User:Ayenaee/sandbox 4

I’m writing this for an (X)BANed editor. (X) represents the different types of bans - (S)ite, (A)rticle, (P)age, (T)opic, (I)nteraction. It doesn’t directly address global bans. Comments I make on other editors statements are not to question their good faith. The ban and possible subsequent block were appropriate. I hope that this advice can help the editor return to full editing as the valuable editor they are. This page isn’t confidential but it is personal. If you’re only here for "drama" then go away.

Topic banned editor: Before reading this (if you do), please think about why you first decided to edit Wikipedia. I’m not talking about why you’re passionate about what got you banned, but why you decided to start editing generally. You have many interests, and you decided to pursue them at least partially on Wikipedia. Why? If those reasons still apply then continue reading. Those reasons, supersede your passion for the behavior that got you banned, which is based on current circumstances. You can get back to those issues which are important. But in the meantime sharpen your Wikipedia skills and enhance other parts of en.wiki and of the sister projects where you edit. If they don’t still apply then you can read further, but only for some advice on style. If you’ve lost your original passion for editing Wikipedia, then there’s no benefit for you in editing inside or outside the ban. Find other ways to exercise your passions on these topics in the world. This is the most important advice I can give you. The rest is all (necessary but still) fluff about slightly modifying your behavior on-wiki (while still remaining who you are) so that your editing will go more smoothly. I think you’ll easily take on this advice if you still retain your original desire for being a Wikipedian. I wouldn’t have gotten involved if I didn’t believe that you DO retain that original desire. The ban is easy to fix and doing so will make you an even better editor than I believe you currently are.

[As a related aside. A topic banned editor once complained in exasperation, "They don't even speak English here [en.wiki], they speak in Wikipedia policy codes?". I know they said it in anger, but it struck at the heart of the problem. The response they got, that we get used to it after a while, is true but maybe it shouldn’t be. You perfectly express the problem especially for new editors. But that editor wouldn’t accept assistance and went down the dark path óf trying to create other accounts to edit under (called socking on Wikipedia) which is the best way to never be able to edit again. They pop up every now and then trying to regularity their editing, and I truly believe there’s good intent, but they won’t succeed they never overcame their initial mistakes.

another example: I saw a new editor being told that YouTube wasn’t a reliable resource and to read WP:RS. Their response was amazement. They were indefinitely blocked (not banned, blocking is worse) for calling the experienced editor who was trying to help them an idiot. But imagine their incredulity (assuming good faith) being told that a world wide recognised social media site couldn’t be cited to make their point. Until you’re experienced that does sound idiotic, and how can you get experienced if everything everyone says sound like gibberish.

Any social sub-group will have its in-group language, but maybe we need to work out how to make the transition to that easier for new editors. The reason that this is relevant — in case I’m being to subtle 😀 — is that in both cashes the emotional newbie even remark, said in anger, had wisdom valuable to Wikipedia in them. That’s why Wikipedia needs you to stay. My learning was that I try to explain wiki-talk upfront while trying to expose editors to the "wikitalk" more slowly.

