Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

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

Appealing user

Toa Nidhiki05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Indefinite topic ban from post-1992 American politics, imposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive312#Toa Nidhiki05, logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log/2022#American politics 2

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Diff

Statement by Toa Nidhiki05

This is my second appeal of this sanction; the last was over six months ago. Like I said then, I believe my behavior that led to the sanction was embarrassing and not befitting of what productive behavior in the topic area looks like. We can all agree, I think, that AP2 doesn't need that sort of behavior, and while I don't believe I was the only one at fault in the dispute, my behavior is the only thing that I can control. Since the topic ban a year ago, I've avoided disruptive behavior and have focused on productive editing, including routine cleanup of articles but also full-scale rewrites of articles like NFL Europe and Plastic Love. I've also worked productively on the BLP Huey Long, where I productively helped work on resolving conflicts and reaching consensus. This would be the approach I would take going forward in the AP2 area if this topic ban were to be lifted.

I do feel like I have made valuable contributions in this area and the encyclopedia as a whole, and I'd love to be able to contribute productively to AP2 in the future. Like I've said previously - I would be more than open to alternatives that allow me to engage productively in this area. If a full lifting of the sanction isn't something you're willing to consider, I'd be more than open to something like a 1RR restriction that would allow me to productively contribute again. Toa Nidhiki05 16:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, in response to your comments:

1) I'll note that much of my work on articles tends to be in the form of whole-article reworks. Take my rework of Plastic Love, for example; this was a top-to-bottom, complete rewrite from scratch. This was done mostly in userspace and then imported to mainspace once I finished. So while that looks like one mainspace edit, it's really the result of a month of work that included dozens of individual edits. Other recent examples of that are The Beautiful Letdown and NFL Europe, which were actually more like yearslong projects (on and off). Most of my more prominent articles (see: American football, National Football League) were developed with this method. So using mainspace edits as the only standard of activity really isn't a full look at what I do here, or what I've ever done in my decade+ of editing.

2) Your questions on my topics of interest and skirting AP2 are basically the same thing. AP2 encompasses a very, very, very broad spectrum of topics that intersect with a ton of areas. The reason I've done that is I did not realize AP2 encompassed those areas - I didn't realize it had applied to specific songs (where my changes were to remove retailer-specific charts that are explicitly banned per WP:BADCHARTS - if you look through my editing history, music is a big interest of mine). I'd rather not violate policy, even if the edit is good, and I stand by those edits. So self-reverting was the rational solution, right? The 9/11 one for example was I simply forgot to take that page off my watchlist, noticed an egregiously bad edit, reverted it, and then realized that might fall under AP2. Only real option was to self-revert and hope someone else did the work, which they thankfully did. Another example of the sort of stuff I'm interested in - I actually noticed an egregious BLP error on a page shortly after my first appeal, and was able to get it removed after reaching out to Guerillero directly. This is the sort of stuff that can get stuck on overlooked pages for far longer than it should be.

Basically, lifting the AP2 ban would allow me to make productive, uncontroversial edits in a lot of areas without having to walk on eggshells wondering whether I'll get slapped with a sanction. I'd like to be able to make edits like that. And again, I'm more than happy to accept some lesser sanction even if it's not necessary. I would just rather not be locked permanently into a situation where I can't make productive edits, unless this is a punitive topic ban, not a preventative one. And if that's the case, I guess I'll accept that judgement. Toa Nidhiki05 07:15, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starship.paint, I had to go back to the article to see what you’re referring to. Again, from my understanding, that portion (the preamble) of a legal decision is often not written by the judge, and holds no actual legal meaning. It’s essentially just a very very very brief summary of the case history, without any real details. So I can say that yes, I do commit to using reliable sources and not discounting them based on my own opinion (something I clearly have experience with based on my strong article track record), but no, I don't believe the example you cited (a reliable source citing a case prologue) outweighs many other reliable sources that say other things based on a more extensive review of the case history.

