Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic Motions 10 April 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Venezuelan politics (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 20 Apr 2024 04 May 2024
Mzajac (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) — Case suspended
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)
Case name Closed
Conflict of interest management 13 Apr 2024
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing Motion (orig. case) 27 February 2024
Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 Motion (orig. case) 6 April 2024
Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing none (orig. case) 16 April 2024

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic

Initiated by Cossde (talk) at 01:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Cossde

I am submitting this request for arbitration due to the on going disruptive editing about Sri Lanka as highlighted by highlighted by Robert McClenon in [6] add Sri Lanka to WP:ARBPAK. There is a clear need to identify Sri Lanka as a contentious topic and authorize administrators engade in Arbitration Enforcement to deal with disruptive editing with sanctions such as topic-bans.

Statement by Oz346

Statement by Petextrodon

Statement by JohnWiki159

Statement by SinhalaLion

Statement by UtoD

Civil wars and ethnic issues certainly warrant contentious categorization and clear guidelines to avoid multi-page edit warring and heavy WP:SOAPBOX editing, is also affecting the quality of Sri Lankan articles. -UtoD 19:35, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon (Sri Lanka)

I thank User:Cossde for filing this Request for Arbitration. I filed a Request for Arbitration Amendment about three weeks ago that is still listed as pending, but about to be declined, asking that the contentious topic designation of India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan be expanded to include Sri Lanka, and in particular to include articles and disputes about the Sri Lanka Civil War. Arbitrators had and have doubts about expanding the area of focus to include Sri Lanka, but also seemed favorable to the idea of designating Sri Lanka as a separate contentious topic, either after a case or by motion. I do not see an immediate need for an evidentiary hearing, because the administrators at Arbitration Enforcement can perform the fact-finding to identify which editors are engaging in disruptive editing and topic-ban them.

There was a Sri Lanka Reconciliation WikiProject. Its project page contains the overly optimistic statement that:

This WikiProject has served its stated purpose and is now defunct.

There is still or again a need to limit battleground editing about an island that has tragically been a real battleground, in order to maintain neutral point of view. The most straightforward way to do that is the contentious topics procedure. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720 wrote: We don't need a full case unless someone posts concerns about specific users.. I think that there are concerns about specific users, but that those concerns can be dealt with at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes over Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Civil War are common

A month ago, I failed a dispute at DRN over an atrocity that was a prelude to the Sri Lankan Civil War:


Declined Arbitration Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1159486635#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (10 June 2023)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1158663393#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces (5 June 2023)

Archived Disputes at WP:ANI

Archived Disputes at WP:DRN

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • As indicated at ARCA, I do not think this should be folded in with any existing cases, but there does seem to be a strong indication that regular dispute resolution has broken down. I will wait further comment from the community but my initial thinking is that we could designate this topic contentious without need for a full case, unless there is indication that certain parties must be removed from this sphere. Primefac (talk) 11:07, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also open, based on the evidence presented here, to designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic without a full case. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues above. Absent any evidence that the conduct of specific parties deserves particular scrutiny I think a CTOP designation by motion would be a sensible solution given that there is clearly a persistent issue in this topic area. firefly ( t · c ) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Lanka motion

This case request is resolved by motion as follows:

Sri Lanka, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Support
  1. As proposer and per my comments above. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yeah, this is needed. We don't need a full case unless someone posts concerns about specific users. Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. and lets not do the dummy case thing again --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:13, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. firefly ( t · c ) 22:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Arbitrator Discussion (motion)


Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126


Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

Initiated by TenPoundHammer at 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

  • A limit may be placed on how many AFDs, PRODs, and CSDs I may place in a day or week (e.g. one a day, five a week, etc.)
  • I may maintain a list of content I plan to nominate for deletion with evidence that I have done WP:BEFORE (in the case of articles) or otherwise understand why the content should be deleted.
  • I am not to send material to AFD immediately after it has been de-prodded.
  • If another editor argues "keep", I must refrain from personally attacking them if I disagree with their opinion.
  • If an editor argues "keep" and presents sources, I must refrain from bullying them into adding sources into the article.
  • Optional: Anything not intended for a deletion outcome (de-prodding, renaming a category), obviously vandalism or hoax (G3), or clearly done as maintenance (G6, G7, U1, fixing an improperly formatted discussion) may be exempt from the limitation.
  • Optional: Another editor may volunteer to check my work and make sure if I am working within restrictions.
  • If I am deemed capable of working within the restrictions for a period of time (e.g., one month), restrictions may be lessened. However, if I exhibit behavior in violation of the restrictions, actions may be taken as needed (e.g., return to full topic-ban from deletion).

Per Thryduulf, I have chosen not to pursue complex restrictions further, but instead demonstrate that I understand why my behavior led to an XFD topic ban in the first place. I would like to present my understanding of my ban and appeal it accordingly. Thryduulf suggested my conduct since the topic ban is conducive to lifting it, and I would also like to show an understanding, and attempt to resolve, my past tendentiousness, recklessness, stubbornness, and other negative effects on the deletion process as a whole. My past behaviors included massive queues of nominations which flooded the queues, caused sloppy errors in fact checking and other practices of WP:BEFORE, attacks on editors whose participation in said discussions I disagreed with, and so on. I would like to appeal to a partial or full reversal of this ban -- whichever is decided better for me -- to prove that I have learned what I did wrong since the topic ban was enacted.

(Comment: This template is severely borked and I don't know how to unfuck it. I've tried a million things. Can someone fix this please so it's readable?)

This is my first time doing something like this, so I don't know all the ins and outs. I was told it can be appealed so I am attempting in good faith to appeal it. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenPoundHammer

I was asked by ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to provide a view on what led to the topic ban. It's my understanding that my behavior in XFD included mass nominations which flooded the queues; aggressive behavior toward those who voted "keep" (e.g., browbeating them into adding the sources they found themselves, aggressively confronting them on source quality, general WP:BLUDGEON tactics); poor application of WP:BEFORE (likely stemming from the frantic pace in which I was nominating); and misleading edit summaries (e.g., saying an article was "deprodded for no reason" when the deprodder did explain their reason and/or added a source). No doubt my actions negatively impacted the opinions of other participants in such discussions, which instilled in me a feeling of bias against me that only made my actions even worse. I can also see how informing editors of active deletion discussions on relevant topics constitutes WP:CANVASSing, such as the entire "List of people on the postage stamps of X" debacle. I also expressed great frustration in my inability to properly execute any WP:ATD such as redirection, not thinking that maybe my attempts to redirect or merge content were being undone in good faith and not as some sort of vendetta against me. In general, these show a track record of being sloppy, knee-jerk, and aggressive, and trying way too hard to get my way in spite of what others think. And again, I can see how such actions have caused others to view me unfavorably even before the topic ban was issued.

I know this isn't the first time I've been here, and my deletion tactics have been problematic in the past. Ever since I was topic banned, the thought of "how could I have done that better?" was on my mind, and I'd been formulating theories on how I could have approached XFD better. It didn't help that I spent much of 2022 unemployed and I was not in a good mental state because of that. I feel that I am overall in a better state as an editor right now, as to my knowledge I have not had any conflicts with editors in the months since the topic ban. I also feel that I have formulated solutions to keep the previously mentioned problems at bay and take a more measured, less stressful approach to XFD. This is why one such proposal should the topic ban be rescinded was for me to keep a list of articles I intend to nominate, with proof of WP:BEFORE being done. I had attempted such a list before the topic ban, but it never got very far and I'm sure I was already too deep in the throes of my angry hasty approach. But now I've had plenty of time in which I feel I have sufficiently cooled down and can tackle a more systematic approach.