How to get unbanned

Do and Don’t advice
Issue	DON'T	DO	Why?
Feeling Panicked	DON'T PANIC! (not original advice from me 😃)	Stop editing for a while, even during a topic banning discussion. Do something else that that soothes you (I garden and play with my dogs). Remove yourself from the source of agitation and do other things which bring you happiness.	Your health and memtal wellbeing is much more important than Wikipedia
While Blocked	Edit the English Wikipedia IN ANY WAY. Don’t edit it while logged out as an IP user, don’t create another user name to evade the block, don’t ask anyone to edit for you.	Edit your user talk page only on issues related to your block.	You can be permanently blocked for trying to evade your block yourself or asking others to edit for you
While Blocked		Edit any other Wikipedia sister project including commons	You are only blocked on the English Wikipedia.
While topic banned	Edit any article or part of an article, or participate in any discussion, on the English Wikipedia which falls within the banned topic WP:broadly construed, which means\|very very verywidely defined]]. Remember "widely defined" might mean that articles or parts of articles which seem to be outside the ban might be considered within it. If you’re unsure whether or not you can edit something, assume you can’t. Some examples tailored based on the contentious topic area óf ARBPIA which is often a stumbling block for new editors (not exhaustive): Palestine, Palestinians, Gaza, West Bank, Gaza/West Bank Government Israel, Israelis, Israeli Government Muslims, Islam, Al-Aqsa, Arabic, Urdu, Islamophobia Jews, Judaism, Zionism, Hebrew, Yiddish, antisemitism Any even vaguely related languages or other cultural elements, and especially related religions s Historical or current articles on the Middle East (ME) generally, ME countries or geography, ME wars, ME related attacks on other countries, 9/11, Muslim countries outside ME, Jewish / Israeli populations outside the ME Any sections of non-related countries’ articles that discuss their opinions on the banned issues, even in passing Any science or medical articles or parts of articles relating to discoveries, inventions or practices arising from people or countries involved Any pages related to these pages: categories, talk pages, AfDs, merges, moves etc. etc. etc… etc. etc. etc. ... If you only became a Wikipedia editor to edit on the topic you were banned on, then it’s better for your and the encyclopedia well being that you take the ban as a warning to give up on editing and go do something useful in the real world.	Edit those articles or parts of articles in the English Wikipedia in your other areas of interest outside the topic ban widely defined	Even making a mistake in this regard can get you blocked for longer periods or indefinitely
While topic banned		Edit any article on any topic on any other Wikipedia sister project including commons. But remember the reasons you were topic banned on en.wiki and don't repeat them elsewhere.	You are only topic banned on the English Wikipedia.
General Editing	Revert, even if you’re allowed to	Apply 0RR and take any issues you have to the talk page. If consensus is against you move on. If a user is obstructive take it to AN/I or AE. But think very hard if it’s worth the emotional effort before doing this, and consider that the process can turn on you, and you can get sanctioned instead of the editor you’re reporting. It’s better to stay off the drama boards, always but especially when you’re banned. Remember changing anything inserted by another editor counts as a revert even if you don’t edit all that editors insertions.	Go further than required to avoid mistakes
	Add any content requiring citation directly into article space without a corresponding citation	Edit the content in your sandbox or draft space which allows you longer to find citations. Only move it to article space together with citations, even if this is more complicated on your device.	For the time (even where short) while the uncited content exists on Wikipedia it causes other editors to be confused and angry especially in contentious topic areas.
	Edit anything, including discussions, anywhere just because: 1. Someone else you like / don’t like is editing it, or 2. Someone else asked you to get involved	Always have your own reason for participation or editing	(1) can be seen as harrasment and (2) as meat puppeting
