment again, but this time at Talk:Saleh al-Jafarawi in Diff 2.
Discussion concerning ItalianTourist[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by ItalianTourist[edit]
Statement by Nil NZ[edit]
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning ItalianTourist[edit]
|
Aesurias
[edit]| Aesurias is topic-banned from the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. TheNewMinistry is subject to a one-way interaction ban with Aesurias. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2025 (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 Aesurias[edit]
None.
Editor is clearly inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia's articles and suppressing criticism of Israel, and a topic ban on any material covering the ArabâIsraeli conflict would be appropriate. Their New page reviewer permission should be revoked. TheNewMinistry (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Aesurias[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Aesurias[edit]I previously opened an NPOV discussion against this user, here, over an image taken of a political candidate in 2007, which the user uploaded to Wikimedia as their 'own work'. The user, paradoxically, insisted that they had no COI with the candidate. Other editors questioned the user about this, because by insisting on 1) the image being their own work and 2) them having no connection to the person in the image, they were lying about at least one thing. After I opened that discussion, I was incessantly hounded by the user, who has been reprimanded by administrators for his behaviour here, but didn't acknowledge it.
Additionally, they previously received a 48hr ban for personal attacks against me, seen here. They have received other bans of various types, including another ban for personal attacks on other users. Creating articles on Wikipedia is not a crime, as the user is trying to insinuate. Other editors approved these articles with no problem. I stand by all of my own reviews of pages, they weren't ready for mainspace. Cherrypicking a few of them relating to Israel-Palestine and ignoring the dozens that weren't is disingenuous. My edits were fine -- for example, the Israeli-American one was false info, it was a poll asking Israelis in Israel who they would theoretically vote for if they could, which is why I removed it. I removed some parts of 'criticism' sections because they didn't contain criticisms, rather they contained things that the editor who added them didn't personally like. A failed AfD is not relevant, some editors agreed with me, some didn't. This request is unserious. The user's assumption of bad faith, accusing me of "inserting pro-Israel messaging into Wikipedia", is not only offensive to me, but offensive to the dozens of well-respected editors who have approved my pages.
Statement by TheNewMinistry[edit]Asilvering (talk ¡ contribs) is literally the administrator who advised me on October 15, 2025 to open an investigation on this very forum when I asked them for advice regarding Aesurius' biases in Israel/Palestine editing: As for Aesurias, if you have npov concerns regarding Israel-Palestine, the place to raise those is at en:WP:AE. [3] For Asilvering to claim they are an uninvolved administrator is laughable. I'm politely asking @Asilvering: to recuse themself from this investigation. TheNewMinistry (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]The following line caught my eye.
Looking at the timing and the fact that the nomination for deletion was, I think, Aesurias' first visible interaction with that page, I would be interested to know from Aesurias whether the action was in response to this Reddit thread or perhaps another site. If so, I do think for ARBPIA, for processes susceptible to external influence like AfD, it would be helpful if people just openly described the off-wiki discussion/social media post etc. that caused them to take action on-wiki whenever it happens as part of the nomination. That way we might have better visibility into the off-wiki/on-wiki causal connections that exist. Just a simple - saw this post/discussion... - might help. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:04, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Thanks Aesurias. I take that to mean that you also think that something like a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT for these kinds of things might help. If so, that probably makes a total of two of us. It's a start. Sean.hoyland (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Aesurias[edit]
|
Lumbering in thought
[edit]| Lumbering in thought is warned for adding unsourced information and restoring it after it was challenged. They are encouraged to better familiarize themself with WP:V going forward, and cautioned that even beyond contentious topics, repeatedly adding unsourced information may lead to a block as a regular admin action. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|đ¤ˇ) 16:23, 11 November 2025 (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 Lumbering in thought[edit]
Clear disregard for the need for RS in this topic area. Despite multiple requests to present RS, multiple times, none were presented. Diff 4 was after several attempts for RS. I just reverted but am not interested in getting into an edit war. The diff shared is further evidence that they don't know how to constructively edit on Wikipedia, especially in contentious topics. What I did was WP:BRD. I reverted, discussed on talk page, and we achieved consensus.
Discussion concerning Lumbering in thought[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Lumbering in thought[edit]I take issue with 1-3 to the point of belief that the plaintiff has committed WP:BLUD, as for 4 [[13]] you can see the plaintiff didn't revert my revert when I started the request to get consensus. My revert being allowed to stay when we entered the talk was confusing. Thus arguably, the plaintiff's established pattern of behavior is worse than mine as per Special:Diff/1318135022. Lumbering in thought (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Sean.hoyland[edit]A couple of comments for what it's worth.
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Lumbering in thought[edit]
|
Chronos.Zx
[edit]| Chronos.Zx is indefinitely topic-banned from WP:CT/SA topics signed, Rosguill talk 15:26, 18 November 2025 (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 Chronos.Zx[edit]
The participation of several editors at Sati (practice) and Sati (practice) has left a lot to be desired. But Chronos.Zx has approached the topic with a degree of aggression that is not appropriate to a contentious topic.