I did take some time to try and find sources for some TV articles I had questioned the notability of in the past. In just the course of a few minutes I was able to give Stump the Schwab a source, but found it difficult to find others and tagged it with {{notability}}. Ego Trip's The (White) Rapper Show I trimmed some plot summary out of and added a couple reliable sources which I feel are just enough to assert notability for the show. By comparison, Fast Food Mania did not seem to be a notable show, and I made a post here with my analysis of sourcing. This is the kind of behavior I wish to continue executing, so I can take a more measured approach with more time to present my findings or lack thereof before (if the topic ban is lifted) sending anything to XFD.

Since it was brought up on my talk page, I would like to know: is participating in WP:DRV (which I honestly forgot even exists) a violation of the topic ban as it stands? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the result is to allow me to participate in XFDs but not initiate new ones, what would the conditions be to lift the topic ban entirely? I assume a second appeal after twelve months (the time established in the original topic ban), provided my behavior in the interim stays on point and no further problems arise? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would appreciate some clarity on manners such as de-prodding, WP:REFUND, etc. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: So at what point is this considered passed? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly: @Cunard: I agree, blar'ing was not covered under the original topic ban. I stated clearly (or at least what I thought was clearly) in my edit summaries every time my attempts at a WP:BEFORE and why I think the redirect was justified. Some were obvious enough, such as a one-sentence stub on a song being redirected to the artist or album, that I felt a more elaborate edit summary was not needed. I also did not delink the articles as a courtesy to any other editors such as Cunard, in case they found something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Are you done wikistalking me yet, Cunard? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:27, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uh yeah, if I'm making statements like the one above, then it's clear XFD is still too stressful for me to handle without fucking it up again, at least for the time being. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)

A complex list of things you can and can't do is unlikely to gain the favour of the committee - complex restrictions are hard for everybody to remember, complicated to work out whether specific behaviour is permitted or not, and generally easier to accidentally violate. Instead, something like narrowing the scope of the topic ban to allow participation in deletion discussions initiated by other editors but retaining the prohibition on you nominating pages for prod or XFD is more likely to gain favour. Any removal or relaxation though will only happen if you have demonstrated an understanding of why the topic ban was initially placed and your conduct since the ban makes it seem probable that your presence in deletion discussions will not be disruptive. I have not yet looked to see whether both are true. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: your current restriction prohibits you from taking part in "deletion-related discussions", that includes DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to Izno's suggestion, although it would need careful wording, e.g. it should mention explicitly whether they are allowed to discuss the deletion of drafts, and what happens regarding pages moved into or out of a namespace they cannot comment on (for simplicity I would suggest not allowing comments regarding redirects that either are in or which target namespaces they cannot comment on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: wrote I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. I don't think it's clear that the proposed wording does prohibit all of those. I would read topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. as:

  • Clearly prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions at XfD
    • Initiating or closing discussions at DRV
    • Initiating or closing discussions challenging deletion discussion closures at noticeboards
    • Initiating or closing proposals, RFCs and similar discussions about the deletion of pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
    • Adding proposals to delete to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
  • Clearly not prohibiting:
    • Participating in any of the above types of discussion
    • Participating in discussions about challenged closures
    • Responding to queries about deletion discussions or comments left in such discussions
  • Implicity prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions about (mass) draftification
    • Adding proposals to draftify to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
    • Blanking and redirecting pages or initiating or closing discussions proposing such
  • Being entirely unclear about:
    • Nominating pages for PROD or speedy deletion
    • Endorsing PRODs placed by others
    • Deprodding or challenging speedy deletions initiated by others
    • Asking for clarification regarding the closure of a deletion discussion
    • Supporting or opposing proposals regarding the deletion or draftification of pages or types of page
    • Asking for deleted pages to be REFUNDed to draft or userspace

Accordingly I would suggest the topic ban be worded more clearly, perhaps something like: TPH is topic banned from:

  • Nominating or proposing pages for deletion or speedy deletion
  • Endorsing or declining proposed or speedy deletion nominations
  • Challenging the closure of a deletion discussion (at DRV or elsewhere)
  • Closing any deletion-related discussion
  • Initiating or closing proposals to delete, speedy delete or draftify (types or classes of) pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)

They explicitly may:

  • Participate in deletion and deletion review discussions.
  • Challenge proposed or speedy deletion nominations by posting on the talk page.
  • Seek clarification regarding the closure of deletion discussions.
  • Request pages be REFUNDed to draft or userspace.

Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The proposed restriction specifies the topic as only initiating or closing deletion discussions which is a lot narrower in my reading than it is in your apparent reading - e.g. PROD and CSD are not "discussions". The current restriction explicitly states "broadly construed" the proposed one does not, it is therefore reasonable to assume that its absence is intentional and significant. Certainly I cannot see any reasonable way to regard participating in deletion review discussions as prohibited by the proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree the word "topic" is irrelevant to my comment because whether TPH is "banned" or "topic banned" from initiating or closing deletion discussions makes no difference to what they are and are not permitted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

It would be reasonable to restore TPH to participation in existing XfDs opened by others, and this will give the community time to see how that interaction goes. That is, a good few months of collegial comments, working towards consensus, finding sourcing or describing its absence, honoring ATDs, and the like would go a long way to demonstrating that TPH is moving past the binary battles of the old school AfDs we both remember. I'm most concerned that AfD participation is too low to sustain good discussions on more open AfDs at a time, and this would prevent that as a problem. I have seen TPH's desire to improve the encyclopedia, despite our being on the opposite sides of a lot of discussions over the years, and I would be pleased to find the dip in participation quality called out in the case was an anomaly in a long-term editor's carer. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Cunard's experience below, I am withdrawing my support and suggesting that the sanction be extended to include redirection. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I remain of the opinion that the ban from all XFD was overly broad. The FOF for TPH referenced article deletion exclusively. Another alternative stepping stone besides banning from nominations and lifting otherwise would be to retain the ban in these areas (AFD, CSD in main space, RFD in main space, CFD for main space categories?, PROD) while removing it from the other forums. IznoPublic (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

If you do decide to lift this restriction, I'd encourage you to leave a provision allowing an uninvolved administrator to reïmpose it should it become necessary down the road. The appeal is pretty good, but the appeal in 2019 was also pretty good, so while I hope it won't happen, I think it's important to have a failsafe in case things go south again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cunard

I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer a few days ago about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer not to blank and redirect articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television so am focusing on the redirects of television series articles. I reviewed the first three television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected: My Tiny Terror, Steampunk'd, and Window Warriors. I found sources for these articles and reverted the redirects. I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later. It took me several hours to find sources and expand just three of the 14 television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected.
TenPoundHammer is resuming the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact. TenPoundHammer is continuing to redirect articles despite my 3 March 2024 request to stop the redirects.
I ask that the topic ban be amended to prohibit proposing articles for deletion and to also prohibit blanking and redirecting pages. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later" regarding TenPoundHammer's redirects of 14 articles about television series between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.

Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable. Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle as it is very time-consuming to search for sources on so many articles. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer redirected three book articles on 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024: 1, 2, and 3. I reverted the three redirects and added book reviews. Cunard (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly (talk · contribs), you are the first arbitrator to comment in this amendment request since I presented evidence of continued disruptive editing on 18 March 2024. Should I present the evidence and request for expansion of the topic ban in a separate amendment request or keep it here? Cunard (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: I am responding to your question about "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings". Before the 2 August 2022 deletion topic ban, TenPoundHammer nominated numerous articles for proposed deletion and articles for deletion. He also redirected numerous articles in 2022. This link shows the last 500 redirects he did before the 2 August 2022 topic ban. If you search for the text "Tags: New redirect Reverted" on the page, there are 189 results. At least 189 of the redirects he did between April 2022 and July 2022 were reverted.

