Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344	345	346

Appeal request by GoodDay

The indefinite GENSEX topic ban on GoodDay is lifted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:45, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Appeal request by GoodDay (talk)

Statement by GoodDay

I understand the mistakes I made & certainly recognise that the topic-in-general is indeed contentious. Should administrators choose to lift my t-ban from GenSex? I can easily promise, it's a topic area I will not be combative in (editing pages & posting at talkpages) & would refrain from commenting on other editors. If any questions, please feel free to ping me. GoodDay (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Here's my Failed appeal & my successful amendment request. On the latter, I believe I've proven my self-restraint, since. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I got into a dispute with another editor at the talkpage of Jordan Peterson, in the summer of 2022. Lost my temper, when the other editor kept 'closing' my posts there. In frustration, I used the 'wrong' pronoun when describing the editor, to another editor. A) I should've stayed away from the topic-in-question, B) Should'n't of reverted the editor's closing of my post there & walked away from the discussion & C) Should not have used an undesirable 'pronoun' describing the other editor-in-question. GenSex is under CTOP & one should walk softly when involved in any dispute, in that topic area. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To use a sports analogy. How can I prove I'm able to play the game, if I'm not allowed to play the game? GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown: I've been closely watched since the t-ban was put in place. I'm aware that this would continue, should my t-ban be lifted. Also, I would avoid the two editors-in-question, in that area. GoodDay (talk) 07:18, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: At the moment, there's no particular article I wish to work on, directly related to GenSex. Over-all, should my t-ban be lifted? I think the best approach for me, would be to gradually (but lightly) get involved in the topic area. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: I don't wish to get involved in discussions at WP:LGBT 'or' start or join any (potentially) heated discussions, concerning LGBT/GenSex topics. Two bio examples - I would avoid such discussions should they arise at Jordan Peterson or J.K. Rowling & for example - I'd avoid general discussions like deadnaming. A further example of my self-restraint abilities, concerning CTOP? - I'm not t-banned from Palestine/Israel-related pages, but I don't get involved with the (potentially) heated discussions around that general-topic. GoodDay (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, at the moment there isn't any major discussions occurring in relation to GenSex. So far, I haven't come across any pages that need corrections directly related to GenSex. I don't have WP:LGBT on my watchlist, so it's highly likely I'd miss such discussions or notifications. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

The topic ban was over 18 months ago, and from what I can tell, GoodDay has more or less stayed out of trouble in the interim. It is my nature to give people second chances (or WP:ROPE) after a period of time. I haven't followed or commented much on his situation since I put the ban in place, to be honest. Officially, I will be "neutral" to the idea, and would probably say that if you are going to remove the topic ban, it should be understood that "while indefinite doesn't mean infinite", it probably will if there is another problem in the future. The entire topic area is a minefield, and I would recommend (as I did when I instituted the topic ban) that GoodDay still avoid Sideswipe9th & Newimpartial, if the consensus is that removal is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. If lifted, GoodDay should be aware that many eyes will be on their edits, and the threshold to block or reinstitute the ban will be quite low. And if a consensus decides to leave the tban in place, that is also fine. Again, I really don't have strong feelings about it either way. Dennis Brown 2¢ 07:15, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Quickly on the timeline, GoodDay was originally TBANed in July 2022, he made and withdrew an appeal at AE in January 2023, made and withdrew an ARCA appeal in February 2023 after being advised to file it here, made a successful partial AE appeal in February 2023, followed by a failed appeal in June 2023. At present, GoodDay is permitted to make edits to articles that would be covered under GENSEX, so long as they are entirely uncontroversial (such as formatting or fixing typos) and do not touch on anything substantively related to gender or sexuality.

GoodDay, you said in your reply to The Wordsmith that you would like to gradually (but lightly) get involved in the topic area. How do you envisage that occurring? Are you wanting to get involved with discussions at WT:LGBT? One of my concerns from the January 2023 appeal is that, at the time at least, you had a tendency to make short, terse, and at best tangentially related borderline forum style comments on article talk pages (for examples, see my comment in that appeal). If this appeal is lifted, are you endeavouring to not make that type of talk page contribution going forward? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay: Ok, then what exactly do you want to do if the TBAN is lifted? What does gradually (but lightly) get involved in the topic area mean in practice? What do you want to do, that you can't do now? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by GoodDay

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal request by GoodDay

Do you have any of the links to your earlier appeals? You said I understand the mistakes I made but haven't explained this mistakes, or how you will avoid them in the future. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm inclined to extend another chance here, now that Dennis has chimed in. @GoodDay: what do you intend to do in this topic area if the ban is lifted? Any articles you'd like to work on in particular? The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 14:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not impressed with the situation that led to this topic ban, but it does seem to have led to some reflection and learning. Given that, I think I would be inclined to give a second chance here with a clear understanding that if there are any other problems, there will not be a third. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I intend to close this request with the topic ban being lifted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per our banning policy, [t]he measure of a ban is that even if the editor were to make good or good-faith edits, permitting them to edit in those areas is perceived to pose enough risk of disruption, issues, or harm, to the page or to the project, that they may not edit at all. I'm not particularly convinced that we presently require that measure with GoodDay. The user is, exceptionally, already permitted to nibble around the edges of this topic in ways that are not likely to be contested (i.e. gnomish edits). The editor has, over the past year, appeared to have made edits in other contentious areas in a manner consistent with our civility norms and our norms against disruptive editing. The reflection above seems honest. I think we should give them a second chance here, and that the ban should be lifted along those lines. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:26, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani

Drsmoo is topic banned for one year from the conflict between Palestine and Israel, broadly construed. Nishidani is warned against using unconstructive or unnecessarily inflammatory language in the topic area. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Nishidani

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Drsmoo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Nishidani (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:General_sanctions

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

[1] "oh goody. I can't wait to perve on the discussion there when it gets to his beliefs about the genetic superiority of his own ethnic group . Dumb goyim beware:)" - Used the phrase "Dumb Goyim beware" to impugn a living person, perhaps more broadly.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

[2]
[3]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Nishidani wrote the phrase "Dumb Goyim", which is found in Mein Kampf, and frequently found on antisemitic hate sites. Bret Stephens, who Nishidani is commenting on, never used this phrase. I can only assume he is using it in the same way it is frequently found on hate sites, as a way to claim Jews hate non-Jews.

Evidence of the phrase being Antisemitic:

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Mapping_the_New_Left_Antisemitism/BUTREAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT108&printsec=frontcover] - "In Mein Kampf, Hitler used the term 'dumb goyim' to refer to gullible gentiles who, thinking well of the Jews, were manipulated by them. He wrote that 'the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim.' This antisemitic trope is also found in Tom Paulin's poem Killed in the crossfire."

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/actap-2021-2002/html - " In all of these cases, the ultimate responsibility of the “national decadence” or globalization falls on a single figure, depicted simultaneously as unitary and recognisable – “the Jew”, the Judischer Großunternehmer (as businessman or investor, Figure 4), Soros or Sutherland –, multifaceted and omnipresent, more or less explicitly identified as the controller of the so-called “Stupid Goyim” (Figures 5 and 6). This notion, that of the “dumb Goyim”, present through different variations, latent or explicit, named as such or suggested through the depiction of the servile Gentiles under “Freemason and Jewish commands”, syncretic or specific, can be seen in the particularly ferocious classic depictions of the Nazi propagandist Philipp Rupprecht alias Fips in Der Stürmer and is nowadays commonly present in the Social Media, as seen in notorious caricatures from US cartoonist Ben Garrison, amongst others." Drsmoo (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/23/arts/connections-hateful-name-calling-vs-calling-for-hateful-action.html - “But that poem's language is loaded with bigoted baggage: it speaks in the name of a we -- dumb goys -- who are no longer taken in by the lying phrase and weasel language of Zionists. These intimations of Jewish arrogance, lies and cheating tap into ancient tropes.” Drsmoo (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://newrepublic.com/article/77373/the-living-lie-antisemitism-england - “But “goys” widens the target still further, declaring that it is Jews in general that Paulin has in his sights. “Goys”—not the proper Hebrew plural goyim—is a word used “by diaspora Jews, as reported by anti-Semites.” Moreover, “it reprises the anti-Semitic trope that Jews privately view gentiles with contempt. The disparagement of ‘goyim’ is a central trope in the Protocols [of the Elders of Zion]: The goyim are a flock of sheep and we are their wolves.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsmoo (talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.com/books/edition/Under_Postcolonial_Eyes/I1wqPVsxP-YC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA25&printsec=frontcover "We should note that the phrase "dumb goys" is actually borrowed from an English translation of Mein Kampf, thus revealing the poem's underlying antisemitic discourse that perversely ascribes to Jews Hitler's view of them:”