Chronos.Zx's multiple accounts and username changes make the history at AE difficult to track. They were given a GS/CASTE notification here and an ARBIPA notification here, in October 2023, and participated in an AE discussion with their previous account here, in April this year. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
The recurring theme here is a "give them no quarter" battleground attitude that has precluded any meaningful discussion of this complicated topic. Chronos.Zx is not the only offender here - if an uninvolved admin would like to give that talk page some attention, it would be appreciated - but their aggressive approach has been among the worst. This topic is a complex one, with a long history. Editors need to be willing to discuss differing interpretations in good faith, with sensitivity to nuance: Chronos.Zx has been consistently unable to do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Chronos.Zx[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Chronos.Zx[edit]Addressing all the mentioned diffs:
Crux of this complaint is, that saying Sati practice still happens or arguing anyone who says the contrary is either "misrepresentation of source" or "assumption of bad faith". Anyone who reads Sati (practice)#Current situation will not doubt that the practice does happens to this day. Talking about "misrepresentation of source", Vanamonde93 clearly added an inaccurate summary of the source on the main article,[21] and failed to justify their edit on the talk page by completely evading the point.[22] Chronos.Zx (talk) 06:04, 2 November 2025 (UTC) @Rosguill and Sennecaster: I acknowledge the issues, and promise to do better. I would like to inform about two things that have came to community's attention only after this report was filed. It is that the long-standing version said "is a practice, a chiefly historical", not "largely historical". See past versions such as this, this, this and it is easily more accurate in comparison. These revelations can be found here. If these facts were known earlier, then I think that things would be far better as I would have simply supported this wording over the options that were available so far. It is not like I am not amenable. For example, you should see my edit here which was reverted for being against the basic standards of editing in this subject.[23] I did not justify myself. I opened a talk page discussion to acknowledge the problem with my edit and for helping others become aware, in case their edits are having a similar problem. Getting back to the report, I note that this is a single page issue as of current. I can confirm that there has been significant improvement in my editing across Wikipedia. I ensure the highlighted issues wont resurface. Chronos.Zx (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Chronos.Zx[edit]
I am unimpressed by the amount of WP:ABF shown in the diffs and extremely unimpressed by the retaliation diffs provided. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:52, 4 November 2025 (UTC) (edit conflict) Reviewing the diffs here:
In light of the above, there's a clear failure to assume good-faith, and a pattern of reading into sources what they evidently want to see to support their arguments rather than what the sources say in their totality. Charitably, if we assume that the rest of the bibliography that Chronos.Zx and other editors on their side of the dispute cite is decisive, this is still a failure to collegially engage with editors' discussion of RS coverage of the topic (n.b. the ongoing RfC participation does not currently suggest that the broader community finds the outcome to be one-sided). The evidence brought to bear does not suggest that Unpetitprole is misrepresenting sources or falsely accusing others of the same, and thus Chronos.Zx appears to beg the question of Unpetitprole's misconduct to justify their own terseness. All of that taken into account, I'm currently waffling between a logged warning and a topic ban. In reviewing AE and ANI logs, I note that Chronos.Zx under their prior aliases has been an avid participant at the drama boards, mostly raising cases against others, but in the process I do see that about 9 months ago they were sharply, if informally, admonished by Black Kite for edits to Bangladesh that leave very little room for assumption of good faith. With that in mind, I'm leaning towards a topic ban from CT/SA, as the battleground attitude appears to have occurred across the topic area. signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)
|
Rap no Davinci
[edit]| Rap no Davinci is warned against misusing large language models (LLMs), which resulted in the insertion of unverifiable article content and nonexistent citations. â Newslinger talk 10:44, 22 November 2025 (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 Rap no Davinci[edit]
WP:PIA. Requesting TBAN due to repeated LLM misuse in topic area.
The user has repeatedly misused LLMs in and out of the PIA topic area. Diffs are in the order that I became aware of them.
I do not edit in the PIA space. This user was warned multiple times about LLM misuse prior to their recent edit to Yifat Tomer-Yerushalmi and after seeing it I decided I had to file here.
N/A
I think they are aware because they have extensively edited in the PIA topic area, but most of these do not apply.
Rap No Davinci's explanation does not make sense given how they fixed the broken references. In every case, they replaced the broken URL with links from a different publication. See the table below (triple-checked, at least broadly correct, but as always mistakes are possible).
Discussion concerning Rap no Davinci[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Rap no Davinci[edit]
The source errors are my own, mostly from working too fast. However I take full responsibility. Iâll make sure to slow down and double-check each citation, especially for sensitive or conflict-related topics like this one. I am still relatively new here, I have never been penalized before. If admins believe a sanction is still warranted, I will accept the decision and continue participating in a responsible manner. My goal is to contribute to Wikipedia in good faith and within policy. Cheers!