I am not aware of other recent negative interactions around these blankings. This could be because blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere so editors may not have noticed. I would have not become aware that TenPoundHammer had begun redirecting a large number of articles had he not redirected Monkey-ed Movies. He had previously nominated that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-ed Movies, where I supported retention.

It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics.

Cunard (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer redirected the television show Las Vegas Garden of Love yesterday with the edit summary "unsourced since 2010, time to lose it". I found sources for the article and reverted the redirect. I found two of the sources (The New York Times and Variety) on the first page of a Google search for "Las Vegas Garden of Love ABC". TenPoundHammer previously prodded this same article in May 2022, and another editor contested that prodding. Cunard (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by BOZ

I'm going to back up the assertions by User:Cunard that we need to look into this habit of TPH of using WP:BLAR frequently on articles, although I am not sure whether it should be done as part of this request or if a separate request should be made. BLAR is not necessarily a controversial activity, but if an editor has been demonstrated to be redirecting articles on topics that can meet the GNG over and over again, then that is concerning. If we have an editor who has been topic banned from deletions, and that same editor uses BLAR inappropriately as an end-run around this topic ban, then we may have a situation worth further examining.

Processes like AFD and PROD will show up on Article Alerts pages for WikiProjects and on Deletion sorting pages and in other areas of Wikipedia where editors will be able to address for themselves if a topic is notable or not. With BLAR, if you have not watchlisted every article you might ever want to read or work on, it would be easy to miss an article being redirected. One of the few methods I have found to keep track of redirections is the Articles by quality log; for example, I have gone through Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Board and table game articles by quality log in a many-hours-long journey of painstaking research to find every article that was ever deleted or redirected from that WikiProject. I do not recommend this activity to anyone else, although for me I feel it was worth it. I know this is only one example, but one of the many redirected articles I encountered in this research was The Mad Magazine Game, which was BLAR by TPH in 2022: [7] This seems uncontroversial enough given the state of the article at the time, but when I asked Cunard to help me find sources on Talk:The Mad Magazine Game there were a plethora! BLAR does not require any WP:BEFORE activity, so it is concerning to me to think that a user can just redirect dozens, hundreds, thousands of articles that may turn out to be notable after all, and no one might ever correct this and the articles may stay redirected indefinitely. BOZ (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping @Cunard in case my attempted ping failed. :) BOZ (talk) 17:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pppery

The BLAR situation misses the point entirely IMO. All Cunard has proven is that he is better at source searching than TenPoundHammer, but honestly Cunard is better at source searching than pretty much everyone, myself included. It might be wise for TenPoundHammer to slow down with BLAR-ing (or nominating for deletion if allowed to do so) articles, but I don't see why the situation there has anything whatsoever to do with whether he is allowed to participate in deletion discussions. I would appreciate it if the arbs opposing due to this would explain their reasoning, since I'm completely missing it.

A topic ban appeal is not the appropriate venue to impose additional restrictions that were not covered by the original topic ban, especially with reference to issues that predate it as BOZ's example does.. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'd prefer to avoid voting for customized, user-specific sanctions – there's either a topic ban or there isn't. Also, no formal sanction should ever be needed to require adherence to the policies against personal attacks, harassment or similar behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, TenPoundHammer, and sorry for the slow response. I'm fine with reducing the scope of your topic ban, as for example proposed in the first motion below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TenPoundHammer, thanks for asking. Motions are majority decisions; looking at WP:ArbCom#Members,* we'd currently need 7 support votes for the motion to pass. There are 5 so far.
    (*This can be more complicated when an arbitrator is generally inactive but decides to join the discussion here, in which case they're "active on the motion" and counted as active here. Irrelevant in the current situation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to the idea of amending the TBAN so that it is a topic ban on initiating deletion discussions rather than a topic ban on deletion discussions as a whole. However, @TenPoundHammer: could you elaborate on how you would approach such deletions discussions differently than in the past? - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not immediately opposed to amending the topic ban following TenPoundHammer's reply above. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My !vote is to modify the TBAN. I think a TBAN of initiating deletion-related discussions (that is, nominating articles for PROD, XfD, etc.) and closing deletion discussions is appropriate, but I am willing to lift their ban on participating in deletion discussions. I would also add the stipulation that any admin can reimpose the TBAN for all deletion discussions if they find that TenPoundHammer has returned to the bludgeoning and harassment conduct that led to the TBAN. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720: I am suggesting that an individual admin could only reinstate for the first 12-18 months. So if no one does in that time, it would have to be reinstated by the committee or community rather than as an individual admin action. If reinstated it would then be indefinite. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to a modification along the lines of what Z1720 suggests (also not opposed to Izno's scope) though I would want the ability for an individual admin to reinstate for 12-18 months given the conduct issues from the case during discussions and the previous failure when a TBAN was removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH: it's probably better for someone who will be on the committee next year to tell you, but I would want at least 12 months of problem free editing and truthfully longer because of what happened previously when a topic banned was repealed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appeal shows the appropriate level of self-reflection and understanding of the problems. I think this is a classic case of a good editor with a blind spot in a particular area. I'm quite happy to consider lifting or loosening the restriction. I'd be happy with either allowing TPH to participate but not initiate, or with lifting completely with a caveat like EW's that means it can be re-imposed with minimal bureaucratic overhead. I could also see my way to supporting something a bit more nuanced if those two options don't gain traction. Not that I doubt TPH's sincerity, but this seems to be a big blind spot and complaints about TPH and AfD stretch back many years (I seem to recall seeing complaints back when I was first starting out 15 years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with modifying the TBAN to permit participating in XfDs (but not starting or closing), with an uninvolved admin being able to reimpose the full tban within the first 12 months. Maxim (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified

TenPoundHammer's topic ban (Remedy 9.1) is modified to read TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. An uninvolved administrator may reimpose a full topic ban on deletion discussions (broadly construed) within the first twelve months.

Support
Feel free to wordsmith. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to oppose. Primefac (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"topic" removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is fine. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support as written. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Maxim (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:# I think this is a reasonable enough solution. firefly ( t · c ) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Striking while I consider the evidence around blanking-and-redirection, without prejudice to restoring the vote. firefly ( t · c ) 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. (As I'd prefer to avoid supporting user-specific/custom restrictions and TenPoundHammer has understandably asked for how this discussion continues, I'll formally add an oppose vote here so my non-support is properly counted and we have 6 arbitrators who have already voted.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The blanking and redirect issue places me here. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Guerillero - I'm not ready to modify this (with this wording at least) at present. firefly ( t · c ) 18:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per the redirect concerns and Special:Diff/1219160953. - Aoidh (talk) 04:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I commend TPH for their candour in the diff given by Aoidh. It is not quite a formal withdrawal of the request, but still indicates to me that a bit more time away would be helpful. I will note that I still have no major concerns with the BLAR activities since they are easily overturned and so far have not been shown to be an area of dispute (other than people disagreeing with the redirect creation itself). Primefac (talk) 12:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
Generally supportive, but as written I don't think the motion includes PROD, which I strongly believe it should. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one. Ultimately I support largely lifting all restrictions but with the ability of an uninvovled admin to re-impose them. If there are issues with TPH's deletion-related conduct in the future we can look at them then. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the matters it hears. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are broadly construed by default, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. Note: As this is a topic ban, I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, if I understand correctly, you either believe that in the current case, the word "topic" shouldn't have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that neither CSD nor PROD are deletion discussions, and I'd say that assuming they're included in the original remedy is a bit far-fetched. Regarding "topic" and "broadly construed", the motion is currently demonstrably not clear enough about what is included and what is not. I'll strikethrough "topic" in the motion as it's either irrelevant or confusing or comes with unintended implications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine adding "broadly construed" as it was in the original motion and does allow for less pigeonholing. I would also agree with those above who indicate that the original does not mention CSD or PROD so this one probably should not either. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, now that "topic" is gone and my interpretation of the proposed ban is narrow, I personally would recommend against adding "broadly construed". To decide this, perhaps an example would be needed of behavior that is meant to be (additionally) prohibited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard - thank you for the ping. I have struck my vote for the time being. I am sympathetic to the idea of including blanking-and-redirecting as part of the new restrictions, although at that point I have to wonder whether we're reaching a point where it would be better to keep the original restrictions in place until they can be removed more cleanly... firefly ( t · c ) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any debate or otherwise negative inter-editor interaction as far as these redirects go? BLAR does not seem to be covered under the original restriction, so pointing to it as a "problem" to consider with regard to deletion-related editing seems odd to me. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have clarified that I've not come to a conclusion there, but wanted to pull my vote while I consider. I agree that it's not part of the original restriction, but I think it's reasonable to consider BLAR 'deletion-related editing'. Your point around "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings" is what I'm looking for at the moment :) firefly ( t · c ) 14:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