	Comment in any way on another user or what you believe their motives are, or attack them in any personal way. This always applies, but especially if you don’t like there edits or them personally, or you feel you may be losing an argument	Always assume good faith, and address the content, policy, or issue under consideration, not other editors	Assuming an editor is doing something wrong, or calling them out for their behavior (anywhere except AN/AE) breaches the policies relating to assuming good faith on the behalf of other editors, and not attacking other editors personally
	Get involved in background processes (AN/I, AE, AfD, etc.) unless you are really involved. Especially don’t get involved in any process against another editor unless you are directly involved, and don’t bring other issues you might have with an editor into that process	Stay away from drama boards	It’s always better to sort out issues one-on-one than too publicly drag someone through the mud
Uncertain of rule application	1. Edit anyway in the way you think is right 2. Ask or prompt other editors to get involved. 3. Ask other editors who might get involved for advice	Ask a trusted user who you now is not and does not want get involved for advice. Once they give you advice they can no longer participate in the issue	(1) will probably lead to errors because rule applications can be complex, and (2) and (3) are canvassing
Getting unbanned	Ask for an unban too soon	Wait until time has passed and emotions have cooled, show that you can edit successfully in other parts of Wikipedia, prepare a good concise justification as to why the community can trust you again. SFR noted at the AE that he normally imposes CTOP TBANs for 3-6 months and 500-100 edits to allow the banned editorto gain more experience before editing CTOPs again. I think the 6 month / 1000 edit count guidance should be your target, with a review at 3 months / 500 edit count to determine if that can be shortened. Note that the process for unbanning is different from unblocking, but we can discuss that nearer the time.	if your request doesn’t cover the issues required by policies it will be rejected, wasting your and admin time
Don’t Edit anywhere unless	You have read several times, questioned and understood how to apply the following policies and guidelines: WP:5 Pillars Wikipedia has rules all aiming to grow Wikipedia collaboratively WP:Competence is required Don’t edit if uncertain of rule, policy, or content WP:Notability An article / article edit (no matter how small) must meet various notability criteria WP: Verifiability Once it meets notability, it must be immediately supported by reliable resources when created / made WP: Neutral Point of View Articles must be written in wiki-voice with a neutral point of view WP:Original Research Only use secondary sources, primary sources (like original research) only allowed in limited circumstances WP:BRD WP:0RR, WP:1RR, WP:3RR: Normally 3RR applies, and 1RR in CTOPs. I recommend 0RR (except in cases which are listed as exceptions to 3RR — obvious WP:Vandalism, WP:Copyright Violation, breaches of WP:BLP and WP:CHILDPROTECT etc. — so cases where the wiki or a person need immediate protection). This applies to BRD as well and is the most difficult aspect of 0RR. See how I define my version of BRD = BD[R] in the User:Ayenaee#Pledges section of my user page. It is difficult to not revert something you disagree with, but it often leads to a better outcome. 0RR also means you don’t have to worry about breaching 1RR or 3RR, but you should know the rules well enough to know when you would be breaching them anyway. WP:CIVIL Approach every interaction civilly WP:AGF Always assume other actors are acting in good faith, and act in good faith yourself. If you think there is a breach of AGF (which can only become apparent over many interactions and time) do not cast aspersions or make personal attacks, take it to AN/I or AE and present your case neutrally. If the result is against you, move on, don’t make negative comments about the mechanism. WP:Hounding: Don’t follow editors around because you don’t like them or suspect them of wrongdoing. Don’t constantly focus on their edits even when you are legitimately on the same pages. If you suspect wrongdoing take it to AN/I or AE, you’re not the wiki-police. WP:DISRUPTSIGNS Don’t do any of these. WP:ARBPIA (all 4 cases) WP:Topic Ban WP:Blocked WP:AN/I: Bedtime reading to see how other editors get themselves into trouble. It’s not just you - we’re all human. THE SUMMARIES ARE ONLY A STARTING POINT, YOU NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE DETAIL AND HOW TO APPLY IT