https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_State_of_the_Jews/tpcuDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA155&printsec=frontcover "Not a few readers now returned to Paulin's February 2001 scribblings on Israel, quoted above, and noticed that their key phrase of ironically flattering self-mockery about being deceived by the wily Zionists came from none other than Hitler himself. In a passage from Mein Kampf familiar to every student of this subject” Drsmoo (talk) 01:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nableezy, read the actual source, "Dumb Goyim" is described as an "antisemitic trope." Which it is. Drsmoo (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC) The issue is not criticism of Bret Stephens, the issue is Nishidani's use of a common antisemitic trope, which is either being used to impugn Bret Stephens, or Jews more broadly. Drsmoo (talk) 17:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Objective3000, The phrase “dumb goyim” is an antisemitic slur. It is used all the time on hate sites as such, as is noted in reliable sources. It is described as an antisemitic slur in reliable sources. That you find the slur “less than helpful”, but the calling out of its usage “unacceptable”, is bizarre. Drsmoo (talk) 19:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: I don’t read hate sites either, but I’m unfortunately familiar with antisemitic tropes, as are the sources who note that this is one. Drsmoo (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: "increasingly strident claims that it can only be an anti-semitic slur and therefore it must be one here" I used the word "assume" because it's not a fact and I can't read Nishidani's mind. And I'm fully aware of the context. Nishidani was criticizing Bret Stephen's own outrageous views. In doing so, he sarcastically used the phrase "Dumb Goyim", which is a known antisemitic trope, but which unfortunately, whether intentional or not, added an additional layer of uncomfortable meaning to the reply. It is possible that Nishidani is unaware of this trope, which is why I repeatedly asked him to strike it before filing this. But that trope should not be on Wikipedia. Drsmoo (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS: You’re saying the phrase is mild. It’s not mild. Perhaps you and some others are unfamiliar with it though. I explained how and why the phrase is antisemitic with reliable sources, rather than commenting on Nishidani. I asked Nishidani to remove it, which was not done. The argument from some seems to be that the issue is me reporting a user for posting a phrase that’s known to be antisemitic, and citing sources explaining that the phrase is known to be antisemitic.

To summarize, the phrase IS antisemitic, and should never be on Wikipedia. I’m not making any comments on another user, only on the nature of the phrase he posted, which is absolutely unacceptable. Drsmoo (talk) 21:20, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS:Please read the filing. There are four reliable sources that explain the significance of the phrase for those who may be unfamiliar with it. Drsmoo (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nableezy: Please read the next line of the source you’re saying is “moot”. Yes there is a standard. Phrases that are directly described as being antisemitic can’t be used on Wikipedia. When an editor is asked to remove an antisemitic trope, and doesn’t, they get reported. Drsmoo (talk) 23:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000: "Obscure rationales"? Rationales for what? These are all normal, scholarly sources describing the history and meaning of this phrase. Nishidani still has not struck out his comment. Drsmoo (talk) 02:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone explain how bringing an Arbitration Enforcement request can be viewed as a “personal attack” or violation of AGF? Isn’t this forum specifically for accusing users of violating the rules? I don’t see how the argument can be made that the context of “Jews privately view gentiles with contempt” couldn’t apply in this context with regard to Bret Stephens and the IQ article. I also want to note that this thread is currently being discussed off wiki, including personal attacks made against me. Drsmoo (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: The thread was derailed when Nishidani jumped in, and used the phrase “dumb Goyim”. Your bad faith allegation of “rhetorical games” is incorrect now, and was incorrect Then . According to some editors, not only am I not permitted to cite multiple sources, at AE, explaining why a phrase is described as antisemitic, but I’m to be subjected to baseless allegations of bad faith while doing so. Note that Nishidani has still not stricken the passage. Drsmoo (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith: @ScottishFinnishRadish: I am baffled. I've edited on Wikipedia for 18 years, and aside from some accidental 1rr violations over 10 years ago in that time, I have, to my recollection never had any issues with conduct violations. And my block log is about as good as it gets for frequent I/P editors. Nor have I ever "derailed a discussion", intentionally or otherwise. That is not only factually wrong, it is textbook casting aspersions. Please explain how making false allegations about my editing is acceptable? "Drsmoo derailed the thread by focusing on (false) accusations about the NYT and WaPo being "propaganda."" Really? These were the comments. In a discussion about "facts cited in reliable sources": "I'm sorry that you can't tell facts from propaganda. You might like to read more about it." and "Yor unfaltering belief in "facts established by reliable sources", in the midst of a war propaganda, is amusing." Those false allegations, specifically, are what were challenged. Not any personal attacks, nor casting aspersions .Yes, the claim that reliable sources should be dismissed because of a baseless claim of "war propaganda" needs to be substantiated. If there is a policy stating that one shouldn't engage in substantive discussions about an editors rationale, or that one cannot make accusations in AE, please link me to it, as in 18 years, I have not come across that before. There are always ways to do things better, and I do acknowledge that I could express things more smoothly, perhaps with more detailed posts that acknowledge the points of views of editors I disagree with, ie., the four step refutation, which begins by ensuring that the other editors argument is fully understood.Drsmoo (talk) 21:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I am responding here, despite being over the limit, because it's important. The claims of propaganda didn't happen in that talk page, they happened in the "Denial of the 7 October attacks" talk page, linked above. They were also accompanied by direct personal attacks. Unfortunately, that context was not presented. This thread is being linked to off-wiki. And I am very frustrated to see users jump in and throw baseless accusations and noise, "defending racism?" Kashmiri should substantiate that with any diff in which I did that to any extent whatsoever, ever. There is a LOT of noise in this thread, and I am more than happy to provide the actual context to any allegations, if permitted. Drsmoo (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kashmiri: Please link to a SINGLE diff of mine, ever, where I posted a "defence of racism", if you are unable to find one, please strike your comment. Drsmoo (talk) 19:28, 16 February 2024 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Because of the phrase used by Nishidani. I literally called Stephens views outrageous. Please link to a “defense of racism”, or strike your comment. Drsmoo (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC) @Kashmiri: Thank you for striking that aspect of your comment, but your edit summary is also false. At no point did I "attacked Nishi for criticising Stephens's credentials." Nor did Nishidani even comment on Stephen's credentials. I wrote, directly, "To be specific, your comment "Dumb goyim beware" is unacceptable." Why would you write such an evidently false edit summary? Drsmoo (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith:, @ScottishFinnishRadish:, @Seraphimblade:, am I permitted to link here to the ongoing off-wiki linking to this AE, as well as other links to my posts, including with the stated wish for a "boomerang", that has been occurring since October? Drsmoo (talk)

@JayBeeEll: Seven different scholarly/reliable sources were posted showing that "Dumb Goyim" is considered an antisemitic trope by at least enough people to warrant multiple scholarly sources directly describing it as such directly. Per DeGruyter, it is "commonly present" in social media. Per the NYTimes it shows "intimations of Jewish arrogance, lies and cheating". That phrase should not be on Wikipedia. I pinged Nishidani three times asking him to strike it, he did not. It is now four days later, he still has not stricken it. It seems the new Wikipedia is that we can ignore reliable sources if we don't agree with what they say, and then ask for those who do to be punished. There are multiple sources saying "Dumb Goyim" is an "antisemitic trope". How dare I ask for it to removed, and then report it through the proper channels when it’s not. Drsmoo (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JayBeeEll:In fact, I was specifically informed by an admin, here, that I am permitted to respond to allegations directed towards me even if over the word limit. Drsmoo (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Nishidani&diff=prev&oldid=1207372990