Initiated by Olympian at 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Link to remedy


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request


Information about amendment request
  • Removal of TBAN


Statement by Olympian

More than a year ago, I was topic banned from Armenia, Azerbaijan and related ethnic conflicts. Since then, I’ve fully acquainted myself with the principles and decisions of the case and adjusted my behaviour to not edit-war under any circumstance (the reason for my topic ban). I promise to follow the rules and principles of AA3 and all relevant judgements, and respectfully ask that my topic ban is lifted.

I didn’t stop editing as a result of the ban, rather, I kept contributing to and improving Wikipedia in other areas. Other than the countless random improvements I made, I also authored two new articles ([8][9]) and improved another to become a GA nomination. Moreover, I assisted an editor in authoring several GA’s as they frequently enquired regarding MOS, structure, sources, and copyediting.

In the AA3 case, it was agreed by the majority of arbitrators that I had erred by using a denialist source and that I had edit warred. Since then, I err on the side of caution in thoroughly checking each source. Moreover, I generally abstain from reverting others’ edits and am always the first to initiate dialogue with fellow editors to reach a consensus ([10][11][12]). I would also like to add that I don’t have a history of sanctions prior to this. – Olympian loquere 00:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Firefly. Indeed I have slowed down my editing because the topic covered by the TBAN is one of the few areas where I have significant knowledge due to years of reading on the subject. But since my ban, I've been trying to branch out more to other topics I know about but sadly haven't been able to contribute significantly due to IRL reasons – I started a new job and have been dealing with an increased workload from my studies. I am confident that I will not edit war again, as during the first time (during the case), I was not aware I was doing so, due to being unfamiliar with the policy. After the arbitrators pointed out my edit-warring, I acquainted myself with the edit-warring policy and what conduct constitutes it, and thereafter abstained from doing so in any form. – Olympian loquere 12:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by KhndzorUtogh

I was following the AA3 developments at the time, I was forced to comment myself once. When it comes to Olympian, I had my fair share of problems with this user; at one point, I suspected them of sockpuppeting. My suspicion was before the topic ban, but there is something that I wasn't sure about, yet I think it's of importance to the committee as it happened during the topic ban and raises some suspicions about Olympian's claim of not violating the topic ban - 2 months after the AA3 closure and Olympian's topic ban, a user named WikiHannibal posted this message on Olympian's talk which piqued my interest; the user was essentially complaining about an unverifiable info restored by Olympian about exodus of Azerbaijanis from an Armenian village (I had removed it prior to Olympian's restoration). About an hour and a half after that message, another user named Samiollah1357 restored Olympian's added content that WikiHannibal removed and complained about, with summary: "archived version of the source mentions removed information". I assumed Olympian didn't restore this as they would've violated the topic ban, and they had admitted it themselves, only replying 3 days later to WikiHannibal's concern saying: "Sorry, I'm topic banned so I can't comment on that." - only for someone else (Samiollah1357) already having restored the content 3 days prior, an hour and a half after WikiHannibal's complaint to Olympian. At the time, all of this seemed extremely suspicious to me and I had suspected either sockpuppetery or meatpuppetry proxy-editing, but I didn't want to open another SPI based on this one example as my earlier SPI with more diffs was closed with no action. To be honest, I didn't have much experience with SPIs either at the time. Regardless of everything, I think this is important info for the committee to consider in the context of this appeal.

And upon doing some more research into this, it seems to me that there is more stylistic evidence that Olympian likely either sockpuppeted or meatpuppeted via proxy-editing while they were tbanned: see that Samiollah1357 other edits in similar niche Armenian villages after Olympian's tban [13] (reverting me like Olympian), are very similar to Olympian's other restorations prior to the AA3 tban [14], [15] (again reverting me) in terms of edit summaries and nature of restoration, i.e., adding archived link to a removed dead url like with the first example involving Olympian's talk page. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Of the parties sanctioned in AA3, Olympian's conduct seemed the least-bad from what I can see - although edit-warring in the topic area during an arbitration case is of course manifestly unwise!
    Olympian - you say that you have not stopped editing after the TBAN, which is plainly true, however your activity has dropped significantly. I am slightly concerned that while you have avoided edit warring outside of the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area, you would be at risk of doing so in an area where you would edit more intensely / with greater personal attachment. Could you speak to how you would avoid doing so?
    • Thinking out loud for my colleagues' benefit - I am wondering whether a suspended removal could work here? Remove the TBAN but allow any uninvolved administrator to re-impose it within the first twelve months. firefly ( t · c ) 11:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be open to replacing the topic ban with a version of the parole I created for this case --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a suspended removal is a good option here. I'm not against replacing the current topic ban with the probation remedy from the case, but it would a second choice, as I would prefer on appeals to not leave in place an indefinite sanction. Maxim (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to doing something and would slightly prefer a longer than normal suspension given the huge dropoff in activity where the total activity since the TBAN is less than any one of the 6 months before it. So 18 or 24 months rather than 12. Probation would be a second choice as I agree with Maxim that I think appeals should generally sunset if successful. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the proposed FoF discussion, the proposed remedies discussion and the appeal, I'd be fine with lifting the ban entirely. Yes, edit warring during an arbitration case about the article's topic is unwise. Olympian says they were unaware of having done so, which – see the complicated history part linked from the FoF – isn't an absurd claim to me. The 1RR would still be in effect to prevent this type of disruption. The proposed "Use of Sources" FoF didn't pass. This is not the type of ban I'd uphold in doubt. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to clarify on some of the above arbitrator opinions, are we referring to "probation" and "suspension" both as meaning any uninvolved administrator to re-impose it as written by Firefly, or are there differences in the wording choices here? I think we are ready for motions but I want to make sure I am not ignoring or combining other alternatives. Primefac (talk) 11:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would concur in Firefly's recommendation. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also support Firefly's recommendation. Z1720 (talk) 17:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: Olympian's topic ban rescinded with suspension

Remedy 3.1 of the case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 ("Topic ban (Olympian)") is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting eighteen months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted.