That being said, I have no interest in relitigating that entire discussion (much of which had actual examples of objectionable conduct) or returning to that topic area in question. Toa Nidhiki05 14:52, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I am really not interested in relitigating a debate from a year ago, so this is the last I'll talk about it. If he wrote it, that's fine, but again, there were numerous other sources that said the case had not, in fact, resulted in legal victories for Fair Fight. And singling out a single vague line (what were the wins? what were the losses?) from the least important part (an uncited prologue) of a hundreds-page opinion doesn't add a ton of value. I disagreed with you then, I disagree with you now, that's not going to change. Toa Nidhiki05 16:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

I don't have an objection to Vanamonde's narrowing of the topic ban --In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 11:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

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 GoodDay

An editor deserves a chance to prove themselves. Toa' t-ban shouldn't continue if they've promised to not be disruptive in future in that area & hasn't been disruptive in other areas. We must ask ourselves, at what point does a preventative measure morph into a punitive measure. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zaathras

As someone who had tussled with the filer here and there, e.g. Talk:Ilhan Omar, FWIW I say loosen the restrictions a bit. In the past they may have gotten a little too passionate about things when consensus for edits failed, but always seemed to be aimed overall at encyclopedic improvement. Rather than being a keyboard warrior here for a cause, like others have been. I think they can be productive again. Zaathras (talk) 14:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by starship.paint

@Toa Nidhiki05: At your previous appeal I raised the example where you rejected a reliable source's quote of a judge in the judge's legal decision by arguing, without supporting evidence, that the judge was merely being "courteous". Can you commit to avoid repeating such behaviour, and not reject content from reliable sources based solely on your own opinion, instead relying on other reliable sources? starship.paint (RUN) 11:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Toa Nidhiki05: - I can't say that I am satisfied by that response. You stated in the past that The judge is being courteous after a years-long trial. Now, in a contradictory argument, you state that portion (the preamble) of a legal decision is often not written by the judge. However, the quote was in a document literally signed by the judge, and multiple sources, some more reliable than others, attributed the quote to the judge. (1) Associated Press "... wins and losses ..." Jones wrote. (2) Politico "... wins and losses ...” wrote Judge Jones in his 288-page decision. (3) Atlanta Journal-Constitution "... wins and losses ..." wrote U.S. District Judge Steve Jones. (4) Fox News"... wins and losses ..." Jones wrote. Everything above is pointing towards the quote being written by the judge, and you have provided no evidence that the judge did not write the quote. I'm afraid that your response comes off as the exact same problem I raised - you are going against the sources, but without a shred of evidence. starship.paint (RUN) 15:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Toa Nidhiki05

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

• I find myself ambivalent about this appeal. A concern raised when the previous appeal was rejected was that TN had significantly reduced their activity in mainspace, which gave the appearance of waiting out the TBAN. Mainspace activity has been marginally higher since, but not by much; I'm counting ~175 mainspace edits since the appeal. Conversely, they have done some good work in other areas, and the appeal seems sincere. @Toa Nidhiki05: I have two questions for you; what topics within AP2 are you looking to work on? And why, in the last few months, have you made several edits that skirted (but not, IMO, breached) your topic-ban, and then immediately self-reverted? The ones I'm looking at are to 9/11, these [1], [2]. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for clarifying; to be clear, I was not suggesting that you be sanctioned for the edits I highlight, but they looked odd. I'm not willing to lift this outright; there have been too many sanctions in the history. I would consider narrowing the TBAN slightly: for instance, to a TBAN from BLPs withing the topic, possibly combined with a 1RR restriction. I would like to hear from other admins. Vanamonde93 (talk) 07:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I opposed this appeal last time, as you can see; however, per WP:ROPE, I'd also be happy with loosening this to a TBAN on BLPs within AP2; we can see how that goes without the potential problem of BLPs being affected. Black Kite (talk) 14:40, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks BK; I would ideally like to hear more opinions, given the block log and how well-attended the previous appeal was; but if I don't see further input in ~24 hours, I will close the appeal with the modifications I propose above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I think scaling back to BLPs in the AP2 area is a reasonable thing to do here. I wouldn't lift it entirely yet based upon the low quantity of editing, but those which have been made seem to be reasonable and of good quality, and I don't find any indication of further disruptive behavior. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 13:22, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Seraphimblade, also because this nudged me to wrap this up. Closing with a BLP TBAN as above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 13:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request concerning Marcelus

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Ed1974LT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:37, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Marcelus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe

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

1. 2 January 2024 (nonconsensual removal-reverting of content)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. blocking history for edit warring and violating 1RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area
2. 27 September 2023 (0RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area)
3. 29 November 2023 (1RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area)