Nishidani

The last time I was reported, I was advised shortly beforehand to retract or else,AE. The complainant was on American time, mid evening. I was on European time, and was snugly abed, remaining so for several hours, and only saw the AE notification 12 or so hours later. Idem here (ergo my silence, Wordsmith, is innocuous). In the present case, I am on Melbourne time, and have been for 2 and a half months, as anyone glancing at my page, as I have grounds to assume Drsmoo does, would know. I wrote the incriminating post towards midnight here, after several versions of a much longer analysis of Bret Stephens status as an 'expert' were paralysed by the flurry of one line exchanges. On this borrowed laptop I cannot copy and paste, so each time I found an edit conflict barring my comment, I had to rewrite it. In the end, After over a half an hour f wasted time, I made my point as briefly as the hyperactivity of exchanges would allow me to make a remark. I would gladly answer any queries if people seriously believe that 'dumb goyim' (I originally wrote something like:'It's somewhat hard to assess Stephens' expertise, at least for a dumb goy like myself!') How that ironic self-putdown can be construed as 'antisemitic' is beyond me.Nishidani (talk) 00:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wordsmith. This may sound contrarian, but I would be dishonest were I to try to wriggle out of a possible sanction by admitting that the irony of my making fun of myself was better refactored because the complainant argues, bewilderingly, that it was antisemitic. I don't know, not being able to check the log, how many times AE has been called on to try and skewer me with wildly trivial 'evidence' often with this defamatory insinuation. Certainly the plaintiff here has done so several times.I could reconstruct the full version of what I originally wrote about the claim Bret Stephens is an authority or expert, when he is on record as asserting the superiority as original thinkers of the ethnic group he identifies himself with, but such an excursus would be inappropriate here, and I will make that point, covid permitting, on my talk page under the notification.Regards Nishidani (talk) 07:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it will make someone happy, for the record, I readily admit that (a) I forced myself to read Mein Kampf about 4 decades ago and that (culpably in my book) I never retained an impression that 'dumb goyim' was a uniquely Hitlerian coinage. Unfamiliar with the vast gutter of antisemitic ranting sites, I was unaware also of its currency there. I do read widely in (Jewish) American literature, and a phrase like that is one I associate with the exuberant caricatures of Philip Roth ('This guy is rich. A real dumb muscle-bound goy. A stupid shagetz par excellence.' )etc. The key point in this misprision is the difference between our respective reading practices, and the consequent differences between how we respond to phrases like that. Drsmoo thought I had Hitler in mind, whereas I had very funny portraits of non-Jews in mind, of a kind great (Jewish) writers have drawn when skewering some fictive character type in their own community.Nishidani (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just a brief note on 'inflammatory'. The often sniffishly pompous and turgid prose I resort to is the defensive outcome of, decades back, trying to insulate myself against a natural tendency to use robustly comical language of the kind that almost immediately lends itself to complaints. I come from an Irish cultural milieu as exuberantly rich in self-mocking jokes about the proverbial dumbness of the Irish as is Yiddish with its inexhaustible stores of jokes about fellow Jews. I don't recall anyone in my background being upset at hearing an outsider tell us an 'anti'-Irish joke (Why are there so few lawyers in Ireland? Because Micks can never pass the bar').When my auntie mentioned how a dear neighbour had contracted pig's face disease, and I asked her whether or not we should get her some oinkment', this wasn't taken as taking a shot at the unfortunate. While we have general rules for verbal etiquette, over-sensitivity, particularly ethnic defensiveness can drive out the occasional light touch or ironies that in any sane society ease the stress of our otherwise focused and voluntary workloads.Nishidani (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion concerning Nishidani

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 Nableezy

"Dumb goyim" is clearly a tongue-in-cheek reference to a column Mr Stephens wrote that was widely derided as advancing eugenic theories, eg here, here, here, here, here, here, and the tendentious claim that it is antisemitic on its face is the height of bad faith. Nishidani did not impugn anybody by using that phrase, that is yet another example of a bad faith assumption by Drsmoo. Drsmoo should be sanctioned for disrupting the talk page by making repeated bad faith claims of racism, eg here and here. Shouting racist when you cant respond to somebody's point may be an acceptable tactic in some places, but Im pretty sure it is not here. This should be closed with a swift boomerang topic ban. nableezy - 17:24, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence bit is absurd, that is evidence that that usage was antisemitic, Nishidani is not making the same reference and repeatedly claiming somebody has a Hitlerian intent is a straightforward personal attack that should be met with sanctions. nableezy - 17:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lets break this down:

Drsmoo: Bret Stephens is a reliable source

Nishidani: oh the guy that claimed that Ashkenazi Jews are gentically intellectually superior to all other races?

Drsmoo: Thats racist!

Drsmoo: proceeds to AE

nableezy - 17:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, saying that gullible gentiles who, thinking well of the Jews, were manipulated by them may be, but that was not Nishidani's meaning and you cannot claim that any usage of a phrase reflects that one particular meaning. It clearly is in reference to Stephens column that advanced the idea that Ashkenazi are genetically intellectually superior to others. You, unable to respond to that point, went with the "thats racist" defense. nableezy - 17:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There continue to be assumptions of bad faith and claims of racism on this page, and the user making them should be blocked or topic banned for doing so. Im done here though. nableezy - 17:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith you are taking the claim that any usage of that phrase is supposedly unacceptable. Im pretty sure the word Germany was in Mein Kampf too, is using that word antisemitic now? This is asinine, the second google result I get for "dumb goyim" is Michael Rapaport using the phrase unironically, Rapaport being supposedly a champion for Israel. You cannot claim a racist intent without any basis at all, and the usage here is obviously in reference to Stephens saying that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically smarter than others, making the others (the goyim) "dumb". It is absurd to claim this is "not acceptable". Its acceptable to uncritically push for using a source somebody who has written about the "disease of the Arab mind" and promoted eugenics? This is insane. nableezy - 17:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isnt without context. when it gets to his beliefs about the genetic superiority of his own ethnic group is the context. Stephens claimed that Ashkenazi Jews are inherently smarter than others. Smarter and dumber are antonyms, as are Jews and Goyim. Stephens said this subset of Jews are genetically superior to other people. Nishidani internalized that to his being dumber as not being an Ashkenazi Jew. Youre basically imposing a standard on what phrases may or may not be used on the basis of some other person's bad faith assumption, something we famously have a rule against. nableezy - 18:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Wordsmith is repeatedly alleging a racist or even Nazi intent not then its own issue that should be examined? Is it ok to make such an accusation without basis? Is saying on this board I can only assume he is using it in the same way it is frequently found on hate sites, as a way to claim Jews hate non-Jews. not a blatant violation of WP:NPA? nableezy - 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Think the same applies to Coretheapple's repeated insistence that this is "antisemitic phraseology" and "antisemitic verbiage". And Drsmoo's own sources contradict his position here. In one it argues that using goys instead of the proper Hebrew plural goyim (Goys”—not the proper Hebrew plural goyim—is a word used “by diaspora Jews, as reported by anti-Semites.”, Nishidani wrote goyim rendering that point moot). The others appear to be discussing usage of dumb goyim as similar to useful idiot, but that was not Nishidani's usage. And that is obvious from the context in which it was used. Repeatedly making such slanderous claims against an editor should result in sanctions, and that goes for Coretheapple as well. nableezy - 22:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read it Drsmoo, and it does not support your tendentious claim that any usage of the term "dumb Goyim" in any context is antisemitic or that it advances antisemitic tropes, as Nishidani was clearly not using it in a way that reprises the anti-Semitic trope that Jews privately view gentiles with contempt. It is used in a response to Bret Stephens saying that group A (Ashkenazi Jews) is genetically superior intellectually to group B (the other, or the goyim), that group B is dumber than group A. He is not refer[ing] to gullible gentiles who, thinking well of the Jews, were manipulated by them. None of that applies to what he wrote, and lest we forget the person who you now say holds outrageous views is the person you were presenting as a reliable source who should be cited in an encyclopedia article for their opinion. nableezy - 00:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish I read the parts of Trials of the Diaspora that mention anything close to dumb goyim, they have a bit on a poem that uses "dumb goys" and says It reprises the anti-Semitic trope that Jews privately view gentiles with contempt. The disparagement of ‘goyim’ is a central trope in the Protocols: The goyim are a flock of sheep and we are their wolves, our purpose is to turn the goyim into unthinking, submissive brutes, etc. Thats the trope, that gentiles are being played by Jews into doing their bidding. Nishidanis comment did no such thing and repeatedly portraying it as Hitlerian is way beyond any battleground behavior you think exists in objecting to that. nableezy - 16:41, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Selfstudier

A quite ridiculous waste of time filing. The talk page discussion, Talk:UNRWA_October 7 controversy#Scahill and Stephens speaks for itself.Selfstudier (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Afraid I am still unable to see any merit whatsoever in this filing. Selfstudier (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to see the use of "dumb goyim" as antisemitic As I asked on the talk page at the time, am still waiting for an explanation of how that works exactly.Selfstudier (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

