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 SCNBAH

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:12, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SCNBAH (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:A/I/PIA (500/30)

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

1. 15 August 2022 adds Category:Hezbollah attacks
2. 15 August 2022 adds Category:Hezbollah attacks

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, 14 August 2022

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Note that there isnt a single source for the idea this was a Hezbollah attack, but regardless Hezbollah is a primary article in the ARBPIA topic and all edits related to it are covered by 500/30. The article has the edit notice and talk page notice for related content, and the user was warned about this material specifically. Also note that a number of users with a handful of edits have returned after year+ long absences to become active in this dispute, eg SCNBAH and Smoking Ethel

Also please note the blatant source misrepresentation in this edit. The Times doesnt say a word about a girlfriend or becoming more religious. nableezy - 19:21, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, it was in there before, removed several times in fact. The first reinsertion was just a revert of my removal here. Which was followed by another revert of an edit by me. nableezy - 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning SCNBAH

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 SCNBAH

Statement by Researcher

I will not defend SCNBAH's edits as I have not checked the sources they used or their edits. However, User:Dennis Brown, this is very large expansion of the Israeli-Arab conflict. Stabbing of Salman Rushdie has nothing to do with Israel, it is not part of the conflict. The claim that any edit mentioning Hezbollah in a context other than the conflict is a large overreach. Are 2022 Lebanese general election or 17 October Revolution, internal Lebanese affairs which involve Hezbollah, now conflict protected everywhere they mention Hezbollah? Hezbollah is a large player with 19.89% of the vote. Is every article on and in Israel now covered by the conflict? There are tens of thousands of Israeli biographies, institutions, organizations, sports, and so on that have nothing to with the conflict but they do mention Israel throughout. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also Nableezy reverted at least four times in the past day, [1][2][3][4]. Though if the A/I/PIA apply that would be legitimate against SCNBAH because of 500/30. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dennis Brown I am not defending SCNBAH, if those edits are bad they should be blocked, not not because of 500/30 or A/I/PIA. I am worried at the expansion here of the 500/30 and A/I/PIA rules and this being here. The ramification I concerned with is that now any Israeli article or any article that mentions Israel, even Category:Olympic equestrians of Israel appearances, would be covered by special A/I/PIA rules. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SCNBAH

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

• I'm assuming the CAT wasn't in there before, so we have one addition and one revert by him. I'm not quite ready to use AE tools, but if the new user proves to be a problem, an article block, done as a standard admin action, may be in the works. Lot of heat and friction on that talk page right now, so I'm loathe to jump the gun on sanctions as it does appear to be moving forward. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:28, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just caught the 500/30 aspect, was focusing on the content...oops. I blocked him for 30 days from editing that article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• חוקרת, Two things to note: I disagree with your perspective on it being under ARBPIA, although I get where you are coming from. It isn't the most obvious, but I think it applies. Second, I blocked as a standard admin action, which is kind of tricky for a 500/30, but is allowed as this is no different than WP:ECP. This means any admin can review it on his talk page if HE (and only he) requests it. I think the action I took is fairly measured, and in the spirit of removing disruption in the area. Yes, it is under 500/30, so the reverts are exempt. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict)The entirety of a article wouldn't be covered under ARBPIA, but anything Hezbollah (or similar) would be, and since that is exactly what he was focusing on, I don't see any daylight between the restriction and his actions. They are certainly covered. Keep in mind, this is also a WP:BLP, so you can expect stricter enforcement all across the board. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• My intention is to leave it to another admin to close after all questions have been asked, as the action taken was a standard admin partial block, not AE sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Good catch Tamzin, and I agree with your conclusions. I see the Ethel sock was a sleeper, two years old. I've went ahead and applied WP:ECP to the article for 90 days. The talk page is still open, but this should prevent any new socks or other trouble on the main BLP while this story matures. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:30, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Re Researcher's point, my view is that content about Hezbollah's role in internal Lebanese politics may sometimes fall outside of "the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed", but the concept of "Hezbollah attacks" falls within that scope. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:05, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  FWIW, I've stuck {{BLP editnotice}} below the ARBPIA notice. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Upon further review, indeffed as either Icewhiz or someone working with him; see also Special:Contributions/Smoking_Ethel. Will leave this for someone else to close, just in case there's anything left to discuss. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:37, 15 August 2022 (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 SaintAviator