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

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
• Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Hello, I noticed that last year User:Marcelus was sanctioned with a 0RR restriction in Eastern Europe topic area and was previously blocked for edit warring and violating 1RR restriction. On 29 November 2023 Marcelus successfully appealed his 0RR restriction and 1RR restriction was again applied to him. What is concerning is that factually Marcelus with his 2 January 2024 edit arbitrarily completely reverted content which was fairly recently added by another user with 8 November 2023 edit in a contentious topics procedure article (Eastern Europe area). It is noteworthy that no consensus was reached to edit or remove this content in talk page discussion (where Marcelus and I participated), but by ignoring this Marcelus still made this non-consensual edit (revert) despite his history of disruptive reverting and multiple sanctioning for that in Eastern Europe topic area. I think such editing style by Marcelus can be disruptive in this contentious topic area, especially knowing his editing history and multiple sanctions for reverting other users content in this topic area. I believe that user with such sanctioning history should willingly seek consensus and not edit (revert) discussed content arbitrarily how he personally want.--Ed1974LT (talk) 13:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMarcelus&diff=1194145114&oldid=1191571124

Discussion concerning Marcelus

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 Marcelus

8 Nov edit is WP:SYNTH. The source referenced ([3]) mentions nothing about Báthory's "inauguration" as Grand Duke, instead it mentions that the four GDL senators wanted a separate act of inauguration during the negotiations before the conclusion of the Union of Lublin (1569 vs 1580). So the conclusion that the Báthory's ceremony of May 29, 1580 coincided with these attempts is OR. No source connects these two facts or make such implication.

Comment: In general, the very idea that there was a separate inauguration of the Grand Duke in 1580 in Vilnius is WP:FRINGE. It is actually only mentioned on the website of the Vilnius palace in its description of the exhibition of the jewels of the royal treasury at Wawel Castle in Kraków ([4]]). If historians actually believed that this happened it would be an extremely important event, which would be mentioned in every book on the history of Poland, Lithuania or the Republic. In fact, what took place then was the ceremonial handing over of the papal blessed sword and hat, which had traditionally been given to basically every ruler of Poland, to Stephen Báthory going to war with Moscow. Antemurale Christianitatis etc. And the sword itself was given through the efforts of Polish senator Paweł Uchański and not the Lithuanian lords.Marcelus (talk) 13:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Marcelus

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

• Ed1974LT, your current statement only shows Marcelus making one edit (which probably could fairly be classed as a revert), but that does not violate 1RR. Were there any other instances of edit warring? If that's all that happened, I'm inclined to close this with no action as a content dispute. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:56, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this should be closed with no action. This is a normal content dispute where one editor disagrees with how to improve an article. This issue is already being discussed at the article's talk page and there was consensus among a small number of editors to make that change. Since Ed1974LT disagrees with the change, they should use our normal dispute resolution tools. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 17:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 GalantFan

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Callitropsis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

GalantFan (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 topics designation

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

1. 19:03, 3 January 2024 (UTC): Removing negative sourced content from Men Going Their Own Way and replacing it with positive, unsourced content
2. 21:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC), 22:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC): More unsourced changes to the article's lead without consensus on the talk page
3. 23:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC), 20:50, 6 January 2024 (UTC): Repeatedly changing "members" to "supporters" on Men Going Their Own Way
4. 17:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 17:48, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 17:59, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 18:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Edit warring; was p-blocked shortly afterward
5. Talk:Men Going Their Own Way#MGTOW communities? Members?: I know this isn't a diff, but GalantFan's comments throughout the discussion illustrate a pattern of bludgeoning and WP:NOTFORUM violations.
6. 19:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Removing a comment by another editor and starting a new section to complain that the article is non-neutral and needs more sources without suggesting specific changes
7. 20:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 21:23, 7 January 2024 (UTC), 21:41, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Edit warring to reinstate the comment added in the previous diff that was repeatedly removed for violating WP:NOTFORUM
8. 21:54, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Using the talk page to complain about other editors

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 11:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC): Blocked for a week by Tamzin for disruptive editing related to this ANI thread. Talk page access was later revoked for continued battleground conduct while blocked.
2. 18:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC): Partially blocked from Men Going Their Own Way for a week by ScottishFinnishRadish

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

Contentious topics alert at 00:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

A pretty clear-cut case of battleground conduct. I didn't take a hard look into their previous edits beyond a glance at the ANI thread that resulted in their first block. It should be noted that the editor who started that thread was an abusive sockpuppeteer, which may be a mitigating factor. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 22:35, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sangdeboeuf: Fixed, thanks. I also agree that we can AGF that the removal of another editor's comment was unintentional. — Callitropsis🌲[talk · contribs] 06:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1194228489

Discussion concerning GalantFan

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 GalantFan

1. 1 No I did not add any unsourced content. I summarized content from the history and ideology subsections in the lede.