It’s a sensitive area and perhaps Nishidani’s bit of sarcasm was less than helpful. OTOH, Drsmoo’s repeated references to Mein Kampf, anti-Semitism, and statement that they can only assume he is using it in the same way it is frequently found on hate sites is wholly unacceptable in the discussion and a serious mistake to bring here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:09, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: Most of us do not read hate sites. Here, we assume good faith. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Coretheapple: Yes we must take pains to avoid a hostile environment. I'd say the first step is for Drsmoo to WP:DROPTHESTICK and stop insisting this is an example of anti-semitism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone please ask Drsmoo to stop digging up obscure rationales for accusing others of hate? Wrong forum, wrong site. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is reasonable to see the use of "dumb goyim" as antisemitic. Only if the context suggests such. If I may, it has been said: “Separate text from context and all that remains is a con.” O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Coretheapple

Are we really debating over whether a crude antisemitic epithet is a crude antisemitic epithet? There is no excuse for it. Nishidani should be, at a minimum, indefinitely topic banned from I/P. We would not permit racist comments on articles on Africa, and the same principle should apply to articles on Jewish related topics. Zero tolerance should apply here too. Coretheapple (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite I beg to differ. There is no such thing as an inoffensive, sarcastic or jolly use of "dumb goyim." The article in question is not about use of the term "dumb goyim" or a user thereof. This is an article about alleged UNRWA participation in the Oct. 7 attacks in Israel. That is a terribly grave subject. A review of the exchange in question indicates it was introduced gratuitously. Those discussions are heated enough without that type of offensive language and it is not acceptable on I/P talk pages or any subject areas that is contentious. Coretheapple (talk) 20:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A word about "context." I'm seeing "context" used to justify or excuse use of "dumb goyim." Another "context" is the high temperature in the talk pages of these articles. These are not chats at a local bar. They are discussions concerning articles of deep seriousness. For instance, as has been discussed in the past, use of "Zionist" as a derogatory term, as in "Zionist entity" for "Israel." "Zionist narrative" for "pro-Israeli narrative." Such terminology contributes to a incendiary atmosphere in this topic area. That too is context that should be taken into consideration. Coretheapple (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IOHANNVSVERVS Re your reply to me and the comment that follows, I would be very careful not to go overboard in "jiu-jitsuing" this editor's complaint against him, I think we must take pains to avoid creating a hostile atmosphere for editors who wish to report use of antisemitic phraseology on article discussion pages. Coretheapple (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Objective3000 The user is reporting antisemitic verbiage on a talk page. What do you want him to say? That it isn't antisemitic? Coretheapple (talk) 22:35, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

Clearly an inappropriate and inflammatory thing for Nishidani to have said. Though an instance of incivility, it is rather mild/minor/insignificant in my opinion.

I'm personally more concerned about the unfounded accusations of antisemitism, something all too common in the I/P CTOP. Especially concerning to me is that the filer did not simply report concerns of potential antisemitism, which could have been reasonable, but that they are arguing with other editors and insisting that the intent was antisemitic (even suggesting that it is somehow comparable to the antisemitism of Mein Kampf) is what makes this filing even vexatious in my opinion.

Users should be encouraged to report misconduct even if their reports/concerns end up being unfounded, as long as these reports are made in good faith. In this case however, it is the argumentation and insistence that Nishidani is antisemitic that clearly and starkly violate the guideline of WP:AGF. It's ironic, even contradictory, that Drsmoo claims to be concerned about Nishidani "impugning a living person", while they repeatedly here impugn Nishidani. To reiterate, raising concerns of antisemitism here could have been understandable, even if misguided, but arguing and insisting that significant antisemitism occurred in this case is wholly inappropriate as the basis for this accusation is extremely tenuous. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo, you don't seem to be taking anyone's feedback into account here. The word "goyim" refers to non-Jews so I don't see how "dumb goyim" could logically be antisemitic in itself.

@Coretheapple, I agree with your statement that "these are not chats at a local bar. They are discussions concerning articles of deep seriousness", and with your concerns about "contributing to a incendiary atmosphere in this topic area", but I think unfounded accusations of racism/antisemitism are more inflammatory than Nishidani's comment. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible we are seeing battleground editing here in the form of weaponization of antisemitism accusations, that is: "a bad faith charge of antisemitism against a person for political purposes, particularly with respect to criticism of Israel." IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 21:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo, regarding "There are four reliable sources that explain the significance of the phrase for those who may be unfamiliar with it", I'll relook at these, thank you. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the sources, I still don't see evidence of antisemitism. In one source, Drsmoo highlights "This notion, that of the “dumb Goyim”" and "can be seen in the particularly ferocious classic depictions of the Nazi propagandist Philipp Rupprecht", but doesn't highlight the part about "the depiction of the servile Gentiles under “[...] Jewish commands”", something totally absent from Nishidani's comment.

I understand that racism is often promoted via dogwhistles, but I reiterate that while suspicions of Nishidani's comment may be reasonable, the severe accusations made here without acknowledging or taking care for the possibility of innocence are not appropriate and I still find them to be concerning. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk)

I'd just like to say that I don't understand why I'm being accused of battleground editing by ScottishFinnishRadish here. I don't see how my statement, described as "Popping up at AE about a dispute you weren't involved with to spend 500 words repeating that you think someone's behavior was bad", is a "great example" of battleground editing or in any way problematic.

I've been given a word count extension to add this to my statement, and further discussion about this can be had at my talk page where I strongly encourage feedback about my conduct if anyone else (especially any administrator) has similar concerns or any advice for me. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 00:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Huldra

Drsmoo writes: "Nishidani wrote the phrase "Dumb Goyim", which is found in Mein Kampf, and frequently found on antisemitic hate sites. Bret Stephens, who Nishidani is commenting on, never used this phrase. I can only assume he is using it in the same way it is frequently found on hate sites, as a way to claim Jews hate non-Jews."

I have edited Israel/Palestine articles on Wikipedia since 2005, but this is the first time I have heard that saying "Dumb Goyim" is antisemitic. Maybe I read too few antisemitic hate sites? Or haven't studied Mein Kampf well enough? I suspect I share those characteristics with Nishidani.

It seems to me that more and more things are defined as "antisemitic", indeed; "Meta is debating whether to more aggressively remove some social media posts containing the word "Zionist" to counter a surge of antisemitism online".[4]. We are not there, yet; I guess I can still use the word "Zionist", without being accused of anti-semitism, but aparently saying "Dumb Goyim" gets you to AE.

Well, I learn something new every day. -Huldra (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

The illogic in this report is impressive. Nishidani used two words that also happened to be used by Adolf Hitler and that's enough evidence that a capital crime has been committed. No thinking required, just 1+1=3. Amazing.

Why didn't Drsmoo cite the mainstream Israeli press instead of Mein Kampf? ("כולנו נהנים לשמוע בדיחות מצחיקות על גויים טיפשים" = "We all enjoy hearing funny jokes about dumb goyim" [5]. To be clear, the writer considers such jokes to be "barbaric", but nevertheless common.) Zero^talk 04:52, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Levivich

"Dumb goyim" not listed in the ADL's hate speech database [6], nor on AJC's list [7], nor, across the pond, on the Antisemitism Policy Trust's list [8] (although all three list "the goyim know" meme), nor on Wikipedia's lists of antisemitic tropes or religious slurs. Levivich (talk) 05:08, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of the examples here of "dumb goyim" being an antisemitic slur are about Tom Paulin's 2001 poem "Killed in the crossfire" which is about the tragically famous Killing of Muhammad al-Durrah. In Paulin's poem, in which he refers to the "Zionist SS," he does use the line "dumb goys," and he's criticized for referencing Hitler's line in Mein Kampf about Zionists securing Western support, "the Jews again slyly dupe the dumb Goyim."

Five of the six sources Drsmoo links (Mapping the New Left Antisemitism, NYT, TNR, Under Postcolonial Eyes, The State of the Jews) are all about Paulin's poem. The sole exception is the one 2021 Venegas article which talks about modern right-wingers using the "controlling Jew" trope, and that the "dumb goyim" is a common feature of that trope ("The “Jewish last laugh” of the grinning Jew requires its necessary complementary counterpart, the servile “stupid Goy”, in this case the puppet-president Pedro Sánchez").

Trials of the Diaspora is also talking about Paulin's poem.

