Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPS

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

1. [1] 10 March 2024—violating WP:PSCI
2. [2] and [3] 11 March 2024—ad nauseam advocacy for violating WP:PSCI, WP:ASPERSIONS; see also their previous edits at that talk page wherein they accuse me of violating WP:NPOV.
3. [4] 10 March 2024—accusing me you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV
4. [5] 10 March 2024—accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

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

• Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [6] 10 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

• I do not seek a formal sanction, but someone needs to tell them they need to take a break from WP:Advocacy for WP:FRINGE science.
• the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity—this is not part of WP:RULES, they are inventing rules of their own making. In fact, citing Boslough (2023) is more than enough WP:V for the YDIH being pseudoscience.
• So, Boslough (2023) is sufficient for WP:V my view, and Holliday c.s. (2023) is an extra bonus.
• If you want an example: K.R. Popper admitted that Marx's predictions were scientific, but these predictions failed in the real world. So, it suffices to quote Popper in order to show that Marx was mistaken.
• @Aquillion: Wikipedia already has the article Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There it is presented in full detail.
• a maximalist interpretation—for those in the know: a WP:FRINGE interpretation. And no, we don't incorporate fringe theories into mainstream articles. We don't incorporate pseudohistory into Bible scholarship articles.
• @Nycarchitecture212: You should mind both WP:BOOMERANG and WP:SANTA. Accusations of antisemitism without providing evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. What you ignore is that scholars belonging to Reform or Conservative Judaism, see e.g. [7], [8], [9], [10], and "consensus based on archaeology" at [11], also oppose fundamentalist pseudohistory. And secular Jews completely oppose it. I'm not saying that Orthodox Jews are bad people. All I am saying is that their views about Ancient Israel have been debunked by mainstream historians and mainstream archaeologists.
• @ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think it was their first time, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism. Especially [12]. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• What do you think about [13]? tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [14] 11 March 2024

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.

I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing.

As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof.

There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work.

Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity.

He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV.

I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case.

The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.

• I'm not endorsing the theory – I think it's basically science fiction, a mad mixture of Ancient Astronaut Theory and Young Earth Creationism. But you need more than just one paper which has received little coverage and, last time I checked, basically no citations of its own, in order to justify the claim that it has been "refuted", which is a conclusive and final claim, not a provisional one.

  If the citation of a single academic paper (and I of course do not doubt that the paper itself was subject to entirely valid crutiny via a rigorous peer-review process) is "more than enough" to declare a niche scientific theory "debunked", then I do wonder what the minimal Wikipedia requirements might be to make such a claim. What’s the ‘low bar’, compared to this ‘high bar’?

  That isn't how the scientific process works, which necessarily involves back-and-forth disputes in which multiple researchers and schools of thought claim to have 'debunked' the other, nor is it how Wikipedia adjudicates the truth or falsity of the claims to pseudoscientificity, which has a higher threshold of proof.

  You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. KronosAlight (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding WP:ASPERSIONs and the like, it would probably be best to take this to WP:FRINGEN. I think theory is obviously fringe, but how to best describe that and what sources to use for it still requires some thought; people at WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KronosAlight I'm sorry that you've also had a negative interaction with this individual. A few days ago, he attempted the same thing with me. When I messaged him on the article's talk page expressing my concerns, he didn't engage with them at all. He rigidly adheres to one academic narrative regarding biblical scholarship and condescends to anyone with a maximalist interpretation. Personally, I've decided to cease interactions with him. Regrettably, based on my experiences, he appears to be a contentious editor who doesn't engage in discussions and debates in good faith. He frequently reverts edits without delving into the details on talk pages and endeavors to impose his narrow point of view, exploiting Wikipedia policies to suppress discourse and shape articles from a singular perspective rather than incorporating multiple academic viewpoints. While I'm not certain about Wikipedia conventions in such situations or the specific rules he may be violating, it seems implausible that his conduct is permissible. I do think the wording was a little choppy, but your request for him to bring more sourcing is valid and the right way to move the conversation forward.