To clarify my earlier point, I never denied using LLM but rather: I did not use it to generate the content, I used it to help me paraphrase text and format citations for Wikipedia source. I believe that formatting of all info to be source-suitable is what caused the citation errors/changes. I understand what went wrong. I should've double-checked the sources afterwards, but due to working a bit too fast I missed it, and I take full responsibility for that oversight. This is also why I mentioned it was easy to fix the 'resignation' section, as all the info was factual and the quotes accurate. Thanks for your attention. What I mean by paraphrasing is that I normally gather the information myself and then have an LLM rephrase it, instead of doing it the 'old-fashioned way'. The main issue was that I mixed up sources while trying to save time (by having the LLM write the source code including the URLs). I now realize this actually wasted our time more than saved it. I understand how the mistakes happened and am confident I can avoid them going forward. Metallurgist I appreciate your input. Once again, thank you for your thoughtfulness and contributions. The cases you just listed are translation related, and not sure how they're related to misuse of LLM, as all the info is from the corresponding Wikipedia articles I translated from. Take La Fouine's example: the projects mentioned in the quote you provided are already in the Discography of the same article (excited before I edited), and they're in the French article. Plus, the source is not for that particular sentence you mentioned, it's for the following one: 'He released Mes Repres in 2009, followed by La Fouine vs Laouni in 2011, both went platinum.', where the source does verify the 'went platinum' claim. Same for TiiwTiiw, those [dead] links do exist in the French article.
I think there's a bit of misunderstanding. First, the links on TiiwTiiw's page didn't show up dead on my side, and they're archived: here, here, and here. I should've added the archives? Yes. Is this LLM related? No. For La Fouine, the 'certified gold' claim: it's mentioned in the French Wikipedia in the lede, a page with 100s of editors, and no one challenged that, I didn't see a reason to not include it. When we translate other wiki pages, do we have to translate ONLY the well sourced info? I am not familiar with that. LMK. Plus, the Discography does state in certifications that his album Aller-Retour is Gold. Are these cases of 'mass translation, copy-paste'?, or you said, "unreviewed machine-translated text" NO. have a look at TiiwTiiw's fr page, it has 19 sources, the En one I created has 26 sources even though I didn't add new info, it was extra work from my side. I carefully translate each paragraph, and add sources when available. But if a statement is not controversial and not challenged, I keep it in the translation. If that's wrong, please let me know. Still, unrelated to LLM. For Mr. Sion Assidon's page, 'founding member of the Moroccan Association for Human Rights' is my mistake, a human error. 'a leading figure .. human rights' become that. I will fix it right now! Thank you for answering my question about page translations, Iâll keep that in mind when working on other wiki pages. As for using LLM, my only reason for doing so was that I saw they werenât banned on Wikipedia, so I assumed many editors used them. In good faith, I thought I could contribute more to the platform by saving some time using it. I now understand that LLM, or at least the way I was using it, wasn't as productive as I thought. I can stop using it, I normally donât use it much anyway. Since this thread began, I don't think I used LLM, so I can continue that way. My goal has always been to contribute positively to this platform. I apologize for taking up so much time of many of you, and I appreciate the collaborative spirit here, thank you for giving me space to explain myself rather than jumping to conclusions. Moving forward, there will be no LLM related issues from my side. Cheers Statement by Metallurgist[edit]Rap no Davinci worked a bit on Bob Vylan in September and helped expand the article a bit beyond the controversies, which troublingly had grown to comprise a large part of the article. However, I found some of the text added did not correspond to the sources and seemed a bit WP:ORy, which didnt make sense at the time. They explained their reasoning, and I suggested how to do it better. This allegation of LLM use would make a little more sense of that experience. However, RnD was quite collaborative and cooperative on making things work properly. I can dig up more diffs upon request, but thats the essence of it. Not suggesting any action, but I saw this thread and thought some more context might help. And now, reading the thread deeper, I noticed that my interactions described above were mentioned in the case. I wish I had been tagged for input, I just happened to see this while cruising noticeboards the other day, and finally had time to comment. â Metallurgist (talk) 03:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Rap no Davinci[edit]
|
EilertBorchert
[edit]| indef'd. -- asilvering (talk) 05:51, 14 November 2025 (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 EilertBorchert[edit]
I give 3 diffs above but I could have picked basically any from their contribution history, their only contribution is promoting lab leak conspiracy theories on various talk pages. They seem fixated on repeating various irrelevant/disproven points and end up derailing discussions about how to improve the articles.
Discussion concerning EilertBorchert[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by EilertBorchert[edit]Statement by Alpha3031[edit]Wow, I had somehow missed the copy and paste in the history. I've tagged it with the usual, but if any of the admins here get there first it should probably be RD1ed. Alpha3031 (t ⢠c) 16:35, 6 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning EilertBorchert[edit]
|
Countryboy603
[edit]| Indef'd as a non-AE action. asilvering (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2025 (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 Countryboy603[edit]
Can we indef him please? He's clearly NOTHERE.