That really doesn't mean that "dumb goyim," the two words alone, are a slur. It means it can be used as part of the Jews-are-controlling trope, as it has been used by Hitler, Paulin (according to some), and modern right-wing groups. But none of these sources describe the phrase as antisemitic (because that would makes no sense, because the phrase is calling non-Jews dumb, not calling Jews dumb), and although some uses of the phrase are antisemitic, it doesn't mean this use was antisemitic, nor that every use is antisemitic. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And FWIW, I see the whole "antisemitism" accusation as a way of "latching on" to some statement in order to distract from a content dispute that Drsmoo is losing. Look at Talk:UNRWA October 7 controversy#Scahill and Stephens and notice how the discussion derails from the legitimate (who is an expert) to the illegitimate (antisemitic remark), and despite other editors' attempts to bring it back on track, Drsmoo just sticks to the antisemitism charge (because he's losing the content dispute). I saw this same behavior last week at Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Removal of reliably sourced information from the lead, where, again losing a content dispute, Drsmoo derailed the thread by focusing on (false) accusations about the NYT and WaPo being "propaganda." I had words with Drsmoo there about not using "rhetorical games" to derail content discussions, and I see this as another example of that. Levivich (talk) 17:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the two threads linked above and the Oct 7 denial AFD linked below, there's also Talk:Denial of the 7 October attacks#TNT?, which IMO shows the same pattern. Levivich (talk) 19:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sean.hoyland

Perhaps someone could reach out to comedian Ari Shaffir as a subject matter expert to get his view on whether 'There is no such thing as an inoffensive, sarcastic or jolly use of "dumb goyim."' or whether the term is always an antisemitic slur? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct get a mention. Perhaps more time and energy could be spent on enforcing the part in the 'Unacceptable behaviour' section that prohibits editors from "Systematically manipulating content to favour specific interpretations of facts or points of view..." rather than dealing with cases like this. Sean.hoyland (talk) 10:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Researcher

Goy by itself is often offensive.

"Dumb goyim" is very offensive, clear to anyone who knows Israel-Palestine history. Go through Google's book results to see how much Hitler's use stands out.

Use of "goyim" in a self-deprecating manner is done by the likes of Goyim Defense League an extremist organisation. GDL and the like use Goyim to refer to themselves in a sarcastic manner.

This language cannot be normalised on Wikipedia, and its use or normalisation is against the Wikimedia Foundation Universal Code of Conduct. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) (talk) 07:00, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TarnishedPath

The filing of this report by Drsmoo is one of the most extreme examples of assuming bad faith and reach I've seen. To presume that just because Mein Kampf uses two words in a particular manner that every person on the planet using those two words has the same attitudes is ridiculous in the extreme. Drsmoo needs to WP:DROPTHESTICK. TarnishedPath^talk 07:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've just come across this RfC on the Israeli-Hamas war because I was about to participate in it. In one comment Drsmoo is putting words into another editors mouths and then WP:ABF and in the other it is just broad WP:ABF on multiple editors. E.g. "I don't like putting words into peoples mouths, but your argument seems to be that not only should we ignore the wide array of highly reliable sources, but we should also ignore all Israeli eyewitness accounts, and first-responder accounts, because you think they're untrustworthy. That position would not be valid" and "The argument by some editors that we should ignore reliable sources is ridiculous. The argument that we should ignore Israeli civilians and human rights organizations because they are Israeli is unacceptable on Wikipedia".TarnishedPath^talk 13:10, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tgeorgescu

@Nishidani: No comments on the case, just a suggestion to use ChromeOS Flex, since it works very well on old laptops. tgeorgescu (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by kashmiri

Obviously, "dumb goyim beware" was a tongue-in-cheek summary of Bret Stephens's appalling writeup. It wasn't Nishidani who was racist; it was Stephens who was racist, to the extent that the publisher had to remove part of his article after an outcry[9]. To ridicule racist views is not racist; it's the opposite (although I agree it may not have been immediately obvious to some editors that it was Stephens who was being ridiculed). Drsmoo deserves a sanction per boomerang IMO, potentially also for ~~their defence of racism and~~ unsubstantiated accusations of antisemitism. — kashmīrī ^TALK 17:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Drsmoo: How else would you explain your verbal attack on an editor (including all of this filing) because they called Stephens out for racism? — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:50, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JayBeeEll

Two words is not a trope. The account of these two words offered here (by nableezy) is coherent, compelling, and matches the context of the comment. The account given by Drsmoo can only be made coherent if one accepts a priori that Nishidani is an antisemite; as there is no other evidence of this on offer, it falls afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS and WP:AGF. --JBL (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drsmoo's behavior in this discussion (as evidenced, e.g., by their insistence on repeating themselves in response to every single person who disagrees with them, despite multiple people noting that they are way over the word limit and that back-and-forth argumentation is not appropriate for this forum) looks to me like a strong indication that they should not be editing in this (or any other contentious) topic area. --JBL (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

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

I can see an argument for how it might be a joke on the face of it, but using phrases like that in a discussion on Wikipedia is...not acceptable, to put it mildly. To Drsmoo's credit, I do see that he first pinged Nishidani on the talkpage to discuss and he hasn't yet responded. The remark was made just over three hours ago and Nishidani hasn't edited since then; I think we can grant a little time for an explanation. However, the argument that it might be satire does not provide immunity from our standards of behavior. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:47, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I didn't mention in my above comment is that I don't necessarily buy Drsmoo's argument that it was a racist slur, I think that idea strips out all the context. My comment is that even if it was tongue-in-cheek as Nableezy says (and he's probably right), that doesn't make the use of such phrases in a content dispute acceptable. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: See my updated comment just above. I don't necessarily claim a racist intent, but I'll wait for Nishidani to explain. There are a few circumstances where using that phrase on Wikipedia might be reasonable, such as discussing Mein Kampf or Rapaport's usage of it. I don't think a discussion of Stephens' validity as a source falls within any of those circumstances, unless he had used that phrase. If he promoted eugenics and wrote about "disease of the Arab mind" as you quote, saying that is reasonable but inserting phrases like "dumb goyim :)" without context is bizarre and uncalled-for. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 18:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unconvinced it didn't have context. In the talk page discussion linked above by Selfstudier, everyone apart from the filer of this report understood it, even one editor who didn't agree with its characterisation of Stephens' views. Black Kite (talk) 19:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I'm saying that Drsmoo's characterization of it as always being an antisemitic slur isn't taking the context into account. Given the situation, I don't think it was being used that way. I believe Nableezy and Selfstudier are interpreting it correctly in context and Drsmoo is not, but just because it isn't being used as a slur doesn't make it appropriate. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not massively appropriate, no, but I don't think it's a sanctionable issue. On the other hand, the filer's increasingly strident claims that it can only be an anti-semitic slur and therefore it must be one here are starting to edge towards NPA themselves. It is unfortunate that Nishidani has not replied here, because otherwise I would recommend closing this before they do cross that line. Black Kite (talk) 19:46, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and Nableezy above that the filer is definitely rubbing right up against NPA. Assuming good faith, he may genuinely believe that the only use of this phrase is as an unironic slur. If he doesn't accept what people we're saying here that the assumption is mistaken, that should be examined too. I do see Drsmoo showing up several times in AE archives, but I haven't yet had time to check out the context. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drsmoo previously reported Nishidani at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive321#Discussion_concerning_Nishidani. Both were given a logged warning. Black Kite (talk) 20:16, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Thank you for explaining; I assumed you were either sleeping, working, or just otherwise occupied away from Wikipedia so I wasn't reading into it. Can you at least agree that the language you used was inappropriate? It would be helpful if you voluntarily refactored or redacted your comment on the talkpage. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay everyone, I think you've all firmly established what you think about this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nish's "dumb goyim" comment was unnecessarily inflammatory. Almost every response since then has also been unnecessarily inflammatory. IOHANNVSVERVS, you asked on my talk page what battleground behavior I've seen from you, here's another great example. Popping up at AE about a dispute you weren't involved with to spend 500 words repeating that you think someone's behavior was bad.

This is why I've been trying to get the communication moderated in this topic area. It is reasonable to see the use of "dumb goyim" as antisemitic. That doesn't appear to be how it was used in this circumstance, but nevertheless it leads to a bunch of people arguing with each other, a bunch of bad feelings, and further dimishing the likelihood that compromises and consensuses will be developed. Most responses here are a perfect demonstration of the BATTLEGROUND at play.

I don't think there was anything wrong with a report in this instance, although the framing certainly contributed to the battleground here. In my view this was more of a "reach out to an admin to have a word with the editor" rather than go to AE swinging Mein Kampf around.