He also reverted my edits of an anti-Jewish trope about pigs and blood that was poorly sourced and unrelated to the article. The trope of Jews and pigs and blood is best well known in Judensau (German for "Jew-sow") a derogatory and dehumanizing image of Jews that appeared around the 13th century. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis. Jews, who were typically portrayed as having obscene contact with unclean animals such as pigs or owls or representing a devil, appeared on cathedral or church ceilings, pillars, utensils, etchings, etc.

He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perputrating pseudohistory and was ranting about this again a few days ago which got his post struck. One of the consequences of that is he is subtly pushing a pseudohistory revisionist agenda to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient Israel characters (mythical or not) solely as Yahewists. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. I hope that a level-headed administrator will thoroughly investigate these matters. Such action would send a clear message about the true culture of Wikipedia. - Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not quite; I feel quite confident in my characterization and felt an obligation to weigh in to defend KronosAlight and share my experience. I've never had to contribute to one of these posts before but Tgeorgescu's heavy-handed use of admin resources, approach to sourcing and lack of good faith are genuinely concerning, something I've never encountered before.

  My attempts to engage in discussion on talk pages with this user have been sidestepped, and he has made some objectionable statements in the past, which other users have noted that I should be able to raise.

  I've raised valid concerns, most recently regarding the edit about pig's blood on the Ahab page he insists on, and his disregard for my input on the Abrahamic Religions talk page. If you look at what I wrote, it makes quite a lot of sense. Since you are contemplating a logged warning for speaking up, I'm here to contribute positively in good faith and enjoy myself; I didn’t come here looking for trouble. My area of expertise is uncommon and provides a valuable perspective within the framework of Wikipedia policy and discourse. Articles flourish when multiple views converge, and new information is synthesized through discourse. If you 100% disagree with what I wrote, it would be helpful if you could address my specific concerns, and then offer advice on how to refine my approach if necessary, which requires more work but is far more productive and positive. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Here's the full quote: The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency inside the mainstream academia. In mainstream history, it's void. Same as Jehovah's Witnesses dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory." tgeorgescu (talk) 22:1233, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This statement could be considered controversial or offensive, as it directly criticizes the perspectives of certain religious groups, labeling them as promoters of "cult pseudohistory." The use of the term "void currency" suggests that the views of Orthodox Jews on early Judaism are completely disregarded in mainstream academia, which is a broad and potentially misleading generalization. Similarly, equating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the fall of Jerusalem with pseudohistory could be seen as dismissive or disrespectful.

The phrase "I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" indicates a strong bias against certain interpretations of history, which could be interpreted as antagonistic towards groups associated with those interpretations.

While the speaker may intend to express a commitment to historical accuracy, the language used can be seen as targeting specific religious groups, which might be perceived as anti-Jewish or anti-religious sentiment. It’s important to critique specific historical claims or methodologies without broadly dismissing or demeaning the perspectives of entire communities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serpahimblade, I reached out in good faith to get your take on my specific concerns about those articles. Do you mind taking a look and weighing in on each one? To reiterate, he changes articles to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient characters from the Torah (mythical or not) as Yahewists. Also, the pig blood thing was upsetting and another user said it was poorly sourced too. I was really surprised when he reverted these edits. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bishonen, I would read that comment as saying that Orthodox Judaism is a cult; it’s not quite the same thing as saying Judaism is, but given that Orthodox Judaism is the largest branch of Judaism I don’t think it’s a "blatantly misleading aspersion" 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree; in contentious topic areas editors need to be careful and precise in what they say. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I might otherwise see this as a content dispute, but I'm quite concerned by the type of attitude displayed even at this very request: You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. If you know about more sources for the claim, and think it needs more, you ought to be adding them, not removing the claim even though you apparently know it's verified. That's textbook tendentious editing, and if that's how this KronosAlight intends to handle situations like this, I rather wonder if they should be editing in this area (or indeed, any area) at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As to Nycarchitecture212, you seem to have rather grossly mischaracterized the statements you are supposedly quoting. That's not appropriate either. I think there needs to be at least logged warnings issued here, if not more, but would like some additional input if anyone has any. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree that there should be at least a logged warning. The editing is so pointy that I wouldn't object to a topic ban, though I lean slightly towards a logged warning in this case as there hasn't been a pattern of this behavior presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Nycarchitecture212, as to how to "refine your approach", as you stated, you might start by not characterizing someone's statement that they "have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" as "[having] an ax to grind with Jews". Either you are implying that Jews in general are engaged in fundamentalist pseudohistory, or you are totally mischaracterizing the statement to make it look inflammatory and unacceptable when it was not. Whichever one of those it is, that's completely inappropriate. And if you can't recognize it as such, I have my doubts as to whether you should continue editing in this topic area at all. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I suppose I can, given that, see how you got there without it being as bad, but let's not see something like that again. As to resolution, I would go forward with the logged warning, and hope that will suffice to settle things down. If not and we're back here again, we can decide what more to do at that point. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I'm afraid I mind. AE does not resolve content disputes or make binding decisions about what an article should or should not say. If there remains disagreement over that, and that can't be resolved via discussion, additional forms of dispute resolution might be necessary to involve other editors. But that decision is not for me, or anyone here, to make. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will proceed with the closure proposed by Bishonen. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• KronosAlight says here and now that they don't support the theory under discussion, I presume the myth of the Great Flood, or possibly the specific "Black Sea deluge hypothesis". That has not prevented them from sealioning it within an inch of its life, under cover of "simply enforcing NPOV", both on Talk:Flood myth and indeed above on this page. I suggest an indefinite page ban from Flood myth and its talkpage. At least that.