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Jr8825 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

SaintAviator (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:ARBEE

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

1. Special:Diff/1104278671
2. Special:Diff/1104039111/1104165916
3. Special:Diff/1104280751

WP:NOTFORUM rants about their belief that Ukraine/Zelenskyy are Nazis/Hitler etc.; purposefully spreading misinformation. No attempts at, or interest in, constructive collaboration. They were topic banned under ARBEE for exactly the same behaviour in 2017.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. Special:Diff/779647782

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Clearly WP:NOTHERE. Has a history of disruptively using talk pages and has been warned adequately over multiple years. Deliberately uses a misleading signature in order to confuse editors.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• Special:Diff/1105003693

Discussion concerning SaintAviator

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 SaintAviator

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SaintAviator

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

• Indef Block - it's not as if they've had a long history of productive edits between the 2017 TBAN and now. Particularly the first of the three diffs is egregiously poor. I was considering a direct indef, but another editor issued a lvl4 warning for it, but given the problems in this field, I think an AE sanction is best levied. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Looking at the editor's talk page, which is littered with blocks and warnings, their last 100 edits, which almost solely consist of arguing on talk pages and low-level disruption going back to 2017, this, and the general way they interact with others, I feel like an indefinite block for battleground/disruptive editing/not here etc etc. is the best course of action. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was thinking indef before I noticed their fake sig that redirects to a non-existing user, so yes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:12, 19 August 2022 (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 Newimpartial

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Sennalen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 04:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

Newimpartial (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/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

1. August 15 Newimpartial reverted well-sourced claims explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong. Their edit summaries did not explain the reverts, and they did not start any talk page discussion.
2. August 15 ^
3. August 17 After edits hashing out all talk page objections, Newimpartial directly removed well-sourced claims explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong.
4. August 16 Part of the dispute is how to interpret Jérôme Jamin[5] Newimpartial claims special knowledge to insist sources mean something other than what they plainly say. This involves examining whether "cultural" is capitalized or not, and similar special pleading not supported by sources.
5. August 17 Newimpartial states that they do not need to consider other editors' opinions or the actual text found in sources.
6. December 28, 2021 Similar arguments were made this past December/January. Newimpartial frequently rejects good-faith requests for clarification as "sealioning".
7. December 28, 2021 ^ (The link they eventually provide here as evidence is just their prior comment that contradicts Jamin without evidence.)
8. February 3, 2021 Newimpartial added language about "no clear relationship" at Marxist cultural analysis.
9. December 15, 2021 I pointed out that the source in fact described a relationship at length. Newimpartial reverted my Talk page post, calling it FORUM, and accused me of socking. This was our first interaction. The source is the same one from Jamin.
10. December 16, 2021 Newimpartial reverted my first attempt to fix the issue with the sole justifications of "BRD" and "no consensus".
11. January 8, 2022 Newimpartial reverted my Talk page policy-based suggestions for article improvement
12. January 8, 2022 ^ (twice)

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on December 30, 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Newimpartial did not violate 3RR, but 3RR is a limit, not an entitlement. Newimpartial has continually exhibited almost every bullet point of WP:DISRUPTIVE editing over an extended period of time. Especially disruptive is Newimpartial's tendency to remove cited claims with inadequate explanation, and try to boomerang requests for clarification by alleging "sealioning". It is a strategy designed to stonewall. This is not a feature of their interaction with me, but a feature of their approach to the topic of the Frankfurt School. If administrators are interested, I can point to further diffs in 2020. While collecting diffs, something I found no evidence for is Newimpartial building encyclopedic content about Marxism when there wasn't an obvious culture war angle.