I would say a warning to Nish to not do that anymore, a warning to Drsmoo that when they see some smoke they could call the fire department rather try to put it out with a can of gas, and a reminder to almost everyone else here that AE isn't the place to argue back and forth with each other, it's a place to present evidence to administrators. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selfstudier, it is a common enough trope with its use discussed in sources such as Trials of the Diaspora. Again, that doesn't appear to be the case in this instance, but it is common enough where it is reasonable to have that impression. Something can be an antisemitic, racist, or otherwise prejudicial trope and still not be used in such a way. Avoiding unnecessary language that can lead to mistaking a statement as an invocation of a common canard is generally a good idea. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a warning about using unhelpful or inflammatory language would be fine to solve the original issue. As far as Drsmoo, I'm torn on whether a warning about assuming the motivations of other editors would actually be effective, or whether something stronger is needed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich raises a good point linking to Talk:2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel#Removal of reliably sourced information from the lead. There is some pretty solidly bad faith reading of others' comments to come to their conclusion about sources being called propaganda. That leaked over to here with some personalized commentary. That whole AFD has a lot of BATTLEGROUND, but Drsmoo was an outsized part of it. Importing conflicts from other articles to attack editors, ABFing or misreading and sticking to their guns, and ABFing Nish's statement to about the fullest extent clearly part of a larger pattern. Something a bit stronger may be called for. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those discussions do seem to demonstrate a pattern of ABF, IDHT, and just blatantly misrepresenting other peoples' arguments to derail a content dispute. I was originally considering some sort of "casting aspersions" restriction, but given these new links I'm not sure what would stop it short of a topic ban. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 20:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Wordsmith and ScottishFinnishRadish: I rather think Drsmoo's conduct here and [10] merits a TBAN: that level of us-vs-them is incompatible with editing such a thorny topic. I don't object to a warning to Nishidani. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drsmoo, Kashmiri (just pinging because I'm quoting you. No need to respond) said The term widespread occurs only in a quote from a person interviewed by a journalist, whereas your edit tries to make an impression that it is commonly used by the media to describe the events. Which is unsubstantiated, diplomatically speaking. The term systematic also occurs only once, and again not as a foregone conclusion. Then, you have been pointed out twice that the NYT investigation itself is controversial and potentially unreliable. Making thinly substantiated statements aimed to malign a political adversary is actually a core feature of propaganda.

Your response was If you’re going to dismiss the Associated Press, NY Times, Guardian, Physicians for Human Rights Israel by calling them propaganda and/or weak sourcing then I’m not sure how best to continue, followed by And for the sake of clarity. Your argument is that The New York Times, The Guardian, The Associated Press, are all “propaganda”?... No, claiming The NY Times, Associated Press, Guardian and Physicians for Human Rights Israel are “propaganda” isn’t going to fly... I'll remove attribution and restore it as it was. The sourcing backs it up. Claiming that the NYTimes, Guardian, BBC, Washington Post, Physicians for Human Rights Israel, Haaretz, Associated Press are "weak sourcing" or propaganda, is frankly quite odd. And then even more, and them bringing it to an AfD.

No one ever said those sources were propaganda, and that diversion effectively ended (derailed) the discussion. Discussion about attribution in sources, when they're quoting someone, or not stating something as complete fact are not accusations of propaganda. I believe this also addresses your post on my talk page to get around word limits here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that Nishidani said anything that either had anti-Semitic intent, or could be construed as anti-Semitic by a reasonable uninvolved person reading that conversation. I still don't think his comment was helpful thing to say, but if it was unnecessarily inflammatory, Drsmoo's posts here are much more so. I'm as yet undecided on what to do about it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Vanamonde93's assessment on Nishidani. Had I seen that used in a conversation, it would give me pause and have me consider if it was meant to convey something more (probable cause). But nothing presented shows even a preponderance of evidence that Nishidani intended it in an offensive manner. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Vanamonde. The comment certainly was not a particularly constructive addition to the discussion, and we could do with less of that in general (and certainly, now that Nishidani is aware that saying "dumb goyim" is considered rather offensive by a good few people, that phrasing should not be used again, but honestly—I didn't know that either.) I think I'm willing to accept, this time, the explanation that it was intended as self-deprecation rather than anti-Semitism, but if it happens again I would not take so charitable a view. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drsmoo, the word limit at AE is 500, and you are approaching nearly three times that. It is not necessary for you to respond so frequently; the idea at AE is to propose your case and let it be evaluated, not constantly be arguing over it. Nableezy, you are also already well over the limit and are not even a party to this request, so further responses will not be necessary. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:27, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the evidence presented by Levivich and Zero, it's hard to see further insistence that "dumb goyim" could only have been intended as a Nazi dogwhistle, and particularly the insistence that this is clear to anyone who knows Israel-Palestine history as anything other than battleground behavior. There's a perfect Yiddish saying for situations like this, but lest that be misconstrued, I'll stick to Hebrew: זהו בלגן _signed,Rosguill ^talk 14:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The only sanctions warranted here, if any, are of the boomerang variety. Courcelles (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JArthur1984 - civility restriction

Not an AE matter, moved to ANI. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

After posting on the user's talk page to clarify the edit rationale and warn the user to assume good faith, the user continued assuming bad faith (all documented on their talk page) Superb Owl (talk) 16:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Superb Owl: This does not seem to be an Arbitration enforcement request; did you mean to post this at WP:AN/I instead? —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{Source assessment notes} 17:30, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jéské Couriano ah my bad - I will post there (my first time) Superb Owl (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwriter43103840

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 Wikiwriter43103840

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:47, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Wikiwriter43103840 (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:ARBCAM and WP:ARBPS

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

[11] 13 February 2024—WP:PROFRINGE whitewashing
[12] 19 February 2024—WP:PROFRINGE whitewashing
[13] 19 February 2024—odd talk page behavior
[14] 19 February 2024—odd talk page behavior
[15] 19 February 2024—odd talk page behavior

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 [16] 12 February 2024 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

My reply is that this kind of articles are teeming with paid editors and POV-pushers. Even if they come to understand the WP:RULES, the probability that they accept the WP:RULES is 1%, so explaining in full detail the WP:RULES to each "newbie" seems like a huge waste of time. Anyway, in order to be constructive, I seek that some editors will be instated in the role of explaining the WP:RULES to newbies. You have to understand that what motivates some people to edit is simply propagating pseudoscience and quackery to a large audience. There are many people in the world who think that writing an encyclopedia based upon WP:BESTSOURCES is an insult to their way of life/ideology/religion. Some of them even come here, to edit Wikipedia in order to remove or maim content based upon WP:BESTSOURCES. I'm not saying that Wikiwriter43103840 is one of them, but time will tell. In order words, it is ridiculous to think that someone will turn into epistemically responsible after half an hour of well-meant preaching. tgeorgescu (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed sock: Let's forget about the WP:RULES for a while: if they don't get the point that functional medicine is woo, they will inevitably conclude that the article was written by an E.V.I.L. conspiracy. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[17]
[18]

Discussion concerning Wikiwriter43103840

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 Wikiwriter43103840

Statement by Levivich (Wikiwriter)

I agree with Hawk's thorough analysis about the way this editor has been treated, to which I add that the status quo content that was repeatedly restored also used non-MEDRS sources, specifically Science-Based Medicine blogs from 2009 and 2014. The 2014 blog post is talking about "quackery" being used by institutions such as the Cleveland Clinic and George Washington University. In my view, aside from MEDRS, that's a non-NPOV-compliant use of that source, because it includes the "quackery" part in wikivoice, while omitting the part of the same source that says this is being used by conventional medicine (as the post puts it, "introducing quackery into conventional medicine"). It goes without saying that the folks at the Cleveland Clinic and George Washington University would disagree that this is "quackery." While the authors of sources are entitled to call it what they want, that doesn't mean Wikipedia should just repeat that in wiki-voice. I'm not sure what the Wikipedia article should say about it, and this isn't the forum to discuss that, but it does look like Wikiwriter's NPOV concerns have some merit, and the dismissal of those concerns by a number of other editors is, well, concerning. Also concerning: telling an editor you have to obey WP:RULES then saying at AE let's forget about the WP:RULES for a while. :-P Levivich (talk) 18:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KoA

Not involved in the subject, but this looks pretty blatant with editing warring, violating WP:PSCI policy, accusing others of vandalism, ax to grind comments, accusing Tgeorgescu of vandalism for reverting (when Tgeorgescu never even edited the page in this time), etc. when you look at the actual article. I'd at least suggest a partial block for the page unless it's been going on elsehwere. Red-tailed hawk, I wanted to be diplomatic and say your narrative is overly-selective, but I honestly have to call it outright misleading with how much of Wikiwriter's behavior is left out. It's nowhere near just a new editor not understanding MEDRS.