As for Nycarchitecture212's lengthy posts above, it's disgraceful to summarize what Tgeorgescu says here as "He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perpetrating pseudohistory", as Seraphim has noted. Tgeorgescu describes Jews as a cult? No he doesn't. A logged warning for this blatantly misleading aspersion would certainly be appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

@BilledMammal: maybe so. But Nycarchitecture212 needs to be a lot more careful in talking about these sensitive subjects. Bishonen | tålk 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

andrew.robbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – andrew.robbins (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction being appealed

Talk:Elissa Slotkin Extended Confirmed Protection for one year. There does not appear to be a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. There is no discussion with regard to this sanction on Talk:Elissa Slotkin until after its implementation (and even then, only by a third user). There is an active allegation of WP:Meatpuppetry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article but ECP-lock is not a requested remedy.

Administrator imposing the sanction

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

Notification of that administrator

Diff of notification

This page was already semi-protected due to events in July of 2023. Per WP:ATPROT, "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption." Extended-confirmed protection of talk pages is so rare that is not even mentioned in the policy. If the disruption in question was the meatpuppetry allegation (which, granted, it may not have been. I can't read Courcelles mind.), ECP-locking is not at all proportionate. If the allegation is confirmed, the discussion can simply be removed after-the-fact. Even if found to be entirely inauthentic, the discussion was never uncivil or disruptive. The time-frame of this sanction of one year is also utterly disproportionate. The page is already semi-protected and had no pattern of repeated violations that would justify an ECP lock of that length. I am requesting that this sanction be reverted and the prior semi-protected status be restored. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to realize that much of this hinges on the proceedings over on the noticeboard. It may make sense to simply hold off on this appeal until that investigation is conducted given both the prevalence of unconfirmed assertions in the statements below and that a finding of innocence would mean that there is no valid protection from meatpuppets concern in the first place. andrew.robbins (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with the notion that discussions have been neither uncivil nor disruptive. There were numerous instances of personal attacks leveled by Thespeedoflight and his socks, at the minimum. And while it might be unusual to ECP a talk page, it is also, as noted below, highly unusual for there to be this level of off-wiki coordination. I was hesitant in the past to disclose off-wiki accounts, but yeah, it’s @ProgFlipPAWI. Just scroll through his tl and see how the replies to his tweets line up exactly with the actions happening here; this isn’t speculation, users here have already admitted to being socks. Cpotisch (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please take the sockpuppet/meatpuppet speculation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article. This is not the place for that.

Admins, can you strike? andrew.robbins (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dcpoliticaljunkie: With all due respect, I think that the talk page got significantly more hostile after it was ECP'd, not more productive.