Support
  1. Swapped the wording to the one below with permission of firefly. I am ready to support --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:16, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Thanks Guerillero - I should've checked for a previous instance of this being done. firefly ( t · c ) 18:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Aoidh (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Maxim (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
Proposing without votes to allow for wordsmithing as this is something of a bespoke remedy. firefly ( t · c ) 17:40, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last time we did this it was worded "is lifted subject to a probationary period lasting twelve months from the date this motion is enacted. During this period, any uninvolved administrator may re-impose the topic ban as an arbitration enforcement action, subject to appeal only to the Arbitration Committee. If the probationary period elapses without incident, the topic ban is to be considered permanently lifted." and I feel like it is more crisp way of doing the same thing (keeping the 18 months for this one). If others disagree I'm not going to stand in the way --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's not that bespoke; I would favor the language suggested by Guerillero but there are plenty of other options to draw on if needed. It's not a big issue for me though. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Guerillero's proposed wording. Z1720 (talk) 18:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. Primefac (talk) 18:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Skepticism and coordinated editing

Initiated by Seraphimblade at 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
  • Rp2006 notification: [16]
  • SFR notification: [17]
Information about amendment request
  • Enforcement of restriction


Statement by Seraphimblade

Initially, this stems from an AE request filed by ScottishFinnishRadish ([18]), regarding allegations of repeated topic ban violations by Rp2006 even after guidance and warnings. As the AE request contains the details of such violations, I won't rehash them here. Arbitrator Barkeep49 indicated at the request that ArbCom has private evidence relevant to handling this request. Since this would mean that AE admins do not and cannot have the full picture, it's therefore requested that ArbCom handle it since they have access to that information. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:58, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Rp2006

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

If anything is needed other than what I provided via email and the statements I made at AE with examples of topic ban violations and numerous warnings let me know.

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Skepticism and coordinated editing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Skepticism and coordinated editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Requests for 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
Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331

Zilch-nada

Zilch-nada is warned to assume good faith and maintain civility in discussions, and to better listen to other editors during discussions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 9 April 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 Zilch-nada

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Zilch-nada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
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 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Seraphimblade. Indeed, I would greatly appreciate input from some more administrators so that this could reach some conclusion (whatever it may be). --JBL (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Zilch-nada

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 Zilch-nada

(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)

As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.

I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.

Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".

Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion.
  • Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments.
Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Aquilion: how do they speak for themselves if my logic employed also followed that of abundantly sourced reliable media?
Zilch-nada (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me specify; what I said was my opinion, and indeed not a relevant one. But upon merely using "scare quotes" I was pushed to elaborate upon a notion of illegitimacy. I agree that that was irrelevant for the talk, but it was an opinion that was asked for. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Beccaynr: I demanded a response from no one. I have considered opening up the talk on gender; that is why I have ceased editing it; it's clear it's getting nowhere.
Zilch-nada (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Zilch-nada's WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions in the archives of Talk:Reverse racism, which is within the American politics topic area. They are often the sole voice pushing for a contentious change to the article, e.g. Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9#Reverted edit, where they display a lack of WP:CIVILITY as well as a failure to WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that have had already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beccaynr

On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [20], [21], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [22] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [23] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.

Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [24]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [25], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.

I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [26]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question.; 01:00, 15 December 2023; 01:04, 15 December 2023; 01:10, 15 December 2023. Another example of referring to participants as "you people" is at 05:02, 15 December 2023.

Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Some relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case:

  • [27]: "prior to her transition": yes, when "she" was a man. Jesus Christ.

When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:

  • [28] Weird accusation. The article uses "she"; that's fine. But I'm not respecting a rapist in talk - I have mostly used the term "they" -, nor am I even remotely suggesting to misgender the average trans person. Nonsense.

When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:

  • [29] Not all "transitions" deserve equal respect - a view clearly espoused by the police, the prisons, politicians like Sturgeon, etc. etc.; that's how I'll refer to this "person" in talk. Is me putting scare quotes around "person" insulting all "persons"? Give it a break.

I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zilch-nada

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I haven't gone through every one of the diffs yet, but so far it's a mixed bag. Some of them I'm struggling to see the incivility in. Others, particularly those shown by Aquillion, are clearly inappropriate. I should be able to finish reading through everything tomorrow, I'm just commenting now because I noticed this hasn't received any admin attention yet. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking into this deeper, there does appear to be a civility and WP:IDHT problem here. I do see that Zilch-nada has apologized for the poor language and immaturity. I'm on the fence about what should be done about it. Leaning slightly towards a logged warning for now, with the understanding that if we end up back here a topic ban is very likely. I'm open to arguments either way. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've dearchived this request as it is incomplete, and it looks like discussion was still in process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • On going through the diffs (and some of Zilch-nada's other posts) it does seem that their tone is rather brusque and dismissive. That said, none of it is actually beyond the pale and therefore I think a logged warning, a mild one that reminds them to AGF in discussions, is likely the best way to close this. RegentsPark (comment) 00:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds reasonable enough to me. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:09, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jaymailsays

There is consensus for an indefinite block of Jaymailsays. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:01, 9 April 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 Jaymailsays

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kathleen's bike (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Jaymailsays (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:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 19:46, March 27, 2024 Adds blatant WP:SYNTHESIS
  2. 15:30, March 29, 2024 Repeats previous edit in violation of WP:ONUS despite discussion at Talk:Martin McGuinness#Synthesis and false narrative
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Blocked for edit-warring at 18:25, February 16, 2024
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Notified at 18:19, March 10, 2024

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Largely based on this BBC article (and earlier articles in the Belfast Telegraph and Newsletter), the editor is attempting to relitigate the lengthy Bloody Sunday Inquiry into Bloody Sunday (1972). None of the sources in any way suggest this verdict should be in any way looked at again, so additions such as "the "incendary footage" of McGuinness proves that the Inquiry was misled" and "based on the evidence available at the time" are totally unacceptable, since it should be blatantly obvious that a video of someome in March 1972 isn't evidence of what they were doing on a particular date in January 1972.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Jaymailsays

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 Jaymailsays

  • Unfortunately the complainant has now broken the 3 revert rule without consensus or suggesting an edit, on the Martin McGuinness page by removing BBC content, because it doesn't fit in with their personal view, instead of adopting a neutral encyclopaedic edit. Request that a neutral administrator reinstates edit.
  • The complainant reinstated 14 killed during Bloody Sunday, when the citation linked to the official report states 13 and not 14. The complainant is acting as if they own the article instead of collaborating with editors to gain consensus. Jaymailsays (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Mandruss

At the risk of hijacking an AE complaint—this comment is not about The Troubles, but Seraphimblade has already opened this door below—their brief participation at Talk:Donald Trump has been... unimpressive, disappointing.[30][31][32][33] They were asked to strike the PA in that last one,[34] but have so far ignored that (in my view, that constitutes doubling down on the PA, which is even more serious). If they were to suddenly disappear, I wouldn't miss them. But at least they didn't edit war, credit where credit's due. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IgnatiusofLondon

Echoing Seraphimblade and Mandruss, I believe there is a WP:CIR issue that extends beyond the scope of AE. I interacted with the editor at Where is Kate?, a BLP article, where the editor continually added WP:UNDUE content (1, 2), extensive citations of routine statements/comments (3, 4, 5), which sometimes broke the prose's grammar (6, 7), and generally unreliable sources (per WP:RSP) or sources of unknown reliability that likely violate WP:BLPGOSSIP (8, 9, 10, 11). A minority of their contributions to the article were uncontested. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 12:56, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Jaymailsays

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This editor's talk page is quite the mountain of warnings for OR, poor use of references, and the like, and I see even more of that in these edits. I also note that now they seem to want to needlessly snark at other editors, while there's an AE request open about them: [35]. Jaymailsays, I'd be open to hearing your side, but at this point I'm giving a lot of thought to whether you ought to continue editing at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Still considering what to do here, primarily between a TBAN and indef. If anyone else has any input, would be much appreciated. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the wide range of topics that Jaymailsays edits, I support an indef. RegentsPark (comment) 17:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996