I have been unable to get consensus mainly because Newimpartial's edit summaries are brief and vague, ignoring the suggestions of WP:DRNC and WP:BRD-NOT. With their "sealion" rhetoric, they weaponize my very willingness to elicit and respond to feedback. Over many months, I have concluded they they are stonewalling. They will never budge from their personal OR interpretation of what an "actual movement" means, which has nothing to do with the sources or edits. As they say in diff 5, arguing with you about what specific sources mean by specific passages - that is something I only do when it is unavoidable, and it is rarely unavoidable. Sennalen (talk) 12:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What Newimpartial describes as rescuing an orphan POVfork was actually a shameful episode. Talk was turning towards adding a dab from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory to Western Marxism. Newimpartial opposed the idea of an informative dab based on culture war reasoning.[6] That's the discussion that led them to Marxist cultural analysis, where their main activity was purging well-cited scholarly uses of the phrase "Cultural Marxism"[7] before setting that page as the dab. It is a Potemkin article to forestall an informative dab. Davide King made some good faith improvements, but since then no one has really paid attention to Marxist cultural analysis apart from the oversized WP:ONEWAY-violating conspiracy theory section. Sennalen (talk) 14:02, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding jurisdiction, the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is squarely in the area of post-1992 American politics. That is where it originated, where it is still active, and crucially, it is why some editors are motivated to stymie article improvements. Sennalen (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, I have never directly reverted a revert. All my restores have been with the addition of further cited text or incorporating talk page feedback. This is obscured by the mass reverts, further underscoring how disruptive that is compared to WP:PARTR. Also BRD is not an excuse to revert any change more than once. If your reversion is met with another bold effort, then you should consider not reverting, but discussing. The talk page is open to all editors, not just bold ones. The first person to start a discussion is the person who is best following BRD. I have always been the one to go to the Talk page first. Sennalen (talk) 22:50, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Newimpartial&diff=1105031008&oldid=1104692691&diffmode=source

Discussion concerning Newimpartial

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 Newimpartial

This is very silly. WP:BOOMERANG, anyone? Senallen is complaining about my partial reverts of their edits for which they have been unable to obtain consensus on the relevant Talk page.[8] Their filing here seems either to misunderstand a large number of my edits. The issue in this minor removal, for example, is not whether the conspiracy theory is wrong, I am disputing the implication in Senallen's BOLD additions that the conspiracy theory is based on an actual movement (as I explained at the Talk page section I linked above).

Newimpartial states that they do not need to consider other editors' opinions or the actual text found in sources is a complete falsification of the edit Senallen linked, where I actually say what I found after reading the text of the actual source. And it is I, not Senallen, who has been constantly pointing to the opinions of other editors on this topic, while Senallen has argued to ignore previous consensus of RfCs and other processes.[9]

As far as the allegation that something I found no evidence for is Newimpartial building encyclopedic content about Marxism when there wasn't an obvious culture war angle, it seems bizarre on the face of it - what is the "culture war angle" involved in ensuring that WP articles aren't skewed, as Senallen has repeatedly proposed to do, by relying on a distorted reading of a single source? It is also obviously false, as shown by edits like these[10] [11] [12] [13] where I worked an orphaned POVFORK into an article that other editors have even able to use and improve.

This filing appears to simply be Senallen's attempt to "punish" an opponent when they don't get their way on Talk; I do wonder about any WP:SPA on this topic area whether they have edited in it (or been banned from it) before, but my having wondered aloud about this last year is scarcely a ground for "punishment", then or now. As far as disrupting the topic area - Senallen's consistent POV pushing in article space, in spite of multiple editors' objections on Talk, is where disruption has been taking place; my refusal to WP:SATISFY them is not the real issue. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

I may be mistaken, but are the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, Marxist cultural analysis articles and their associated talk pages actually subject to the AP2 DS? I've had a quick skim of the diffs provided for the contributions from this month, and cannot see anything obvious that is covered under AP2. What am I missing here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

