User talk:Chamaemelum

Community topic ban

This is to inform you that post unanimous evident consensus at ANI, you are indefinitely topic banned by the community from aspartame/alternative medicine topics, broadly construed. Standard UNBAN conditions apply. Thank you, Lourdes 12:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lourdes:, so I understand, I cannot:

1. edit any pages, including articles and talk pages, on aspartame or alternative medicine

2. edit parts of unrelated pages that pertain to aspartame or alternative medicine

I can:

3. edit tangentially associated, but clearly separate, pages such as sugar, for example (as long as it does not conflict with 2.)

Is this correct and am I missing anything? Thanks. Chamaemelum (talk) 19:42, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Chamaemelum, I have reopened the discussions as two editors enquired about expanding the scope of the ban. Thanks, Lourdes 04:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  Got it. Do you have any insight as to if my above understanding of what the ban means is correct? Thanks. Chamaemelum (talk) 04:50, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

  If the community's trend goes worse, you won't be able to edit any articles related to medicine. I would suggest to wait for the final community decision. Thanks, Lourdes 04:56, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Contentious topics notice

You have recently made edits related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them. This is a standard message to inform you that gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Beccaynr (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I appreciate your work and due diligence on that article. Chamaemelum (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

July 2023

You have been site-banned indefinitely from Wikipedia as per the community consensus at Special:Permalink/1165210433#Persistent disruptive editing by Chamaemelum. Standard UNBAN conditions apply.  Lourdes 18:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Lourdes, reading the ban policy, it mentions consensus of uninvolved editors of having the ability to impose a ban. Every editor who supported a site ban was involved, so no uninvolved editors voiced support for a site-ban. Are there different process guidelines that I'm missing? Chamaemelum (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

I was not involved and I supported a siteban. Combefere ★ Talk 21:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Combefere This is true; I missed it at the time. You're the only one. Either way, one or zero editors doesn't seem like an uninvolved consensus. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

• Hello Chamaemelum, please write down the names of editors you believe are involved and at least one diff against each name showing evidence of involvement. Once you do that, I / any administrator will take your request/assessment to ANI and let the community decide on that. Thank you, Lourdes 18:50, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Lourdes Separately, I've done some reading but I still have a couple questions on what the site ban means. Am I strictly under all possible circumstances banned from editing all other pages except my own talk page, including whatever forum is used to appeal a ban? (I know there is a way to do it on the talk page as well.)

You are banned from the full site, except this talk page.

Can I send "thanks" to users? (In a non-spammy, constructive way.)

No.

Can I participate in ongoing administrative-esque discussions about me? For example, there is currently a sockpuppet investigation against me [1].

Yes, by posting your statements here and pinging any admin active at that page; they will copy your statements there. Lourdes 06:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add a comment saying that although I am banned, the investigation may still be useful because I'm planning to appeal the ban at the appropriate time, but I won't add it if I'm not allowed. Chamaemelum (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Lourdes. Here are the diffs/pages showing involvement:

Names and involvement

Zefr: select few of many reverts/talk page discussion: [2] [3] [4] Opinion: “Support WP:TBAN on the aspartame and related articles.” “Support site ban asap.” , takes issue with my editing of “diverse articles”. Rockstone35: unrelated editor who did not voice support for site-ban or medical topic ban. Opinion:”STOP” “Support topic ban for Chamaemelum on aspartame and related articles.” DMacks: multiple others; here are a couple [5] [6] [7] [8] Opinion: “Siteban.” Psychologist Guy: around 7 different articles, including: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Opinion: Support WP:TBAN due to “behaviour on the Aspartame article and talk-page”, the discussion he was involved in. Then “Support siteban”. Valjean: e.g., [15] [16] [17] [18] Opinion: “Support topic ban from Aspartame and Alternative medicine topics.” “needed yesterday”. “Stop all editing. Just disappear”. ““This editor is a wild bull in a China closet and needs very tight restraints if allowed to edit at all.” * “Support total ban from Wikipedia.” (Note: these comments make it seem that Valjean wants a siteban (as opposed to a topic ban) as a punishment.) Gidonb: multiple comments here [19] (Though we’ve collaborated since then). Opinion: “Support topic ban Imzadi1979: e.g., [20] Opinion: “Support siteban” due to having “reservations and issues with this editor on the Nigerian road PRODs/AfD” SandyGeorgia: e.g.: [21] Opinion: “Support siteban” Nil Einne: uninvolved editor. Opinion: “Support topic ban”, “it's not clear to me a wider topic ban will resolve [issues].” Combefere: uninvolved editor. Opinion: “Support T-Ban for all Medical Topics”, then changed their opinion to “support a total ban” after thinking I was a “paid contributor” or sockpuppet or something. Other clearly involved editors like Draken Bowser, or uninvolved editors, commented but did not voice support for anything. (Even among involved editors, only editors who were against my edits talked on the talk page. Multiple editors (e.g., WhatamIdoing, Little pob, cdh1001, TypistMonkey, many IP addresses), voiced support for my edits but did not see/participate in the discussion.)