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 Abhishek0831996

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 17:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Abhishek0831996 (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:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 27 March 2024 15:36 at Article 370 (film), strange edit summary "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact...", placed on a wrong revert. The actual revert came later (17 March 2024 16:07), which removed a tag of "unreliable source?" on a historical claim, without any improvement in the sourcing.
  2. 27 March 2024 16:03, at its talk page. Rude & bombastic comment: "That is precisely a nonsensical view of yours. This movie is an outright propaganda piece only created for political benefit of the BJP. Why that is so hard for you to understand?"
  3. 27 March 2024, 15:41 at Jammu and Kashmir (princely state), meaningless edit summary, given the weighty deletion of "Aksai Chin". Tag-teaming with Capitals00?
  4. 31 March 2024, 14:27 at its talk page. Trying to bully a newbie editor citing WP:BATTLEGROUND. If you read through the discussion, you see Abhishek majorly gaslighting and stone-walling, claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state", which is ridiculously false.
  5. 1 April 2024 12:46 at Aksai Chin. More biting of the newbie editor: "Revert half baked edits of Haani". This is Abhishek's very first edit on this page.
  6. 1 April 2024 13:03 at its talk page. "One is a 2022 article and another one is a geography dictionary. None of them are reliable enough." Not any reasonable grounds for claiming unreliability. The so-called "geography dictionary" is published by Columbia University Press.
  7. 26 March 2024, 09:45 at Swatantrya Veer Savarkar (film). Similar bombastic edit summary "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history". Reinstating content previously added by Capitals00
  8. 21 January 2024 10:53 at Babri Masjid. An older example of a bombastic deletion of content without evidence. Here Capitals00 reinstated the edits after having been reverted once by Vanamonde93
  9. 16 March 2024 16:49 at Indian independence movement. similar deletion of a well-known fact. Subhas Chandra Bose's name is mentioned in the body, including even a photograph.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 24 April 2017. A 72-hour block for disruptive editing.
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 31 August 2021, 9 June 2022 and 27 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
  • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 24 July 2023.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have seen Abhishek0831996 occasionally, but the first interaction was on 27 March 2024, where in Diff 1 (in two parts), they deleted an {{unreliable source?}} tag on a historical claim made by a film reviewer, and then followed it with an even more rude and bombastic talk page comment (Diff 2). Given that this was the first interaction the user was having with me, I was quite taken aback. Since then I have seen this pattern being repeated at a number of other pages, particularly targeting the newish user, Haani40. Particularly egregious is today's revert (Diff 5), which is quite pointed. The corresponding explanation on the talk page (Diff 6) is meaningless.

Digging back into the edit history, I see a pattern of edits deleting apparently inconvenient content from pages with vague justifications, especially from the lead. This is followed by an effort to gaslight other editors when challenged on the talk page. The user displays an air of self-assured confidence, matched by contempt and ridicule for the other editors. The knowledge of relevant polices is practically non-existent.

Given that the user has been here long enough, it is time that they are held to account. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kautilya3 (talk • contribs)

Interesting that Capitals00 finds fault with me placing a POV template on a faulty section. Surely they know that WP:NPOV is a fundamental pillar of Wikipedia? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek0831996's responses to the issues raised here continue to make red herring arguments of the same kind that are causing intermiable talk-page discussions, making any form of consensus-seeking impossible.

For example, for Diff 1, their response mentions a review in The Hindu and a news article in the The Guardian. But neither of these sources has made the specific historical claim that the contested source has. If they did, the user could have easily replaced the contested source with those, which they did not. And, the Diff 2, taken as a whole, is clearly a personal attack, but what is worse is that it is being used as a means of justifying the improper deletion of an {{unreliable source?}} tag. This is clearly an effort to bully editors. The only reasonable responses to the tag are either to replace the source with an acceptable one or to argue that the source is indeed reliable. Neither of these has been done.

As another example, for Diff 6, they claim that they have provided "scholarly sources", without bothering to mention that they are sources on Chinese foreign policy. The second source is in fact a biography of the Chinese premier. They have made no effort to assess whether the passages they quote are describing the scholars' independent assessments or whether they are just explainers of the Chinese policy. This seems like just a drive-by effort to google a particular POV, and cite whatever comes up without any understanding of the sources themselves.

On Diff 8, which is only a few months old, I maintain that is an improper deletion because no evidence of any "dispute" has been provided, either in the edit summary or on the talk page, for deleting long-standing content in the lead. But this is only one instance of a persistent pattern.-- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

1 April 2024 17:49

Discussion concerning Abhishek0831996

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 Abhishek0831996

  • 1st edit: I described that "Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact. The Hindu has also dismissed this episode of the movie, not just Deccan Herald." Kautilya3 has cropped my edit summary and cherrypicked just to suit his report. This movie has been criticised as a propaganda movie[36] and its episode on Sheikh Abdullah and Jawaharlal Nehru has been dismissed by The Hindu[37] and The Deccan Herald[38] but Kautilya3 is opposing this all based on his personal views, not backed by any sources, contrary to WP:OR.
  • 2nd edit: Only for using the word "nonsensical" (which is not offensive), Kautilya3 went to falsely allege me of breaching WP:NPA.[39] This is a breach of WP:ASPERSIONS on Kautilya3's part.
  • 3rd edit: There is nothing "meaningless" about this edit summary. Also, what tag-teaming? I am editing this article since 2 March 2024.
  • 4th edit: The message I was responding to, "We will revert you and even seek mediation if you continue your edit war" reeks of WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality since it promises to edit war and falsely accuses of an "edit war" that wasn't even happening for days.[40] Now Kautilya3's false claim on this report that I am "claiming that "Kashmir" is not the "princely state"," is outright misleading. I am instead saying: "None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[41]
  • 5th edit: I was restoring the last stable version against the unconstructive edits that had been also reverted by another editor some hours ago.[42] It is wrong to preserve misleading edits on these highly controversial articles.
  • 6th edit: An article and a geographical dictionary cannot be used for challenging the article that is built on scholarly sources. On talk page I had myself provided scholarly sources (including the one from Harvard University Press) to rebuke these edits but these sources have been wrongly demeaned as "Chinese views" by Kautilya3.[43]
  • 7th edit: This is yet another movie just like Article 370 that has been criticised as a propaganda movie created to promote the cause of the Bharatiya Janta Party [44][45] and it has been also criticised for distorting history.[46] After knowing this you won't see anything wrong with that edit.
  • 8th edit: Nothing wrong with this edit. Yes it is disputed that who placed the idols of Ram and Sita in 1949. Some Indian officials claim they placed the idols,[47] and the activists belonging to Nirmohi Akhara,[48] Hindu Mahasabha[49][50] have either claimed or they have been alleged to have placed the idols. This is why many sources simply avoid giving credit to any particular entity.[51]
  • 9th edit: Kautiya3 is falsifying this edit as well. The Wiki text concerns those who are "the leading followers of Gandhi's ideology". Subhas Chandra Bose has been instead criticised for departing from Gandhi's ideology and making alliance with the Nazis and fascists as noted at Subhas Chandra Bose#Anti-semitism; "How did a man who started his political career at the feet of Gandhi end up with Hitler, Mussolini, and Tojo? Even in the case of Mussolini and Tojo, the gravity of the dilemma pales in comparison to that posed by his association with Hitler and the Nazi leadership."