This filing is erroneous from the start. The first diff is presented with "Their edit summaries did not explain the reverts", which is incorrect. Newimpartial's edit summary, "Subsequent edits depart from the consensus of sources and Talk page consensus, and could confuse the reader. Please discuss rather than proceeding BOLDLY.", did give a valid reason for removal of the newly added content. Instead of building consensus for the changes, Sennalen restored the content immediately. BRD is just an essay, but WP:ONUS applies here too, and either/both show that Sennalen is not in a position to be pointing fingers here. Picking out another diff at random: this edit is described by Sennalen as "Newimpartial states that they do not need to consider other editors' opinions or the actual text found in sources." In the best possible light, this is a misunderstanding of NI's comment that evidences some lack of familiarity with Wikipedia policy and practice. It's hard for me, I have to admit, not to see this as a willfully bad-faith misconstruing of NI's point. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Even if these were covered by WP:AP2, I fail to see how this is anything but a content dispute, or how Newimpartial's behavior could possibly be worse than Sennalen's own. Sennalen WP:BOLDly rewrote massive parts of the article over the course of several days; reverting a bold rewrite is entirely reasonable. Sennalen then revert-warred to retain their changes: [14][15][16] (note in the first revert, Sennalen implied that their proposed additions should remain in place during discussions.) The discussions on talk don't seem to be producing any clear consensus for Sennalen's changes, at a glance, which makes edit-warring them back in even worse. It seems like Sennalen believed that the fact that it was a few days before anyone raised objections means that their edits are now the WP:STATUSQUO, which is definitely not the case - there's some valid disagreement over when text has implicit consensus, but a few days is clearly insufficient. I don't think this has reached the point where it would be more than a content-dispute, but if there are conduct issues here then they concern Sennalen more than Newimpartial.

Also, this is tangential, but glancing over the edits and talk-page discussions I'm extremely skeptical about Sennalen's assertion that their edits are focused on "explaining why the Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory is wrong." That is clearly not the locus of dispute, and the insistence that it is strains good faith. --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tewdar

Anybody new showing up to this article whose viewpoint diverges from the consensus (and by this, I do not mean making claims like "Marxists have taken over America by pushing drugs to students" or whatevs, but content based on academic sources, Sage Encyclopedia entries, OED definitions, that sort of thing, all of which have been either completely or partially excluded from the article at various stages because "WP:CONSENSUS") will be (explicitly or implicity, often explicitly) accused of being a believer in the conspiracy theory, a sockpuppet, a troll, or a racist, by a small group of editors who often seem to prefer to rely on their own unsourced original analysis of capitalization, or unorthodox quantification procedures, while the primary determinant of source inclusion seems to be whether it might be used by someone, somewhere, to somehow 'prove' that the conspiracy is 'true'. Blatantly obvious misrepresentation of sources, that any L1 English speaker can see are false, require a month-long RfC to remove. Getting rid of falsely attributed quotations takes serious effort and a lot of time, with resistance justified by statements that boil down to "I don't give a **** if we misrepresent a bunch of antisemites!" I appreciate the way the grizzled veterans are guarding the article against the edits of dodgy conspiracy theorists who show up quite regularly to moan on the talk page. But I think they're overdoing it a bit.  Tewdar  08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Newimpartial

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

• Even construing "broadly construed" pretty broadly, I struggle to see how these edits are covered by WP:AP2. Sure, the conspiracy theory has some American proponents, and parts of these articles do fall under AP2, but I wouldn't consider the theory itself to be inherently linked to American politics. For what it's worth, I wouldn't consider them sanctionable if they were covered. --Blablubbs (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see how these are covered under AP2 as well. Some of the behavior is a bit problematic, but this wouldn't be the right venue to review it. If this is the worst of it, nothing would likely come about at ANI either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I also think covering these under AP2 is rather a stretch, and regardless, this looks like a content dispute, which is not resolved at AE. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:49, 19 August 2022 (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 Johnpacklambert

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Guerillero (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 23:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing#Johnpacklambert topic banned

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

1. 19 August 2022 Johnpacklambert requests that Nythar "have a look at" an article that may be PRODable. Since the message from Nythar mentions PROD in the proceding message this is an unambiguous request to proxy for Johnpacklambert. This is in a gray area and was reported on my talk page while I was away, so I wanted to bring this behavior here for further discussion with other admins.