When Wikiwriter43103840 started with saying seems to be written by someone with an ax to grind and kept restoring the content, three different editors have had to revert them,[19][20][21] that's usually when we recognize the person is disrupting the topic and causing an acute time sink for the community. Had Wikiwriter of just left mainspace alone after the 13th, I call this moot, but that they continued editing warring on the 19th and with the content of what they're doing in these edits, the DS/CT were put in place to nip this kind of stuff in the bud to reduce stress on the rest of the community. It's pretty textbook WP:RGW behavior, and edit warring on the 19th while not working on discussion in that intervening time is on Wikiwriter. Editors will often be curt but even-handed when faced with escalating behavior like I'm seeing from the start with Wikiwriter here.

I'm not very comfortable with the pursuit of Tgeorgescu below though on their talk comments. I sure would have said in some fashion that NPOV did not mean what Wikiwriter thought it means while also linking GEVAL. It does feel like nitpicking Tgeorgescu when it was clear that Wikiwriter was raising the heat and becoming timesink in this subject, nor was Tgeorgescu seriously exacerbating the tone Wikiwriter had already set. This is what the talk page looked like prior to yesterday. There's a threshold for when you decide to give extra time writing in-depth guidance on MEDRS/NPOV/PSCI for new editors, and I know most would not go to that length each time something amounting to only that linked discussion happens. Sure it would have been helpful in the very last reply there to add a line saying WP:GEVAL specifically discusses "giving equal validity", but most of the time disruption fizzles out from editors like this because they often just go elsewhere.

Had Wikiwriter said something in the meantime before returning to edit warring, then sure, it's time to give more in-depth guidance. I'm not sure even with hindsight bias that more explanation would have really helped anything here though given Wikiwriter's ax-grinding attitude though. The idea with new editors like this is to remove them from where they are disruptive and let them learn in non-controversial areas where the community can take a little more time with them where hopefully RGW behavior isn't an issue. KoA (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Wikiwriter43103840)

Hello all. I am indeed an inexperienced user. I was sincerely trying to update the page to help it be more neutral. Am I incorrect that the article as it stands reads like opinion? What is the right way for me to help this article be better? I don’t want violate any rules, but it seemed like any suggestion I had was met with aggression. Thanks for helping me do this better.

Result concerning Wikiwriter43103840

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

What I'm seeing here is that a new editor had an issue with a way our article was written because it came off as non-neutral to them, and they included a primary medical journal article to support their changes. This doesn't comport with MEDRS, so they were reverted with the edit summary Restoring properly sourced version, but it's generally not clear how MEDRS works to new editors, and this appears to have come off oddly to the respondent. After the revert above, the respondent reiterated their concern that the article seemed non-neutral to them, after which they were reverted and told to take it to the talk page in an edit summary.
Later that same day, the editor opened a discussion on that talk page and were greeted with a wall of links from the complainant with little accompanying explanation. The content of that comment may have been correct, but it doesn't appear to have actually explained anything to the new user in plain language. The respondent responded to complainant on the talk page the following day complaining about tone but also reiterating that they found the article non-neutral. Complainant responded later that same day (14 February), just telling the user that they did not understand NPOV, but not really elucidating as to why.
On 19 February, respondent followed up on the talk page that they were unsatisfied with the article's tone, quoting Present opinions and conflicting findings in a disinterested tone from NPOV, made a revert to restore their preferred version of the article, and then left two additional comments on the talk page, one explaining that they had performed a revert and the other of which appears to be a botched attempt to give a templated warning to complainant. Respondent was reverted by a third party with the edit summary Rv. pro-woo whitewash and five minute later complainant left a message on the talk page linking the new user to WP:RULES and advising them not to template the regulars. Less than ten minutes after leaving that comment on the article's talk page, complainant opened this thread.
I don't really see anything sanction-worthy in this whole sequence of events; if the new editor doesn't understand the nuance of WP:MEDRS as it relates to primary medical studies, someone should try to explain it to them in plain English before escalating to ban or block requests. This is ordinary new user activity and we should be trying to help them learn how to edit Wikipedia rather than biting them when they don't immediately come to understand our policies after a wall of blue links are thrown at them with little-to-no explanation of what they actually mean. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:32, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Very good and detailed summary. I really hope that the OP draws some lessons from it. El_C 07:50, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: I recognize fully that it can be acutely frustrating to deal with POV-pushing SPAs, with long-term sockmasters, and with undisclosed paid editors. That being said, a brief look through the respondent’s less than 50 contributions makes me think that they are here in good faith. As WP:BITE notes, we must treat newcomers with kindness and patience. When dealing with newbie sorts of mistakes, a gentle note explaining why something is a mistake can go a long way, and can help to prevent conflicts from escalating here.
Separately, I will note that you have been previously warned at AE for incivility in this topic area. You appear to be correct on the substance (at least as it applies to the sources added by respondent), but that doesn’t justify the curtness of the responses. It’s generally better to explain specifically why a change is being opposed rather than waving vaguely at a sea of blue text. Newcomers generally do not learn by being presented with acronym soup, and may have a hard time understanding what parts of each linked page one might be referring to. To avoid this, one could pull brief quotes from the relevant policy that help to contextualize why an edit is not in line with them, or one could make explicit appeals to the language of the relevant guidelines when it comes to how the sources they are adding should be handled. Our dispute resolution policy reminds us to focus on content when engaging on talk pages rather than on the contributor themself. Writing I suggest you read what WP:NPOV actually says instead of pontificating about what it might say, in response to a brief talk page comment (which for similar reasons of focusing on a contributor is subpar) does not quite do that, and the use of “pontificating” does raise the temperature unnecessarily.
I understand that new editors acting in good faith but not quite yet understanding our policies can be a source of annoyance, but our behavioral guidelines call upon us to moderate our wording and approach when dealing with newbies. Graciousness and patience are key things to practice in these situations—especially for common good-faith newcomer errors—even if it be frustrating at times.
— Red-tailed sock _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 17:02, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with RTH above. I find this user concerning as well; but as far as I can see nobody has attempted to explain to them in plain English the specific problems with their edits. I'm not willing to sanction someone at AE unless they've been shown to be willfully ignoring our PAGs (or lacking the competence to follow them). Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal by HollerithPunchCard

Appealing user: HollerithPunchCard (talk)

User imposing the sanction Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]}

Sanction being appealed Indefinite topic ban from Falun gong, broadly construed

Reason for the appeal

On 16 December, 2023, I was indefinitely topic banned by an administrator named Tamzin, as a result of my AE request link for sanctions against a user named Bloodofox.

Nearly all administrators who opined for sanctions against me did so at an early stage of my original AE request, before I fully responded to the allegations against me, which response was to include 14 examples of bloodofox’s personal attacks to other editors, including myself, and his canvassing and campaigning by posting two separate notices on FTN diff and RSN diff in a highly biased manner.

Furthermore, I was limited in my ability to defend the counter AE request against me, within the 500 word limit of my original AE request, that I requested to extend without admin response.

Thus, I believe the WP:AE decision was made based on incomplete evidence or at least an incomplete review of the evidence, and the decision should be reevaluated, based on the following grounds.

Background

In the original AE request, I requested admin sanctions against Bloodofox for engaging in a pattern of personal attacks against multiple editors for their perceived religious belief and edit warring, among others.

The AE request is not without merit. At least one admin and six editors agreed that the WP has been breached by Bloodofox. His personal attacks were difficult to deny. They were plain, explicit and deliberate. Bloodofox called out other editors explicitly and implicitly for purportedly believing in or adhering to a religious group known as Falun Gong, frequently in a derogatory or mocking tone.

The sanctioning administrator herself commented, "All I can think is how quickly someone would be blocked if they showed up to Talk:Mi Shebeirach and tried to cite my religion as part of an objection to the article's content" diff, which is precisely what Bloodofox did, multiple times.

In the course of the AE request, my interactions with Bloodofox in circumstances leading to my original AE request came under scrutiny. I was beyond my 500 word limit at this point, which I had already mostly used for my original AE request. I requested to extend the word limit for my defense. There was no admin response to my request.

My impugned edits described in detail the problems with Bloodofox's conduct and edits, and the various ways in which it infringed the rules and policies of Wikipedia. I called out Bloodofox's conduct, in a manner impugned as being uncivil. I was also impugned for canvassing, as I notified two other editors who were involved in the incidents leading to the AE request, on their talk. I was not aware that this constituted improper canvassing. I notified those editors as they were participants and had personal knowledge of the matters in dispute. It is also worth noting that Bloodofox’s two separate highly biased notice board postings are also inappropriate canvassing, as alluded by admin ScottishFinnishRadish diff, in the discussions to this AE request.