Addressing the underlying (rather than apparent) reasons for the ban
The TBAN is officially for breaching an ARBCOM ARBPIA sanction (1RR - which did happen several times) but the indirectly expressed issues, which may have lead to a ban/block outside CTOP, are more important to address. There are two which run through the AE commentary and the editor’s talk page warnings, including that of the deciding admins. They are not the direct reason for the ban, but these issues aren’t hidden, and should be considered in good faith for any unban request to succeed. Those issues are: The editor’s perceived lack of experience to edit in a contentious topic area, given the complexities that exist. The feeling is that the the editor has good edits to make, and that they in good faith want to make them in terms of the rules, but that they do not seem experienced enough to make them on these terms. All the other issues raised relate to incorrect application of rules (an experience issue), so the enforcement would not have arisen but for this issue. I definitely believe this can be overcome with an in depth revision of the rules. The editor’s writing style in discussions (not in article edits0. This arises when the editor’sarticle edits are queried and in the response to the AE process. The editor’s discussion style is their style, and reflects how they thank. The aim is not to change this, but to translate it into a more wiki—discussion style when necessary. The areas to focus on are conciseness and focus on the issue being discussed.
You have understood that you have a style of writing that some other people find difficult to understand. This isn’t a criticism, it’s your style of writing and it reflects the way your mind works - which is a good valid way. I understand this because I have a similar problem. two examples: I got the 2nd highest grade on my honours thesis, but the comment given was "Verbose, indosyncratic, and chatty." The Prof, who new me well and was himself quite idiosyncratic — we used to go drink beer after class and discuss life — was only describing who I was, not criticizing me. I own that description and wear it as a badge of pride. Someone in good faith once compared my writing style to Shakespeare, but I realized what they subconsciously meant was that my writing was flowery and they couldn’t understand a word of it. I love Shakespeare, but I don’t wear that one with pride, although I do own it and try to limit it when necessary 😂 The point is, my style is my style, as your is yours. They suit us and match the way we think, and we shouldn’t (because we can’t) try and change who we are. But it is possible in the right circumstances (having discussions on Wikipedia, for example) to be aware that your style doesn’t suit the environment, and to a certain extent change it to fit. I do this when editing, by summarising sources in my own style in a table. I then rewrite appropriate parts of that summary into an article, again in my own style. Then I review it 2-3 times trying to de-style it to wiki-voice. This normally means making each sentence more concise, and deflowering (sic 😄) the words I use. Even after that when I look at my final edits they seem too long and flowery (by my understanding of other’s standards, not my own). But I stop at that point, and it normally seems to satisfy the wiki-style. I use a similar less formal method for editing my responses in discussions. This always means I take longer to edit than most people. All my writing on wiki isn’t first draft, it’s probably 4th edit of the 1st draft. I don’t create articles (because once I’ve thought through what I want to say, someone else has already created it), but I’m good at expanding stubs to C or B class. [Writing that I realized it also keeps me away from too much CTOP controversy - I can greatly expand CTOP stubs so I do, and leave the larger more contentious articles to others, I trust the process will appropriately include my (sometimes biased) opinions] Your style in articles is fine, it’s more your style in discussion that needs to fit in more. I’m not suggesting you use my method, find one that works for you. Your main issue seems to be conciseness and staying on point. I think taking time to identify the underlying rather than apparent issue in a discussion will help. There is also some wiki-guidance that you should read: WP:CONCISE: This isn’t about writing in general, but rather a criteria for choosing article title from WP:Article. It says: " The goal of concision is to balance brevity with sufficient information to identify the topic to a person familiar with the general subject area." If you replace "the topic" with "the discussion point [you’re trying to make]" it’s a perfect definition of how we should be participating in discussions. The essay WP:TLDR is a good summary of why people tend to not be concise, and what they can do about it. The essay’s "See also" section sets out lots of other good on-wiki help about conciseness. The ones I’d highlight for you are: Wikipedia:Read before commenting NB article for responding to accusations. I know you were horrified and panicked at being brought up at AE. But if you could see through those emotions (difficult, I know) and been able to identify the main issues your response would have been better. These issues were ability to edit in CTOP and writing style, not 1RR reverts or {cn} tags (although those were the examples of the underlying issues). So, 500 words was sufficient to address the AE. I would have structured it as follows (after -much editing): Used about 300 words to acknowledge your lack of rule application experience, explaining as per your edit count history that although you’ve been on wiki for 4 years and have 8000 edits these have been in two bursts of output, which didn’t allow sufficient time to become experienced. (I understand this because the pattern of my editing looks the same, for different reasons. I started editing, and then was to depressed during COVID to edit in a major way. But I did spend that time wikignomimg and reading policies and the drama boards, which served me well in this editing stint] Used 150 words to acknowledge how evidence of this arose in your misunderstanding related to 0RR and {cn} application which hadn’t arisen in your first burst of,output. Used about 50 words to own the inexperience and pledged not to edit in CTOP without guidance from a trusted experienced user. I’m sure the Admins would have given another 100-200 words to answer any questions they might have had. Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process I haven't seen you do this. This article is important for you to be able to recognize when someone is bludgeoning you and avoid it. In content or process (e.g. AfD, AN/I, AE) discussions you don’t need to answer every question posed. If someone is bludgeoning in bad faith you can ignore them, or only address their on-topic comments. When I participate (very selectively) in process discussions I’ve thought through my comment well and tried to make sure it represents my opinion fully (using my writing process above) so although I continue reading others comments I try not to respond even if my opinions are attacked. I’ll only respond if my argument is misrepresented, and then only briefly, or if someone changes my mind. Wikipedia:Wall of text You don’t do walls of text. But by inserting so much white space in your first AE response you had a similar impact, on me at least. I thought of it as a wall of lace. The white space (obviously good in articles) made your response seem longer than it was and my brain resisted reading it, which is the same reason our brains reject walls of text. In wiki discussions the style seems to be concise with less paragraph breaks, if any (so a little hedge of text 😄). People used to that won’t ready the wall or lace versions. User:Tony1/Redundancy exercises: removing fluff from your writing Good detailed essay about removing excess WP:Germaine About not adding info to articles, which while related to the topic, is not necessary in the specific article. Wikipedia:Too much detail Avoid it. Wikipedia:Keep it concise Being concise in AfD !votes