@Dennis Brown and Firefly: Any thoughts on the block time? I was thinking a month, the max time for a first violation. We are just coming off of the case where Johnpacklambert was informed that they should stay away from deletions. I would personally like to send a clear message that arbcom topic bans are not to be trifled with. There is also an extensive history of community topic ban violations that make me skeptical that a softer approach will be taken seriously --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 11:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Johnpacklambert

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 Johnpacklambert

• I am very sorry about this. I did not think this would be a violation. I thought I was OK in pointing out to people other articles they might want to look at. I was not trying to suggest anything but reviewing the article. I was not trying to propose any action. I am very sorry about this. I will avoid pointing people to look at any specific article in the future. I see now that this was not the best action on my part. I am very sorry about it. I see now this set of actions was unwise on my part. I was not trying to do anything but point out to the person other articles they might want to look over. I should have thought about this more and avoided it. I am very, very sorry. I was not trying to be disruptive, and did not realize this would be so problematic. I will not do it again.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really was trying to develop a congenial atmosphere with another editor. I realize now I should have found a different approach. I am very, very, very, very sorry about this. I understand now that this was out of line and unacceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I am really sincerly sorry about this. I see now that I should not have mentioned any specific pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have a question about the scope of the topic ban. It realted to categories. Someone told me that I should avoid CfD. I am wondering though, since most of CfD (categories for discussion) is not about deletion but renaming, is the ban for any CfD, or only that related to deletion. What is even the best place to ask this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I have not participated in CfD. Another editor suggested to me that maybe CfD would in some cases be acceptable, and I am asking about it. This desire to punish people for even trying to get understanding and guidance is very, very frustrating.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am asking the question again, because others urged me to ask it. I only had one person respond before, so I was trying to ensure this was actually a broad opinion. I do not like being attacked for trying to get clarity. That is a very frustrating process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I think the fact that totally not understanding the scope of a previous ban and getting a block is used to try and justify extreme harshness for this mistake is not justified. Last December I really did think that mentioning people on my talk page in ways that did not directly discuss my topic ban but who were under my topic ban was OK, as long as I did it without mentioning them in relation to anything related to the topic ban. That was a total misunderstanding on my part. I have avoided any mention since then, even when the issues had absolute nothing to do with the topic ban. This was a very different issue, because this topic ban is mainly focused on behavior. So it bans a clear set of actions. I was not thinking how my action was a related sub-set action. I am very sorry for that. Very, very sorry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I was not trying to violate the ban. I was trying to be collegial and add to positive interaction of Wikipedia, while also trying to avoid anything that would run afoul of the topic ban. I clearly misjudged the matter, but I was trying not to, and trying to not say anything that would actually directly relate to deletion. I was really trying to have positive communications with another editor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• In the imposing of the ban I was told that if a discussion could directly result in a deletion I should stay away from it, but if it was a more general discussion I could participate in it. I thought that if I did not mention deletion at all, nor directly than the person for his deletion actions, I would be safe. Clearly I misunderstood some things, and for that I am very sorry. The fact that an editor has used this as a chance to engage in character assassination against me and attacking my integrity is very, very disturbing. I am an honest and sincere person. I have scrupulously tried to abide by the restrictions that have been placed on me. The viciousness against me is truly uncalled for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

Clear violation, should result in a block. nableezy - 00:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get Dennis on length, but I think that time has passed us by. There comes a point when these tailor made bans that somebody keeps coming right up to the edge to, and then seeks clarification on what that edge is so they can inch ever so slightly closer, transforms in to something wider, and that point came with the full topic ban from ArbCom. That there was significant support for a site ban should have been enough to let any editor know that they should not keep trying to find where exactly the line is that they may not cross, that they should stay the hell away from the line entirely. The ARCA, while it shouldnt be blockable in itself, is just more of the same. Stay away from anything remotely related to deletion. Dont even edit Lana Del Rey because the del key is short for "deletion". And if at this point you dont get that, then you need to be shown with escalating blocks, up and until indefinitely. nableezy - 14:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