The outcome of the AE request was that an indefinite topic ban was meted out, not against Bloodofox for personal attacks and various other WP breach, but against me for speaking out against such breach. No reason, or policy was articulated in support of the decision to indefinitely topic-ban me. I surmise that I was sanctioned for “incivility” and inappropriate canvassing.

I believe that the decision to indefinitely topic ban me, and the decision not to topic ban Bloodofox should be reversed on the following grounds:

First ground

I should not have been indefinitely topic-banned, for acting in good faith to oppose genuine violations of Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Recurring personal attacks against individuals for their perceived religious beliefs, as has taken place, are archetypal and serious violation of WP:PG, including WP:PA. My opposition to such serious WP violations by other editors, even if stern, should not warrant the sanction of an indefinite topic ban.

The vast majority of my impugned discussions were focused on content, and not conduct. I commented on Bloodofox's conduct only because in my honest opinion, they are too serious to be ignored.

Second ground

Even if my impugned comments exceeded the accepted bounds of civility, a sanction of indefinite topic ban is disproportionately harsh in regards to the context and nature of my breach. In the same vein, a warning without sanction against Bloodofox, is disproportionately lenient.

On one hand is an editor who has denigrated and committed recurring personal attacks against multiple editors (among other issues raised such as edit warring that no admins have opined on in the AE request). On the other hand is an editor who was found to lack civility in opposing such conduct. If I was wrong to oppose the personal attacks in the manner I did, it could not have been more serious than the personal attacks themselves, such that I was banned, but the attacker was not.

To highlight this disparity in sanction, and the context of my edited impugned as being "uncivil", I am reproducing Bloodofox's impugned edits and all my responding edits, in the table below:


Bloodofox's and other edits	My responding edits impugned for incivility
"Reality check: Thomas Meng is an adherent who haunts these articles and pushes the group's preferred narrative." diff	"half the time you were WP:SOAPBOXing, and the other half, you were launching blatant WP:PA against other editors" diff
“But maybe you should contact all the major media outlets in the US and tell them to stop bullying the Falun Gong with all their nasty coverage that doesn't parrot Li Hongzhi's talking points as well.“ diff
"I believe you gave your angle away" "lol. This ist typical of the Falun Gong-aligned embedded accounts over at Falun Gong." diff
"Trust me, if I suspected you of being an adherent, I'd have no bones about telling you. I've called them out plenty of times before. And I was right." diff
"there's no denying that you're actively and aggressively lobbying here to attempt to censor and forbid any mention of Falun Gong on this page." diff
“Your regular attempts at downplaying anything that isn't a persecution narrative on this page have not gone unnoticed here” diff
"Gee, what a coincidence that you decided to again edit Wikipedia again on that day.” diff
“You are wasting your time attempting to whitewash this page. Dig up all the old books that paint a flattering portrait of Li Hongzhi all you want, that ship has sailed.“ diff
“This particular editor parrots these talking points has been pushing hard to scrub the article“ diff
"What you've done is simply parrot Falun Gong positions and talking points, as usual, as is evident to anyone watching this page." diff
“If you think those sources are too tough on the Falun Gong's misinformation efforts, then perhaps you should write them.” diff
“you're barking up the wrong tree.” diff
“I suggest you message the academic directly with your theories or go ahead and message Cambridge University Press” diff
“the group is entirely centered around the words and whims of one ultra-conversative guy who now and then claims to levitate, Li Hongzhi, over at a big compound in Deer Park, New York" diff	"the naked animosity and prejudice he declared against the subject of this article and other editors who disagreed with him.” diff
“we're not sweeping everything aside to smokescreen Falun Gong operations by emphasizing at every corner how evil the Chinese government is and how very persecuted Falun Gong is.” diff	"I think you should take a break from editing this topic." diff
“expect more Falun Gong-aligned accounts to suddenly pop out of the woodwork.” diff
“As usual, we've got a group of adherents over at Falun Gong attempting to whitewash the page to fit the group's preferred narrative” diff
“any source that takes the group's word uncritically and at face value needs to go from this site and arguably Wikipedia as a whole.”	"To construe my phrase "external assistance will be inevitable", when I was plainly referring to administrator or arbitrator or other forms of external intervention, as a threat of physical violence, is an astounding distortion of the meaning of my words. But it does show how Bloodofox tilts at windmills, in his unconcealed activism on this topic." diff
"Remember, this is the group behind The Epoch Times we're talking about here.” diff	"In my respective view, we are witnessing a vandalization and clear POV-pushing on this page, committed by Bloodofox and Binksternet, and a few others." diff
“I'm sure the Falun Gong and its many misinformation arms like the Epoch Times would be more than happy to hear that you think discussing them should be forbidden. And why not let this poor multi-billion dollar org spread anti-vaccine, anti-evolution, anti-climate change, and so on in peace to millions in the US, Canada, and Europe without troubling them with reporting on it?” diff	“On hindsight, vandalism is probably a strong allegation to make in the circumstances. But there's definitely a serious personal attack and POV-pushing by the editors that you support” diff
“we need an immediate crack down on accounts pushing Falun Gong talking points.” diff
“It's time to block the Falun Gong PR accounts” diff
“Your frequent attempts at framing these extensions as independent of Falun Gong are disruptive.” diff	"If this pattern of disruption continues, external assistance will be inevitable. diff
Edits by other editors (namely, Binsternet and Horse’s Eye Back)	My response
"The performance series does not start out neutral; it was born with negative characteristics because of its direct connections to Falun Gong, and its obvious political cant. All the positive descriptions about Shen Yun must be framed in relation to the blatant propaganda aspect. diff	"With respect, I think you need to stop peddling your personal views and speculations to dictate what source is reliable and what is not. There is clear guidance on WP:RS which you should refer to when trying to exclude a source, than to rely on your own thinly veiled prejudice on this matter." diff
Maloney's congressional statement will never serve as a reliable source here. That kind of thing is purchased in trade for votes. diff	"Your bald assertion that the congressman made the statement in exchange for votes is wildly speculative and burdens on being defamatory. Frankly, these kind of comments don't belong here on Wikipedia, which is a place for civil, rule-based discussion." diff
"My experience on wikipedia says otherwise... How is that statement not unduly self serving?" diff	"Your personal experience on wikipedia simply doesn't matter." diff

In reviewing my interactions with Bloodofox, two questions arise. Am I being uncivil, or am I calling out misconduct that is true? In my view, the answer is the latter. Second, as between Bloodofox and me, is my response to his personal attacks so serious than his personal attacks themselves, that I should be indefinitely topic banned and he is only warned? In my view, the answer is no. There seems to be a double standard here.

Ultimately, if I should be indefinitely topic-banned, both of us should at least receive the same treatment. In this regard, more than one admin has commented that both sides are in the wrong.

I appreciate everyone's time for reviewing this appeal.

@Blade and Eardgyth - Respectfully, you can disagree with the merit of my arguments but they are not a rant. The table I prepared above summarized 23 instances of WP:PAs by the impugned editor, that I was indefinitely topic-banned merely for criticizing. I think there is enough going on to warrant a proper review. HollerithPunchCard (talk) 16:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tamzin

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HollerithPunchCard

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by HollerithPunchCard

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

Tl;dr. This is a rant, not an appeal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I read enough of it to agree with Blade. Not seeing that this is anything but a relitigation of the original complaint that does not address the reasons for being topic banned. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Appeal request by GoodDay

Appeal request by GoodDay (talk)

Sanction, that appeal is being requested for

Administrator imposing the sanction

Notification of that administrator

Statement by GoodDay

Statement by Dennis Brown

Statement by Sideswipe9th

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by GoodDay

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal request by GoodDay

Nishidani

Request concerning Nishidani

Nishidani

Discussion concerning Nishidani

Statement by Nableezy

Statement by Selfstudier

Statement by Objective3000

Statement by Coretheapple

Statement by IOHANNVSVERVS

Statement by Huldra

Statement by Zero0000

Statement by Levivich

Sean.hoyland

Statement by Researcher

Statement by TarnishedPath

Statement by tgeorgescu

Statement by kashmiri

Statement by JayBeeEll

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Nishidani

JArthur1984 - civility restriction

Wikiwriter43103840

Request concerning Wikiwriter43103840

Discussion concerning Wikiwriter43103840

Statement by Wikiwriter43103840

Statement by Levivich (Wikiwriter)

Statement by KoA

Statement by (Wikiwriter43103840)

Result concerning Wikiwriter43103840

Appeal by HollerithPunchCard

Statement by Tamzin

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by HollerithPunchCard

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by HollerithPunchCard