It is safe to conclude that the entire report is baseless and it rather speaks against Kautilya3 himself. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Haani40)

I am new here but since a notice was posted on my Talk page, I feel compelled to comment here. Capitals00 and Abhishek0831996 who Kautilya3 is complaining about here have both been indulging in extremely biased editing, many times in tandem. I agree with all that Kautilya3 has stated above. I suggest that both of them should be sanctioned. Please see the multiple warnings on the Talk page of User_talk:Capitals00

Removal of sourced content that was using a Reliable source diff
Restoring the word, "propaganda" without a reliable source diff
Restoring edit of Capitals00 with bombastic edit summary, "No rule that only Historians can call out outright distortion of history" diff
False claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin diff
Removing Aksai Chin from the "Today part of" section of the infobox at the Jammu_and_Kashmir_(princely_state) article diff which Curious man123 reverted.
After reading the allegations of Capitals00 below, I state that I am new here but learning the rules. I have placed the {{this is a new user}} template on the top of my Talk page. I have read the wikipedia polices and guidelines mentioned at WP:PG. I observe that every few days, a new rule is being mentioned. I will however abide by all the rules. Kautilya3 has stated that those edits are his here but Capitals00 is alleging that it is mine, so he must be directed to read WP:DONTBITE
I have also read the five pillars of Wikipedia after Kautilya3 mentioned it on my Talk page.
In his reply above, Abhishek0831996 has repeated his false claim, "I am instead saying: None of this confirms if this princely state controlled Aksai Chin".[52]
Capitals00 has again reverted Kautilya3 here - it certainly looks like he and Abhishek0831996 are working in tandem to get their viewpoint added which is a false claim that India never controlled Aksai Chin.Haani40 (talk) 06:28, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abhishek0831996 has changed his statement here saying that China did not occupy any extra territory in between 1959 and 1962.-Haani40 (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Capitals00

Anyone can understand the above editor Haani40's conduct by looking at these edits that already beyond WP:BATTLE,[53][54] and even WP:CIR.[55][56]

While there is no doubt that Kautilya3 is unnecessarily putting up defense for the edits of Haani40, his own conduct has been poor. His unnecessary tagging and edit warring against the mainstream facts supported by the reliable sources[57][58][59] has been disruptive and his pure reliance on his own original thoughts by rejecting the reliable sources is also commonly observed on the said disputes.[60] This report filed by him is similarly frivolous since it aims to create the worst meaning of each and every diff he has cited. He hasn't mentioned that other editors have also made the similar reverts[61][62] against their will on the cited pages.

I expect a warning for the filer Kautilya3 to stop misusing this noticeboard for winning the content disputes. He has been already warned before for casting aspersions on other editors and this sanction was never appealed.[63] Capitals00 (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Bookku)

I suppose I am most likely to be uninvolved in most of the above cited articles (without any interest in any specific side). I used word 'likely' since I have not opened many of cited difs. Also usually films do not top my WP MOS understanding and interest.

Importance of WP:DDE protocol and going back to WP:DR

Here I am not commenting on specific merits of the case (emphasis added).

As usual at this WP:ARE forum, intermittently I come to make good faith reminder; If for some reason discussions go off the track from content dispute usual preference should be, 'go back to the track of solving content disputes as per WP:DR' rather than personalizing them. As far as personal issues before any disputes coming at WP:ARE checking protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE also be considered important.

Bookku (talk) 06:40, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Some different facets Diff1
  • Brief: MOS:FILMHIST says, "..If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."
Detail appreciation Diff1 issue
    • While my primary perception about above case has been that like many other content dispute spilling over in personal realm and that continues; I gave a re-look into discussion between Kautilya3 and Abhishek0831996 specially about Dif 1 deletion of {{unreliable source?}} tag.
    • Can any history film, other than academically transcripted and peer reviewed documentary; be called academically accurate? Who is going to decide those are just fiction or fictionalized or academically accurate history? Whether even any reliable news media can sit on judgement of it's veracity like academics?
    • What Wikipedia lacks at policy level is well identified allowance of weak sources. So be it. If at all a RS media is being used where academic should have been then why not at least provide attribution to the media.
    • Above discussions are mentioning WP:HISTRS essay but inadvertently seem to miss on MOS:FILMHIST which provides some good via media for above explained difficulties. MOS:FILMHIST says:
    • ".. If ample coverage from secondary sources exists about a film's historical or scientific accuracy, editors can pursue a sub-topic sharing such coverage in a section titled "Historical accuracy" or "Scientific accuracy" ("accuracy" being applied as neutral terminology). .. If analysis is limited, links should be provided to historical or scientific articles so readers can read about topics based in reality after reading about the work of fiction that uses these topics with dramatic license. .."
    • Did I not end up explaining content dispute aspect above, that's why my emphasis on WP:DDE protocol mentioned earlier.
    • We all users being human it's very understandable we prefer to stick to more suitable positions and RS. To draw a parallel whether any one would appreciate that court judges getting influenced by media even if RS? Similarly in a role of encyclopedist do we not need to understand many of our perceptions and positions are being constructed by media and mediums around us and there may be need to revisit our own positions and do effort to understand from where other user's point is coming and can there be space for that?
    • @Abhishek0831996 Yes it's true other users too may need introspection but when thing come to WP:ARE the tradition is it's about you and not others. My purpose is not to judge you on merit, other users are there for that. I suggest you revisiting statements like ".. Don't need HISTRS for stating a fact..." and read WP:TRUTH then confirm yourself by reading "..So, if you want to:..Explain what you are sure is the truth of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue,.." from WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and inadvertently we do not go closer to WP:POVPUSH. In my own case when other users expressed concerns about my own editing it took me time to understand from where other users perceptions are coming and how I can revisit my editing in this collaborative environment and do better.

I hope this resolves appropriately and helpfully. Happy Wikipedia editing to all.

Bookku (talk) 06:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (User name)

Result concerning Abhishek0831996

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • As is all too common in this area, there's a lot to review here; I'll try to when I get a chance. I will note up front that we almost certainly do not need more information to go through, and that the 500 word/20 diff limit on this request will be very strictly enforced. If you must add additional commentary, please keep it brief. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:15, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rp2006

As ArbCom has stated they have private evidence relevant to this request, it will be moved to WP:ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:44, 16 April 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 Rp2006

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Rp2006 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing#Rp2006 topic ban (2), indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 April 2022, an edit about at Havana syndrome about Robert Bartholomew, he writes for several newspapers and journals on sociological and fringe science topics, including Psychology Today, Skeptical Inquirer, and British magazines The Skeptic and Fortean Times.
  2. 15 April 2022, explicitly warned about edits about Bartholomew at Havana syndrome on their talk page, clarification of topic ban provided.
  3. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive306#Rp2006, 12 June 2022, Rp2006 is advised to use more caution in regards to following the topic ban when editing in areas where it may apply; no other action taken following a technical violation.
  4. 21 January 2023, an edit about a living person of interest to the skeptic community.
  5. 27-28 January 2023, warned about violations on their talk page.
  6. 1 March 2023, topic ban violation at David Paulides.
  7. 4 March 2023, warning about that violation.
  8. Special:Undelete/User:Rp2006/sandbox/Biddle, 20 December 2023, 17 July 2023, 30 September 2022, admin-only, page since deleted, edits about Kenneth "Kenny" Biddle, an author, skeptical investigator of paranormal claims.
  9. 6 February 2024, adding Wikiproject Skepticism to a BLP.
  10. 6-7 February 2024, talk page warnings about violations
  11. 2 April 2024, an edit about Robert Bartholomew at Havana syndrome.
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After at least 5 warnings, both on their talk page and at AE, topic ban violations continue. I've been wearing kid's gloves with my handling of this, but after years of violations and warnings I think we've reached the point where something more concrete should be done. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with a sanction from Arbcom is not a reason to ignore it. The not understanding the limits doesn't really wash after it's been explained by multiple editors multiple times. We expect all editors who are topic banned to stay away from the edges of their bans, and to ask questions if they're unsure.
The diffs above are also not the only violations. Taking a look through there are more that pop up, like [64]. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just dropping a note that I have sent evidence of COI editing to Arbcom as well. I'll provide the evidence to any admin who requests it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Rp2006

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 Rp2006

My understanding was - due the perceived violation of rules on two BLPs of two people of interest to the skeptic community - one a self-professed medium, and another a science communicator who renounced the title skeptic) that the ban's intention was to prevent two things. One being me putting negative material (although true) on BLPs of those investigated or debunked by skeptics (such as the aforementioned "medium"), and the other to avoid promoting skeptics on their own BLPs. I have avoided doing either in the years since the ban was initiated.