If you're going to be blocked? it should be for no more then one week. Because of the t-ban, you're going to be under extra scrutiny. Best bet? walk away entirely from anything to do with 'deletions'. GoodDay (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A month block, for a mistake? That's too harsh, IMHO. These types of blocks are suppose to be "preventative" in nature, not "punitive". GoodDay (talk) 13:54, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

I believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. That isn't an excuse, but a problem. We apparently have an editor who doesn't understand the restrictions, maybe because he isn't capable of understanding or isn't trying to understand. I don't know what should be done, but I don't think that the usual pattern of escalating sanctions will be effective. I believe his statement, and that is a problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

Unfortunately, I do think this probably qualifies as a violation of the "spirit" of JPL's TBAN, if not the actual letter. I've been following this user's saga from the periphery, just as a lurker on the litany of ANI threads. I haven't really interacted with them otherwise.

One of the things I think we should all consider on AE threads is "Is there a better course of action the user could have followed, in good faith, to exercise the impulse they felt? If so, what would it have been?" In this case, JPL could have gotten clarification from an admin if the talk page comment would have run afoul of their TBAN. They could have posted about the page's actual issues (e.g. notability, etc) on a noticeboard or Wikiproject page, without juxtaposing it directly next to someone else talking about a PROD. etc. etc.

As to the length or severity of this violation of a TBAN, though, I think some of the suggested durations are a bit harsh, aren't they? One month, for posting "Another article you may want to have a look at it Giacomo Serra (sport shooter)."? I, like Robert McClenon, believe Johnpacklambert when he says that he is sorry and that he honestly did not know that what he was doing was a violation of the ArbCom order. But I also believe it's not something that requires a month-long block. 48 hours? 1 week maybe?

I know it typically isn't the purview of commenting non-admins to discuss the length of such blocks, and they should be escalating in nature. But I would appeal to empathy. The user clearly did not intend to violate the TBAN, and it is also clearly a grey area that we all think is worth talking about.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

Do not believe JPL when he expresses remorse. Or, at least, do not assume that remorse correlates with a reduced likelihood of violating the ban in the future. I was suckered into believing how distraught he claimed to be during a previous block situation, and tricked into intervening which, in retrospect, likely saved JPL from a community ban at that time. I suggest imposing as long a block as uninvolved admins are willing to place. JPL is a timesink, and I imagine he has wasted more than a hundred person-hours of other people's time over the last half year, and probably more than half of that time wasting is due to my previous intervention preventing a community ban. I'm sorry. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:37, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Johnpacklambert

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

• Clearly a violation. I would note, this is a new sanction, yet the tone of the comment seems to be that he knew that he was skirting his restriction. I would like to hear Johnpacklambert's take on it before having an opinion on sanctions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:19, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guerillero, obviously a one month block is within our authority. I wouldn't argue against it, but if I was acting alone, I would be more inclined to block for a week or two, depending on previous block history. Had the circumstances been different, I would have warned or done a 24 hour block for first time. I tend to take JPL's pleas with a grain of salt, but it is a first time breach. "Setting an example" is kind of tricky, and always ends up meaning "punishing one person more to dissuade others". That has some value, but raises the question of equal treatment. But again, I don't have a strong argument against a one month block. To Johnpacklambert, you can ask Arb for clarification, but to me, CfD would definitely be off-limits, and clearly be under "broadly construed". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So we have Johnpacklambert leaving a somewhat cryptic message on the talk page of someone who had just nominated a bunch of PRODs, and then pointing them to another article to "have a look at". Despite not mentioning PROD or deletion in any of their messages, it seems clear to me that Johnpacklambert's intent was to find someone to proxy for them, which certainly violates the spirit if not the letter of their topic ban. firefly ( t · c ) 07:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Guerillero - Agreed. Given that the relevant case was closed less than a month ago (20 days exactly!), I find it unlikely that Johnpacklambert could be unaware of the seriousness of the topic ban. If TBANs are to be truly effective, we must take just as dim a view of pushing just over the boundaries or dragging uninvolved editors in to proxy as we do of bright-line violations. Support a one month block for the reasons you outline. firefly ( t · c ) 11:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't behavior I like to see; I struggle to interpret this as a good faith error, and can't see any mitigating circumstances. JPL has been a noticeboard frequent flyer, and I echo Guerillero's desire to set a hard boundary here. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  While a merge discussion at CfD, where deletion isn't on the table, may technically be outside the scope of the TBAN, I would echo Ealdgyth's advice that JPL ought to pretend deletion doesn't exist on Wikipedia. No CFD, no RFD, no new page patrol, nothing. Just go write content.