Discussion concerning Countryboy603[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Countryboy603[edit]Statement by DanielRigal[edit]Looks like an indef to me. Account seems to be WP:NOTHERE over a sustained period. The misgendering goes back more than a year. Also, I know it has nothing to do with GENSEX, but the George Floyd stuff from 2023 (e.g. diff) looks like disruption wearing a mask of faux civility. Only thing I can say in his favour is that he never got a final warning which, in retrospect, was an oversight. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Countryboy603[edit]
|
Polygnotus
[edit]| Polygnotus is warned to be careful about their wording when soliciting input on discussions, and to communicate in good faith when concerns are raised with their editing. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:53, 18 November 2025 (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 Polygnotus[edit]
I think a logged warning is appropriate here. voorts (talk/contributions) 16:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Polygnotus[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Polygnotus[edit]
@Vanamonde93: The problem is obviously Voorts' attitude when challenged... The fact that they are wrong should be completely obvious to them, even without research. And if they would have spent 30 seconds doing research it would be more obvious and they would know that they are wrong and why. But instead they kept upping the ante and not listening. Polygnotus (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2025 (UTC) @Voorts: is using yet another strawman: @Voorts: @Ealdgyth: I already said that.[41] Polygnotus (talk) 21:35, 16 November 2025 (UTC) @Voorts: But I already said what they wanted me to say. Sure, in retrospect I would've chosen different words. But I didn't think some reference to an old movie would be used to launch bad faith assumptions and this whole attack against me. Can you imagine how unfair this feels, from my POV? How could I have predicted that you would make such a giant problem out of something so tiny? Polygnotus (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Oh god now SashiRolls brought up the Steven1991 POV pushing campaign I fixed, after which there were attempted doxxings and a hate campaign on reddit and more fun stuff. Note that I did respond in that case, via email. Doing the right thing on Wikipedia is not rewarded, it is punished. I didn't do anything wrong related to GENSEX, I didn't do anything wrong in terms of canvassing, so now I was not kind enough to Voorts who was assuming bad faith? Or am I a bad person because I was unkind to NorthernWinds who was wasting my time after I cleaned up Steven1991s POV pushing campaign... on another wiki. I was thanked by an UCoC member. If we keep moving the goalposts we might find something. Polygnotus (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2025 (UTC) @Blablubbs: But obviously there is a reason for that. I was informed that there was a word limit after I wrote a long text explaining stuff. I can explain my reasoning, and if I do you'll at least understand my POV, but it involves writing yet another long text. Meanwhile I was asked to replace everything with a much shorter text. While I grant you that it may look bad to someone who does not know what I am thinking, it is a logical progression from my POV with what I knew at the time. So now my options are to waste yet more time writing a much shorter text that explains stuff, which would involve private evidence, or ignore the word limit and explain my POV, or accept that people just make bad faith assumptions and threaten me because I said someone doesn't grok a guideline (correctly) and repeated myself too much. I spent maybe 6 seconds typing that message, how could I have predicted that some old LOTR reference would be used to assume bad faith. Polygnotus (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Kinda agree with HEB that all LGBTQ+ people worldwide should elect me as their leader and follow my every command (but it hasn't happened yet and its a pretty diverse group). If this ever happens (ideally in time for the new year) I promise to use my powers for good. I also agree the statistics about cluebat-related violence are worrying(ly low) and that poetry sucks now that metaphors no longer exist. Polygnotus (talk) 22:53, 17 November 2025 (UTC)
I know a tiny bit about many things, and an seriously unhealthy amount about 3 things. I have a few people whom I ask for advice on Wikipedia, like Novem Linguae, Sohom Datta, WAID, Tamzin and Theleekycauldron. Each of them has skills/knowledge in areas I don't. LGBTQ+ is not my area of expertise. I am more interested in computers. Of course I happily support anyone's right to do whatever and I throw bricks at the far right, but I don't think I am knowledgeable enough to make bold moves (like removing a bunch of articles from a category) without trying to form a consensus. I consider Tamzin an expert on LGBTQ+ stuff (and they were listed as such on Valereee's userpage, and as willing to answer dumb questions) so, when I encountered a claim I hadn't heard of before, I asked them if the claim was true or false. Another time I had to deal with someone with a strong opinion on another topic I am not an expert in, and I asked Tamzin to check if what I did was correct, and they forwarded me to Theleekycauldron. Theleekycauldron helped me and seemed nice so I stored them in my list of people I can ask questions (not a physical list, I remembered their username). I of course had looked a bit at the stuff they were doing so I knew they edited LGBTQ+ stuff. Later I had another question, something to do with an alleged TERF and I remembered Theleekycauldron and asked them. I don't know much about TERFs except that they suck. Theleekycauldron posted (what seems to me to be) good advice in the thread. Theleekycauldron is the creator of User:Theleekycauldron/demibisexual, they are a drafting arbitrator over at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender_healthcare_and_people/Proposed_decision so they obviously have expertise in this field, a field I know little about. According to the canvassing guideline, asking people who are known for expertise in the field is fine. The guideline even says: So, when I !voted in that RfC and someone pinged me to tell me that what I considered obvious was to them not obvious, I figured I drop by either Tamzin's talkpage or Theleekycauldrons. Normally I would've asked Tamzin but I read this comment and while I wasn't sure how to interpret it it sounded like they were busy. And Tamzin tries not to have opinions on category related stuff. So I asked Theleekycauldron for advice. While my messages were a bit cryptic: Usually if people are canvassing they will alert people in a second AfD who !voted their preferred way in a previous AfD, so they know that they share that opinion. I don't know if Theleekycauldron agrees or disagrees with me and I have no control over their actions. If I wanted to canvass I would've asked someone who I was sure would agree with me, but I don't edit in this area and I don't know which users are likely to agree or disagree with me. If I wanted to canvass anyone, I certainly wouldn't canvass someone who is as experienced as Theleekycauldron. They are an arbcom member; they must be aware of the concept of canvassing so it would not be a great idea to try to canvass them. I also asked the LGBTQ+ wikiproject with an equally cryptic message
So, lets look at the guideline First we look at what is appropriate:
Theleekycauldron is clearly an informed yet uninvolved editor.