Also, the allegations of meat-puppetry are just that. Allegations. Acting as if they're confirmed when they are very much an open question is WP:ASPERSIONS and I'd greatly appreciate you cutting it out. andrew.robbins (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Drmies: The reason that I fell back on "just remove it later" is that Dcpoliticaljunkie did just that with the SPI referenced by wordsmith on a fairly large thread at Special:Diff/1212594724/1213401146 and nobody raised an issue with it. andrew.robbins (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: @Dcpoliticaljunkie's last comment. I'm curious what you mean by "This problem would go beyond manageable if non-ECP editor participation were to restart." There is no problem there aside from OrcaLord vehemently disagreeing with your position. The proper solution to that is to take it to dispute resolution if you can't handle it.

I am going to be completely honest, I don't think this is about false consensus. I think this is about dissent. andrew.robbins (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I see the SPI is already linked. Given the off-wiki issues, I contend this was a reasonable use of CTOP authority to ensure the proper functioning of the project. ECP for a talk page is a rather unusual action, but active attempts to recruit meat puppets is also unusual. Being at the intersection of AP2 and NEWBLPBAN makes the article and the talk page flash point for this type of disruption. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this enforcement action is warranted and hope it will allow for more collaborative editing of this article. For whatever reason, a cabal of Twitter users have chosen to turn this article into a battleground driven by their dislike of the subject as flagged by Cpotisch and admin Muboshgu here. One of the ringleaders of this group of Twitter users (@progflippawi, believed to be the puppetmaster Thespeedoflightneverchanges recently admitted to actively spamming other anti-Slotkin Twitter users to find "experienced Wikipedia editors" to help add negative information to Slotkin's article. This comes after their numerous attempts to sockpuppet have been detected and banned. Simultaneously with the sockmaster's recruitment, a series of editors with sparse editing histories swarmed the talk page to argue for one of the sockmaster's pet inclusions which was previously removed by Drmies. Following the ECP, OrcaLord (part of the anti-Slotkin Twitter cabal who was blocked from the page for edit warring by ScottishFinnishRadish and separately previously warned for original research on the page is the only one of the group who is ECP to argue for the dubious inclusion: while not ideal, it is much more manageable than the swarm following blocked editor Thespeedoflightneverchanges's Twitter recruitment. The enforcement has helped. My report on the administrator's noticeboard has more details about the meatpuppetry concerns on this article in addition to the sockpuppet issue. Need to get back to work so will leave it at that. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk and @Seraphimblade: I understand your concern about ECP of a talk page, however, I'd love to hear what your alternate solution to protect the page from off-wiki coordination and false consensus would be? @Drmies previously semiprotected the page which has helped in stopping the direct sockpuppetry. If the page is not ECP protected, I'm unclear what the mechanism for dealing with off-wiki canvassed editors swarming and tag teaming the talk page. I hope the informed discretion of admins involved in the page wouldn't be overturned by others without full understanding of the situation.