Other editors tell me to discuss the article on the talk page and then REPEATEDLY delete my discussions of the article on the talk page.

They tell me to explain why it needs to be changed and then delete my explanation of why.

They explain that consensus needs to be reached and then tell me why they ignore everyone who disagrees with them.

They alter the POV of the article and then complain when parts of the *original* POV are restored. GalantFan (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Callitropsis also deleted another editors comments about the article after Sangdeboeuf also deleted another editors comments about the article. DIFF

Previously it was proven that editor GreenCows was using multiple sock puppets to create a false impression of consensus on hundreds of articles and to camouflage hundreds of instances of white washing and POV edits. GalantFan (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

It's true that GalantFan's behavior has been obnoxious overall, displaying a repeated failure or refusal to listen to what others are saying. But I think the removal of Writ Keeper's comment (#6 above) was probably a simple edit conflict; as GF indicated on their user talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC) edited 06:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Callitropsis: a bunch of the links in the evidence section point to the wrong diffs, usually the ones immediately before the edits in question, FYI. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the talk page history, I was probably too quick to remove several off-topic posts by GalantFan, which seems to have encouraged them to dig in their heels in response to a perceived attack instead of listening. I should have followed WP:TALKO and used {{collapse}} instead of removing posts outright. I'll try to be better about that in the future. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning GalantFan

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

• As an administrative note, this editor was notified regarding the CT area on 4 January ([5]), so we can only take AE action related to what they did after this time. There are some diffs in the report which are indeed after the notice, so I will take a look at those to determine whether action is required for those. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:13, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  FYI WP:CTOP says "Edits made before an editor was aware of a contentious topic designation may still be considered as part of a pattern of behavior in future enforcement processes if those processes primarily concern post-awareness conduct." Galobtter (talk) 04:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, absolutely, pre-warning behavior can (and should) be considered. But there still must be a violation of some kind after it to apply CT sanctions. I think there is here, but I'm still going through the body of it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the edit warring and other misbehavior here, I think I would indefinitely topic ban GalantFan from the subject of men's rights movements. They can then, from there, either demonstrate that they can learn to do better, or go on to harsher sanctions. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've been considering a block because of their PAs on their own talk page. Calling editors dishonest, also this:"Regarding "consensus isn't a head count". Of course not. Consensus obviously means whoever can camp on the article the longest and delete everything that anybody else writes. Then you lied about me making unsourced edits when all I did is use the lede to summarize parts of the ideology and history. GalantFan (talk) 9:23 am, Today (UTC+0)" Doug Weller talk 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The Radish has blocked GalantFan from MGTOW for a week for edit warring. I would not object to further sanctioning for incivility, Doug. Bishonen | tålk 12:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  I don't object to any further blocks for incivility or general battleground editing. I've been pretty under the weather and medicated so I didn't want to do anything requiring too much unclouded judgement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @ScottishFinnishRadish All things considered, I now think a topic ban from men’s rights movements is the best solution which will with all the issues. Doug Weller talk 19:20, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Seraphimblade and Doug Weller about topic banning GalantFan, except that it might be difficult to define "men's rights movements" unambiguously. How about a topic ban from all articles in Category:Manosphere (and their talkpages)? Of course any attempt to change the categorisation in order to to allow editing of an article would be disallowed. Feel better, Radish! Bishonen | tålk 22:03, 9 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  I think we've tried category based topic bans before, and I don't think with much success. It lets people keep nipping right around the edges. With the normal "broadly construed" topic ban, the responsibility is on the restricted editor to stay well clear. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course a gender related ban would cover it all. Doug Weller talk 21:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good idea, Doug. Since Gender and sexuality is already a designated contentious topic (which the user has been alerted to), do you guys think we should t-ban from that? Or more narrowly? Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  I just reviewed their edits, and I think the full GENSEX topic ban is fine, since it's not a topic they normally edit. Easier to go with the standard rather than something narrower with uncertainty around the edges. I also think, after reviewing their edits, we'll end up back here if they end up editing any other contentious topic. They have a history of this style of battleground editing on many of the articles and topics they've been involved with. Also, thanks for the well wishes, Bishonen. Feeling mostly better now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sounds fine to me. Unless there's any objections within the next day or so, will close as such. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:39, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]