I did notify the relevant WikiProject.
Theleekycauldron meets all three criteria. They are informed, they made substantial edits to the LGBTQ+ topic, they have participated in previous discussions about LGBTQ+ stuff and they are known for their expertise in the field. I don't know what they do irl of course, so I doubt they are a professor of transgender history, but I clearly have reason to think they know what they are talking about.
The one thing they could've complained about (they probably didn't get the reference) was that my message said And then we got some pile ons which are not really worth responding to. So, what should be done about this? We can admonish Voorts for his continued assumption of bad faith and his lack of understanding of the canvassing guideline, but I don't think it would really help anyone. Polygnotus (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by Sennecaster[edit]
Statement by theleekycauldron[edit]I think Polygnotus was being silly with the LotR reference and not trying to canvass me to support their side in the discussion they started, which is why it's so disheartening that they are refusing to admit that a "call[] for aid" (Gondor was not neutrally canvassing Sauron and Rohan soldiers alike) could look like exactly that. Instead, they repeatedly (1 2 3 4 5) asked voorts to make their argument for them and, when he refused, wrote things like Statement by SashiRolls[edit]I suppose it was the clickbait title "The Beacons are Lit" and ensuing liveliness on my watchlist which led me to read TLC's talkpage. Maybe, too, the memory of being solicited on my meta TP for the recent UCC case concerning Polygnotus (which was dismissed) influenced my decision to click. Apparently I was a witness on one of the pages that is mentioned in the diffs on that page. In any case, IMO:
A civility warning is due. To quote civvi from the U4C decision: Statement by Horse Eye's Back[edit]@Polygnotus: you refer to this comment[42] as "cryptic" but to me its not cryptic at all (maybe I spend too much time online). "Cluebat" is a common meme, "A metaphorical bat used to âbeat some sense intoâ someone who is blatantly stupid."[43] and plox just means please[44]. So in common English "Need some cluebats plox." means "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please." Do you disagree with that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC) @Blablubbs: if you believe Polygnotus then what does "Need some cluebats plox." mean besides "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please."? Because if thats what it means then Polygnotus did indeed intend to canvass, that is an entirely non-neutral call to arms. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2025 (UTC) @CoconutOctopus: same question to you, if Polygnotus did not intend to canvass and did not canvass then what does "Need some cluebats plox." mean? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:57, 17 November 2025 (UTC) @CoconutOctopus: I've told you what it means... You now know what it means, those aren't gibberish you've been supplied with their definitions... "I need some people to beat some sense into this idiot, please." is very explicitly canvassing. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Statement by JuniperChill[edit]I couldn't think of a better way to say this. The fact that you've commented on leek's talk page many times, plus the fact that you have gone way over the 500 word limit. Its like reading the terms and conditions (which no one reads anyway). There is a reason why the 500 word limit is in place relating to arbitration to reduce workload for arbitrators. Its also in place in certain CTOPs like WP:PIA at 1000 words. This is an example of a WP:WALLOFTEXT, so long to the point I didn't read it. For comparison, my statement is just over 100 words long. JuniperChill (talk) 23:52, 16 November 2025 (UTC) Result concerning Polygnotus[edit]
|
Atsme
[edit]| Indefinitely topic-banned from American politics. Arcticocean â 16:55, 23 November 2025 (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 Atsme[edit]
I would note that I'm uninvolved here, but think that this is more appropriate to bring to collective review This is all the more concerning given that she has tried to instrumentalize her own experience as an NPP instructor to try to win discussions on political topics. This particular example is worth unpacking: the cited coverage in The Atlantic is genuinely substantial, and if she had stuck to that it would have been a valid argument. But the invocation of trivial coverage in the New York Times and Bloomberg as well as an interview in Reason is something she should know better than to do, It is particularly concerning that she feels the need to shoehorn references to Joe Biden at every turn; evidently she is engaged in the battleground of the 2020/2024 