Even now, with ECP protection, I think the ongoing discussion on this section underscores the difficulty and patience required for other editors on this page. This problem would go beyond manageable if non-ECP editor participation were to restart. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Protecting a talk page is more common than some may thing, particularly in cases of continued vandalism or nationalist editing, for instance, and ArbCom is given the authority to do those kinds of things also even if they exceed what might be the ordinary reach of the ordinary administrator. andrew.robbins argues "well you can remove stuff later", but that (willfully or not) skips over the very fact that talk page disruption, esp. by people who act as meatpuppets would, is quickly highly disruptive, and the more posts there are, with responses and responses to responses, the harder it is to just remove a thread as a forum post. This semi-protection was entirely within the administrator's discretion, and even more so given the post-1992 status. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Also see this open GENSEX clarification / amendment request, where the issue of ECP / ECR as it relates to WP:CTOPs is being discussed; it's still open, but at least some arbs are weighing in with the position that admins already have the authority to apply indefinite ECR to specific pages in CTOPs. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear (and I apologize if my replying like this is improper) my position is not that Courcelles did not have the authority to do this. My position is that this was a disproportionate and unnecessary exercise of said authority. andrew.robbins (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As a general principle, I think that any standard restriction able to be authorized on a contentious topic is, by definition, proportionate and necessary. If it were not, the Committee would not have authorized administrators to have such wide discretion in imposing said restrictions unilaterally. It would be self-defeating to the purpose of the CTOPS procedure to require a continuum of escalation in protection beyond what the imposing administrator thinks is appropriate. And I think in the case where an article falls under two separate CT areas and one of those is BLP, there should be an additional presumption in favor of preventing disruption, even if that comes at the cost of non-EC editors being able to contribute. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not involved in this matter, although I was part of past disputes on the article. My viewpoint here is that discussions on the talk page absolutely have been uncivil and disruptive, and that the well-established influence of sock/meatpuppets has resulted in the deterioration of the quality of the talk page discussion. While it might be unusual to ECP a talk page, it is also, as noted below, highly unusual for there to be this level of off-wiki coordination. I was hesitant in the past to disclose off-wiki accounts, but yeah, it’s @ProgFlipPAWI, and scrolling through his timeline will show quite clearly what the issue is here. I’m bringing this up not to target users but to make clear that we are dealing with a highly-unusual situation that requires potentially-unusual remedies. A talk page spammed to swing outcomes will result in editorial decisions difficult to identify and reverse. Cpotisch (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I support the User:Seraphimblade here, ECP a talk page for a whole year just over an unconfirmed sockpuppet accusation is overdue and drastic, it should be removed once the accusation is closed. Even if there is any confirmed sockpuppet, any effect of sockpuppetry can be cleaned up by just deleting the sections started by socks and the replies from socks, while the current ECP status prevents lots of potential goodwill editors from providing any contribution to that page which will lower its quality. Also, the page itself is ECPed and we should generally trust their ability to decide what should be added based on Wikipedia policy and sufficient information, ECP the talk page will only limit the information they can get.

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

• I'm not weighing in on the appropriateness/proportionality of the 30/500 protection just yet, but I do want to note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thespeedoflightneverchanges is relevant here for additional context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems like the use of ECP was valid and within Courcelles's authority under the Contentious Topics designations. I'd be open to arguments for reducing the duration, but I don't think there's likely to be a consensus for removing it entirely. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  After taking another look, I think it would be reasonable to downgrade to semi-protection and reduce the duration, somewhere between 1 week and 1 month. If we see significant disruption by autoconfirmed accounts, we can always upgrade it again. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Courcelles, while of course use of ECP is within discretion here, what was the reason for using ECP rather than semiprotection? Shutting out editors from even a talk page is a drastic action, and ECP shuts out substantially more, so I think that does deserve more consideration than a rubber stamp. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  OrcaLord and Cpotisch, I have removed your incorrectly placed comments. Threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. If you would like to make statements, please make them in a section of your own, as instructed above. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I agree with Red-tailed hawk. I do not see sufficient justification for ECP here. I'm open to hearing from the protecting administrator, and perhaps I would change my mind with that, but otherwise I would at least reduce this to semiprotection. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm just plainly not seeing the justification for placing ECP on the article talk page on 18 March and keeping it for a year. I plainly do not see disruption in the talk page history that warrants ECP; within the past month one autoconfirmed sockpuppet posted a single comment on 7 March, but that does not justify protecting the whole article's talk page (something that ought truly be a last resort) for a whole year. As for the potential of future disruption, as WP:ECP notes, Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred.
  Administrators have authority to make unilateral CTOP actions, but they still have to be justified to survive appeal. A single edit by an autoconfirmed sockpuppet account on 7 March does not warrant the imposition of a 1-year extended-confirmed protection beginning on 18 March. I believe that this action should be overturned and converted into nothing more stringent than some temporary sort of semi-protection. As such, I would accept the appeal. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• I also find it hard to see this as "reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption", basically per Red-tailed hawk. I support accepting the appeal and restoring the previous non-CTOP semi-protection, which no one here seems to be objecting to, without prejudice against returning to ECP if there's additional disruption in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]