  Tide rolls, I do not believe we are authorized to place indefinite blocks as part of arbitration enforcement: 1 year is the maximum we can do. In any case, I would prefer to start with a month. JPL's conduct has been a problem for a while, but penalizing him for behavior that ARBCOM already sanctioned him for does not sit well with me. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Concur that it's an unambiguous violation. I don't really object to a month-long block, but since their two last TBAN violation blocks were both reversed within days, I think a shorter one (maybe two weeks?) that actually sticks might also do the trick. --Blablubbs (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Seraphimblade: "Reversed" perhaps wasn't the best wording – my underlying point is that the previous sanctions were both listed within days (the second one within 24 hours), so a block that actually lasts two weeks would still be a significant escalation. But I really don't feel strongly about this one way or another, I just wanted to put the thought out there. --Blablubbs (talk) 13:34, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm in agreement ... and I think a month is a good start. We've been down this road before with the "I didn't think it was a violation" and the groveling apologies, but ... at this point, I'm not sure I believe the groveling. JLP, some advice. When you get back from this block, do not think about deletion, just pretend it does not exist on wikipedia. If someone else discusses it - ignore it and do not reply. This applies to anything connected with deletion - CfD/PROD/AfD/MfD... and all noticeboard/talk page/anything discussions that TOUCH any of those processes or are philosophical discussions of deletion or anything else. You have repeatedly shown that .. (in the most charitable view) you cannot judge the edge-cases well ... so the only safe thing for you to do is utterly ignore the concept of deletion on wikipedia. Ealdgyth (talk) 12:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Johnpacklambert, in answer to your question regarding categories, if you need a clarification about the scope of a topic ban imposed directly by ArbCom, the logical place to request such clarification would be at the ArbCom amendment/clarification request board. That said, yes, I believe this was clear boundary pushing, and in this case, stepping over it. In the context of a thread about PRODded articles, "take a look at this article" is a crystal clear "wink wink" request to PROD that one too. I would also note that the above two sanctions noted by Blablubbs were not actually reversed; they were just shortened in length. That clearly has not been effective, so I would support a month-long block, with a clear understanding that any more boundary testing may result in something more severe. The general idea of a topic ban is that one is to stay well clear of said topic, not constantly try to step right up to its border. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 12:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Reading the previous comments, I was going to refrain from commenting. As well as my respect for the admins commenting, my opinion would not be following the consensus so far. However, reading JPL's last post I cannot see their abiding by any topic ban that could be constructed. There is no easier concept to understand than avoid all XfD. They've had adequate explanation and more than adequate opportunity to comply. I have to propose that an indef block with some long period before appeal be enacted. Tiderolls 12:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Vanamonde93: I understand where you're coming from. Please understand that I wasn't proposing a penalty; I was simply trying keep us from being back here in 60 to 90 days. Tiderolls 13:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a clear violation, and I agree with the others above that there are no mitigating circumstances here so we need to take it seriously, particularly given multiple arbitrators were in favour of a site ban based on the 5 year history of JPL failing to heed warnings and violating previous restrictions so I support a block for a month. @Johnpacklambert: regarding CfD, you asked that question on the proposed decision talk page and L235 gave you an unequivocal answer: CfDs and other XfDs are definitely covered (prohibited) by the topic ban. [17]. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @L235: fixing the ping. Thryduulf (talk) 13:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]