US elections, even when that's not the actual topic of discussion. Atsme is not contributing constructively in AMPOL or PIA, and the bludgeoning, whataboutery, and aspersions have gone on for long enough, clearly backsliding into the issues that led to the first ban in 2018. I initially intended to include a further word of apology here noting our past experience as colleagues, but am running up against the word limit so I will have to end here. signed, Rosguill talk 20:46, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Discussion concerning Atsme[edit]Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Statement by Atsme[edit]Per instructions from Isabelle Belato, I've deleted the overage. Word counter says 805 words including the diffs, excluding the hatted request. Atsme đŹ đ§ 16:45, 23 November 2025 (UTC) I have been asked by a few editors/admin to respond so I will state my purpose at NPOVN. The premise of this AE filing; i.e, that my four NPOVN comments violate a current American politics topic ban is factually incorrect; ludicrous at best. I'm not under an AP2 topic ban. My AP2 topic ban was lifted by ArbCom motion in 2019. If my memory serves, I have not edited any articles in the AP2 contentious-topic area since that date. I have said nothing that warrants this case. The diffs in question took place at NPOVN w/some reference to potentially libelous material per WP:BLP, neither of which falls under the AP2 contentious-topic designation. I provided examples and facts. Filing this AE request, treating me as if I were still topic-banned, without first seeking clarification from ArbCom as to whether NPOVN commentary falls under AP2, was premature and has caused me unnecessary distress. If there is genuine uncertainty about the scope of my 2019 lifted t-ban, the proper venue for clarification is WP:ARCA, not an enforcement discussion that proceeds from incorrect assumptions and the opinions of many of the same detractors who have hounded, harassed, and opposed my views for over a decade. I respectfully ask that this thread be closed with no action taken, based on the fact that my noticeboard commentary on NPOV and BLP policy is not within the AP2 topic area. Should any admin believe the 2019 motion needs clarification or amendment, seek that clarification at ARCA. Posting policy-based opinions at NPOVN, especially when another editor explicitly solicited community input on potential systemic bias and BLP issues in the Elliott Broidy biography, cannot & should not reasonably be construed as editing within the AP2 topic area. Furthermore, most of the incidents involved FARA violations, so it's not even AP2. Darouet provided a line-by-line analysis demonstrating none of the cited statements are sanctionable, even under the broadest reading. It was not a political discussion, as it was a NPOV issue involving BLPs and non-neutral material that was potentially libelous, a stark difference from being political. The persons in the biographies are lobbyists connected to foreign nationals and/or former politicians, which should not be considered a "AP2" discussion, not even generally construed. WMF recently lost a libel suit because of libelous material in a biography of a businessman involved in politics in another country. I have every right to be concerned over WP's systemic bias, and its antisemitic positioning which is also under scrutiny by the US govt., another issue I alluded to at NPOVN. Atsme đŹ đ§ 14:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC) What I'm seeing is blatant oppression of my views. Facts and context matter, as does antisemitism, bias, and libelous material in a bio, all of which indicate a growing problem. The following links support what I've been saying, and those diffs have nothing to do with me violating AP2:
Also consider the following diffs as further context for conduct issues by some of the same detractors who have opposed me for over a decade. I have experienced harassment, hounding (including by administrators), and off-wiki targeting and bullying because they disagree with my opinions, which Wbm1058 can help confirm at WO since I do not have access to that unconscionable hate site that even AI describes as despicable. I have also experienced situations that raise questions about certain admin actions, hounding, bad judgement calls, etc. which I believe has contributed to a pattern of POV railroading in areas where editors have epistemological disagreements. I recognize that AE is not the venue to fully litigate those matters, but if this case ends up being referred to WMF:Trust & Safety or ArbCom, I will present a more complete set of diffs, including many more than what I've included below which go well beyond the innocuous diffs used against me here and in the past, demonstrating the longterm hostility toward me by the same users & admins.