Concerns raised in arbitration enforment discussion

All underlined italic emphasis added to comments are mine and not the original poster’s. I’ve moved participant comments into issue order to help understand the breaches better

An editor needs experience of proper rule application when editing contentious topics

…my belief is that they want to comply with the 1RR restrictions, but…are struggling to understand what they need to do…similar behavior elsewhere; where they appear to intend to comply…but for various reasons fail to do so…I believe they want to contribute positively and within the restrictions to the topic area, but I'm not convinced they have the ability…"
Examples (besides 1RR breaches mentioned in that section):

AGF including the entire population of Gaza as "captured" [Ayenaee comment: Although I don’t agree with the content, I wouldn’t characterize this edit as CIR. It’s a novel way of trying to introduce the concept of "Israel has made Gaza into an open air prison", an opinion held by pro-Palestinian activists. While it’s inappropriate as POV, a BRD discussion could have lead to a more neutral way of introducing the concept here or in another article in a balanced way.]
The use in GF of {cn} tags to insert content without citation at the time of citation and sometimes for long periods thereafter
GF misunderstanding notification of other editors, leading to canvassing breach

"I'm getting increasingly concerned…doesn't have the competence to keep editing in this WP:CTOP"
[The TBANned user], the 20 diff limit is a limit of the number of diffs you can link to. It doesn't not stop you from editing your statement.
This is a situation where I would normally go for a 3-6 month and 500-1000 edits topic ban to allow the editor to gain necessary experience. In this circumstance the editor has over four years and 8000 edits to their name, so I don't know that it would be effective.
Yeah I don't see what else can be done here other than an indefinite topic ban. I don't think a time limited ban would help.

Be concise, no walls or lace of words

"…I would recommended trimming it a lot - sure you have a lot to respond to but I would keep it short and coherent. I tried reading it and couldn't make sense of what you were saying."
"…you're at nearly 2000 words…and as far as I can tell you haven't really addressed anything. If you can provide a statement with 500 words that actually addresses the substance and still need more, then we can determine if you need an extension."
"…ditch their current statement and write a new short one that specifically addresses the issues raised."
"…the word limit for responses is 500. If you need a little more than that, you would probably be granted it if you asked, but you're currently over 1600. Please do some substantial trimming."
"I agree that…nothing in the current statement…is keeping me from supporting an indefinite topic ban. It's not a good idea to be told on the 26th to shorten your statement, and keep editing without doing so [by the 29th]."

One Revert Rule ARBPIA sanction (partial) breaches

Listed 7 partial reverts which were discussed with [the TBANned user] with limited self-reverts occurring, listed 3 other reverts not discussed.
Galobtter: "…[the TBANned user] will try to partially revert an edit through a sequence of many edits, split over a long enough time that there will be [intervening] edits turning that one revert into multiple…I tried to explain why that counts as multiple reverts…[the TBANned user] could avoid issues by fully reverting in one edit, and if they want to preserve part of the edit that they reverted then that edit can be safely added back over a sequence of many edits without any issue."
One thing I will say is that 1RR has to be followed whether you are trying to do a good thing or not; this is why BilledMammal points out violations even if they agree with the edit.

Using "citation needed" tags to disruptively insert content without (immediate) citation

"I'm more concerned about…adding edits with citation needed. Regardless of the issues with editing on their device, in this topic area every edit is going to be controversial and needs to include an inline cite with the edit, and cannot be based on 'know[ing] citations exist'."
"…I quickly started experiencing CIR concerns…culminating in a series of edits to Battle of Sufa last week I felt bordered on disruptive." Felt,they’d observed nearly all WP:DISRUPTIVESIGNS] from editor
Addition of general war material in specific attack article

Extention of battle date with no source even when asked

Added unsourced combatant, when asked added cite that didn’t address addition

Added {cn} tags when citations clearly stated what they said was uncited x3

Included commented out speculation in articles

Hounding concern

After the AE report was submitted, the TBANned user seemed to follow BilledMammel cross-wiki to commons and participated in a discussion on his talk page, on a topic the TBANned user had never shown interest in before. BilledMammel considered this to be hounding related to the AE report.

Breaches of No Personal Attacks, and Assume Good Faith rules

Noted that this recent ANI discussion] showed the "interaction between filer and defendant."
I've warned [the TBANned user] at least twice now about personalized commentary. Along with the example, there is also this recent example of not understanding canvassing. Combined with the confusion about reverts and the citation needed issue I find myself in agreement that they may not be net positive in the topic area.
After my two earlier warnings for personalized commentary I linked to above, they have yet again commented negatively about an editor's motives. Any objections to an indef topic ban?

Canvassing breach

[The editor], you may only respond in your own section. Reaching out to other editors for advice is pretty close to canvassing. By informing them of this discussion by asking for advice you're essentially blocking them from engaging with this AE request.

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions

-->