There isn’t a consensus of uninvolved editors: one voiced hesitancy to a ban broader than a topic ban, the other upgraded to site-ban based off of suspicions that I’m a sockpuppet or paid user.

Four of the users based their argument on my ban at least in part on believing I am a blocked sockpuppet user because, which doesn’t seem like a valid reason to count towards consensus.

Users who think I'm a sockpuppet

Note: I’ve cut out the irrelevant parts of comments. “I also have a bad feeling you are a returning banned user.” Psychologist Guy (talk) You do it at a dizzying pace and complexity that indicates you are likely a block-evading experienced editor. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC) You admit to being a returning editor but don't identify which one. Our concern is whether you are evading a block or ban. Are you the indefinitely blocked editor Rayner111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? That editor was blocked on 15:00, 8 May 2023 by Doug Weller. (User talk:Rayner111 is instructive.) Is J. E. R. Staddon (John Eric Rayner Staddon) your biography? Is Theoretical behaviorism an article you created and have returned to editing under your new username? Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:57, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Moreover, it is my opinion that this user's edit count and behavior much more resemble a very experienced Wikipedia editor with an agenda than a 3-month old editor learning the ropes and trying to improve the encyclopedia. Combefere ★ Talk Again, this is only my opinion, but it seems like you are more interested in meeting some sort of quota than in collaborating constructively with the rest of the community. It is impossible for any of us to know specifically why you are behaving this way (student assignments? paid contributor? CIR? something else?) Combefere ★ Talk 17:46, 11 July 2023 (UTC) Zefr believes I am a blocked user: [22] [23]

ANI discussion

Hi Chamaemelum, I have opened up a new section at ANI with your request. Thanks, Lourdes 06:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I would like to make two changes (anyone may do this not just Lourdes) to the ANI:

Add:

Note: Julius Senegal is an involved editor [24].

Add context to:

I would like to add a comment saying that although I am banned, the investigation may still be useful because I'm planning to appeal the ban at the appropriate time, but I won't add it if I'm not allowed.

(The above text only makes sense in the context of the deleted preceding sentence)

By adding the preceding sentence:

Can I participate in ongoing administrative-esque discussions about me? For example, there is currently a sockpuppet investigation against me [25].

(Alternatively, it would also be fine just to delete the "I would like to... if I'm not allowed" sentence altogether. Chamaemelum (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

---

• Comment: Thank you to the five uninvolved editors who spoke up so far at the ANI. Even if the outcome isn't changed, I still appreciate the opportunity to have the situation assessed by uninvolved individuals. Though obviously I disagree with the ban, it feels more fair this way.
• Note to Combefere, who seems to want to figure out what my old account is. I stopped using it 8 years ago. I forgot the username and it isn't connected to be emails. The most useful tip would be that it started with some variation of "Jimbo". So "Jimbo-something", except with Jimbo spelled differently. I edited Shrek-related articles and some math concepts. If you figure it out, let me know!
• Question for ANI commenters: it seems your main concerns are: 1. it is a faux pas to edit very much while a discussion is taking place at ANI, 2. I pushed to hard for my preferred edits. Let me know if I'm misunderstanding.