Atsme đŹ đ§ 19:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Hemiauchenia[edit]I fully endorse the proposal to reimplement the topic ban. Revoking the original topic ban was obviously in retrospect a mistake. At this point, Atsme is clearly WP:NOTHERE to build this encyclopedia (she now has her own encyclopedia, Justapedia, which is a mirror of Wikipedia which she rewrites to reflect her own conservative agenda), but merely to agitate against it in a disruptive manner. Atsme is not able to separate her strongly conservative views on American politics from her editing, and she has repeatedly behaved in a disruptive manner regarding the issue since her topic ban was lifted. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:14, 18 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by Butterscotch Beluga[edit]As I started the discussion these comments were made in, I feel obliged to add this comment of theirs as probably relevant. I'm still unsure as to why they felt the need to write such an aggressive response to me. As I wrote in my response to them though, the details of their comment were confusingly inaccurate & seemed to not engage with the material being discussed. - Butterscotch Beluga (talk) 22:50, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by GRuban[edit]@Tamzin: Diff 2 has to do with the fact that the article in question says "He is Jewish." without further context. You probably don't know this (sarcasm!) but both the US far left and far right use calling someone Jewish as basically a personal attack. So when the subject is in any way controversial in the joyful context of modern US politics, there is an argument for not saying the subject is Jewish unless it can be shown to be not just sourced but also relevant. --GRuban (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2025 (UTC) @Rosguill: The "(other editor's response pointing out the irrelevance of this aspect)" is ... irrelevant. @Szmenderowiecki and Bishonen: Atsme was writing on her own user talk page. Yes, it was unadvised, but it was on her own talk page, and we traditionally allow a certain leeway to users to vent on their own talk pages. It was removed when she thought better of it, and no one was directly mentioned or targeted. --GRuban (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2025 (UTC) @Bishonen and Szmenderowiecki: Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, that we should give latitude to user talk opinions; yes, it absolutely does matter where an opinion was expressed. Most every week for several hours I regularly express the opinion that I and a small group of friends are Saving The World from an alliance of murderous ghouls and vampires. (Last session our characters reached seventh level!) In general I don't let that affect the way I program software, or parent my children, or write encyclopedia articles. Does Atsme really think that Wikipedia is failing and overrun by Communists? Maybe, sometimes, no doubt, depending on the place, and the time, and probably on whether her back pain is acting up. People are complex, they can hold multiple ideas in their head, even contradictory ones, and choose which to act on and when. We shouldn't punish people for what they think, only for what they do. And in general we have said that one's user talk is an acceptable place where one can go to express opinions like that, because there they are being expressed to a small group of talk page watchers, and as long as it isn't a specific attack on a person, which this wasn't. We are not the thought police. --GRuban (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by AndyTheGrump[edit] To add to what GRuban says above, or at least add my take on it, I'd have to suggest that regardless of the political context, a bald statement, with no further discussion, consisting of a sentence in its entirety as "He is Jewish" is and always has been inappropriate for an encyclopaedia. The term for this is 'Jew-tagging', and those with long memories may recall the disputes I had with at least one now CBANned former contributor over this, with regard to indiscriminate tagging (in a similar fashion) of biographies of entirely non-political figures. Evidently Atsme failed to argue clearly, or perhaps was trying to argue something else, but she wasn't wrong to draw it to peoples' attention. As to the merits of the case, I'll refrain from commenting, since I've made my opinion abundantly clear elsewhere, and doubt that anything I said would be seen to be objective. Which might well be true. I'm sure you can reach an appropriate conclusion without my input.AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Kowal2701[edit]See [58] Kowal2701 (talk) 00:24, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Metallurgist[edit]Echoing GRuban and Andy, there are philosemitic and antisemitic reasons that the attribute of being Jewish is added to articles like this. Jewish people like to celebrate it, antisemites like to draw attention to it. Thats the whole origin of triple parenthesis and "early life check" that can be found in alt right online communities. It could have been added for any reason, but the concerns Andy mentioned are valid, which appears to be what Atsme was getting at. In any respect, per Kowal, it looks like Atsme WP:RETIRED, so perhaps this is mooted now. I do understand the frustrations expressed.â Metallurgist (talk) 01:25, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Objective3000[edit]Atsmeâs TP post: WIKIPEDIA IS A LOST CAUSE I found disturbing. I really wish people would stop throwing around the word communism. That is what is sad. I know of zero American politicians or Wikipedia editors who espouse anything related to communism. And the common claim that anyone who criticizes Netanyahu or actions of the Israeli government is somehow antisemitic would suggest that the majority of Israelis are antisemitic. We have a lengthy article on Weaponization of antisemitism. Someone with such views should not be editing in CTOPs, particularly PIA and AMPOL. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:45, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Katzrockso[edit]I was disturbed by this editors comments in the NPOV noticeboard thread, as well as at Pseudonyms of Donald Trump, where they stated I now checked every single edit just for curiosity, AndyTheGrump, and not one of the edits brought up on the NPOV noticeboard thread was removing information about whether or not Elliott Broidy was a Jew. Atsme jumped to bring up off-topic information about the overall state of Elliott Broidy's page, when the topic of the noticeboard thread was about Iljhgtn's edits on pages related to Elliott Broidy. As Parabolist noted in the original thread, it seems Atsme did not read the original post by Butterscotch Beluga and instead went to start complaining about Wikipedia's supposed biases. Katzrockso (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by Szmenderowiecki[edit]Atsme has published a statement on her talk page that "WIKIPEDIA IS A LOST CAUSE" and alleged "Communist infiltration" or "infiltration of the anti-Semites" of the encyclopedia (not exactly clear from the context). I asked her to present proof for the Communist part because that's how I understood her OP. She claimed she had the evidence, and it was definitely unsatisfactory. Even before being confronted about the quality of her sources, she stated that she was being persecuted and silenced:
before archiving the whole discussion. There are two things I have to say: 1. The First Amendment applies to the government, not Wikipedia. If your political views have a detrimental influence on your editing, expect not being able to edit anymore. 2. If you suspect you are being trolled, you have the right to remain silent,
Statement by Alpha3031[edit]As with Rosguill, I feel it is unfortunate that this had to be filed, and had been internally debating whether I should comment here, but I was intending to reply to the reply to me in the now archived section. In lieu of that, I have revised something along those lines for here. I am sympathetic to AE admins who are hesitant to chill the raising of the issue of bias, and also to avoid the appearance of further bias. I don't think I have anything substantive to add about the actual comments, e.g. accusing editors of Statement by Cdjp1[edit]Defending/explaining your actions by alleging there are cabals of people controlling and manipulating Wikipedia are bold claims to make when editors disagree with you. I would also just like to point out how while claiming
Statement by Darouet[edit] This complaint amounts to the following: a lot of information was removed from our biography of Elliot Broidy [62], leading to a complaint at WP:NPOVN (here [63]) soliciting comments and feedback. Atsme made four statements mentioned in this complaint:
I'm probably on the opposite side of the political spectrum from Atsme. It blows my mind that so many editors are arguing that we should sanction her for her opinions literally being solicited on a board designed for that purpose, but nobody is attempting to sanction the actual removal of sourced information at the page in question? As for the opinions expressed on Atsme's talk pages, many people express political opinions on their talk pages. I do: I use my user page to quote Stefan Zweig, who is complaining about war propaganda. -Darouet (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Statement by ~2025-35386-91[edit]We should ping in the editors who have been accused of being communist and anti Semitic infiltrators. @MaryMO (AR): has been accused due to [[69]. @Davide King:, this edit got you accused [70]. Are you two antisemitic communists as Atsme said? ~2025-35386-91 (talk) 15:20, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by TylerBurden[edit]The appeal seemed genuine so I'm not surprised it was accepted, to so very obviously not only slide right back into the problems that lead to the TBAN in the first place, but defending doing so under some MAGA variant of WP:RIGHTINGGREATWRONGS, I think even as someone entirely uninvolved seems like a betrayal of the community giving a second chance. Wikipedia certainly has issues that need to be addressed if it is to remain what it has been, but the way this editor is going about it is obviously problematic. TylerBurden (talk) 18:38, 21 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by Davide King[edit]"Are you two antisemitic communists as Atsme said?" No. For the full answer and some observations about alleged Wikipedia bias (around 1,000 words), see here. Statement by Tryptofish[edit]Yesterday, I posted a statement here, then quickly thought better of it and self-reverted. I consider myself a friend of Atsme's, and my first impulse was to offer a defense. But I feel that I need to be honest here, and let the chips fall where they may, sadly. Some of the diffs of things Atsme posted reflect what, from my own perspective, are strange and conspiracy theory-based views: the innocent people in prison (I'm pretty sure that's not about Alligator Alcatraz), or Joe Biden's alleged pseudonyms. But as far as that goes, we should leave room for people to make those kinds of comments on talk pages, so long as they will be reasonably courteous to other editors who make rational arguments refuting that. But what gets caught in my craw is this: [71]. The over-the-top smugness of saying that admins would issue a boomerang, ArbCom would laugh at this, and it's the worst time-sink she saw in a decade â well, Atsme, that's not a collegial way to interact with editors you disagree with, and you should know that. And it is clearly being disproven by the reactions of AE admins here. That kind of thing impairs consensus, and is disruptive. It makes me sad to post this, but I feel this is the right thing for me to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by Wbm1058[edit]I was pinged to here regarding my participation at Wikipediocracy (WPO). There is indeed a lengthy thread there titled "Atsme and Justapedia" in the Public Area "Web 2.0 & 3.0: The Emperor's New Clothes", "Non-Wikimedia Wiki Sites", which starts with my post of June 03, 2024 which was split out from the earlier thread "What are some good alternatives to Wikipedia?". Although Atsme should still be able to read that thread, she cannot reply nor defend against attacks there since she was banned from WPO after May 07, 2025. I am not happy about that situation, as the discussion has drifted from general discussion about Justapedia to personal discussion about Atsme. That thread might best be moved to the private area of WPO as long as she remains blocked there. So what is the big deal with her recent edits on Wikipedia? She's made less than 20 article-space edits in the past year, and not yet even a dozen article edits in 2025. The Committee has passively sat while others have made thousands and thousands of disruptive, bold semi-automated article edits before finally acting to stop such behavior. What's the difference between a battleground and a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Has she disrupted any articles? Hardly. Has she organized a faction that disrupts, or made legal or other threats? Not that I've seen. We should show that we're better than WPO by continuing to let her exercise free speech in discussing the content of articles. It takes two to make a battle. If you disagree with her, explain how, and if she responds and you don't have anything further to say in response that wouldn't just repeat yourself, then let her have the last word. End of the "battle". Disclosure: I met Atsme at the Boston conference in 2019, and we struck up a friendship â despite our differences regarding some matters of politics. â wbm1058 (talk) 14:08, 23 November 2025 (UTC) Statement by (username)[edit]Result concerning Atsme[edit]
|