It was my impression from the start that the ban was over-reaching, and even worse, vague -- and so I was likely to unintentionally violate it if I kept editing Wikipedia at all. And as my goal is still to improve the encyclopedia, that is just what happened as I keep editing. In some cases I just wasn't thinking - as in the Paulides case where I added some citations I think. After being warned I gladly reverted saying: "Oops. Ya got me. I (erroneously) think of Paulides page as a topic page and not a BLP because the important content is all about the 411 conspiracy theory he invented and perpetuates -- and not Paulides himself. And 411 were what my edits were addressing... new info about that. This topic really should be a separate page BTW! But yes, it's my error... So, I will revert!"

Most of the other violations were also things I had not considered relevant... discussion on talk pages and the like, and mentioning a person on a topic page. Most recently this adding relevant information on Havana Syndrome's Talk (an article I have edited almost since its creation) regarding discussing an actual scientist's perspective (he does not call himself a skeptic) on his area of expertise.

IMHO, the ban wording "edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed" is confusingly broad. This could - I suppose - depending on POV, include everyone from Trump, to RFK Jr., to Taylor Swift (there are conspiracies about her), and also include every living scientist, politician, medical professions, outspoken celebrity, etc... Who in this day and age is NOT of interest to scientific skepticism? What topic? It’s virtually impossible to write on any topic I am interested in (science) and not have someone claim I violated my ban. I was frankly surprised that I’ve written or greatly expanded many new articles (no BLPs, but all mention people “of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed”) since the ban and no one -- not even SFR -- claimed these were a violation. These include (King of Clones, Virulent: The Vaccine War, How to Become a Cult Leader, MH370: The Plane That Disappeared, Waco: American Apocalypse, The Phenomenon, Satan Wants You.

This vague ban gives me (or someone similarly affected) no clear way to know where the lines are, and the likelihood of crossing lines unintentionally is high. That this ban even included, according to SFR, updating an existing and outdated BLP article (someone has since published one) in my own sandbox (with a minor note), and adding a WikiProject banner on a BLP Talk page, is beyond insane. That anyone should assume such edits are included in such a ban is unreasonable, and that he even thought to list these here shows his state of mind.

This ban's vagueness gives wide ranging power to anyone wanting to slap me down. I believe this applies to SFR who was one of the two editors who essentially prosecuted the case against me, and since becoming an admin, has pursued his animosity towards me with at every turn, despite the "kid's gloves" claim just made here.

Let me close by stating that I believe I have not made any edits anywhere near close to the few edits that caused my ban in the first place in all the time that has passed since, and THAT should be what is considered now. My goal is and always has been to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a list of "gotchas" from SFR as a reason to extend or deepen the ban seems unfair. In fact, if it is agreed that I am correct in that assessment, the ban should be lifted at this point. Rp2006 (talk) 06:08, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by tgeorgescu

If they want to be judged by ARBCOM, admins should oblige. Note that I don't think that it is wise to want be judged by ARBCOM, just that it is a choice. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rp2006

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There's only so many times we can say "Hey, stop doing that" before we conclude that an editor is either unable or unwilling to follow an editing restriction. Rp2006, I'd like to hear from you, because the alternative at that point is normally a lengthy or indefinite block. I'm willing to hear you out, especially because that's certainly not something I'm happy about, but there's a fair chance that's what we'd be looking at here. You've had a lot more chances than most get before blocks start to be imposed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've got to say, the response here does not fill me with confidence that this will not be an ongoing occurrence. To begin with, since you were topic banned directly by ArbCom, we can't lift the topic ban. Only ArbCom could do that. And the fact that you have repeatedly not adhered to it will not work in your favor if you want to request that. If someone is interested in editing about science, there are tons of articles which would not risk crossing over that line. Just a couple days ago, I happened to look through the article on Le Chatelier's principle, a rather important concept in chemistry, and well—it's rather a mess. You could work on articles like that with no problems whatsoever. If that doesn't strike you as worthwhile, there are tons of other articles on scientific principles and the like which wouldn't be anywhere close to the ban's subject. I suppose I could go with DWF on this; a formal logged warning indicating that this is the absolute last time, and that next time the line gets crossed (even if clearly technical and possibly inadvertent), blocks are going to result from it. The expectation of a topic banned editor is to stay well away from anything that might violate the ban, not to keep walking right up to the line and sticking their toe over it from time to time. That applies whether you think the ban was fair or not. Until and unless ArbCom lifts it, you must adhere to it, or the result will ultimately be you not editing anything at all. That's not an outcome I hope to see, but that's why I think it's very important to be clear that right now, that's the direction you're headed in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the private evidence is concerning enough for ArbCom to ask to let them handle it, I'm inclined to do exactly that. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I'll close this request and open one at ARCA. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rp2006's response above makes me believe that a block is necessary the next time they violate the restriction. They clearly will never accept they were sanctioned for a good reason, and this is not a hard sanction to understand (and they could ask for clarification, but of course they aren't going to, because they'd rather pretend like the sanction doesn't exist.) SFR has treated them with kid gloves, because the fair and reasonable thing would be to block the editor repeatedly violating the arbitration finding against them, not just keep warning them away. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Arbitration Committee has received private information related to Rp2006. As such, an uninvolved administrator (or rough consensus of uninvolved administrators) could refer this case to ARCA for the Committee to handle. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Bakbik1234

Appeal declined. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
Bakbik1234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Bakbik1234 (talk) 17:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Topic ban from the Arab–Israeli conflict.
Administrator imposing the sanction
Doug Weller (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Bakbik1234

I'm ethnically Jewish but it doesn't mean that my coverage of the conflict can't be neutral. I write everything from a neutral point of view that would be described as "liberal" by both neo-Zionists and neo-antisemites.

Statement by Doug Weller

Statement by 331dot

Doug Weller I thought you issued the ban. I think I just pointed it out later. 331dot (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Bakbik1234

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 Jéské Couriano

Your personal POV is irrelevant when it comes to whether or not a topic-ban is justified; what matters is your behaviour in the topic area. It isn't what you're saying, it's how you're saying it. This appeal completely misses the forest for the trees. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 17:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Bakbik1234

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Ban aside, Bakbik1234 has not reached extended-confirmed and thus is not allowed to edit topics related to I/P broadly construed regardless. The ban is not meaningless, in that it will have an effect once Bakbik1234 reaches extended-confirmed, but it's wholly inappropriate to be appealing it at this time. Demonstrate that you understand how to abide by Wikipedia policy and guidelines, demonstrate that you understand the extent of additional restrictions that apply to this topic, reach 500 edits, and only then consider appealing the ban. signed, Rosguill talk 18:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur strongly. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Bakbik1234 continues to violate their ban and non ECP status. I warned them and said I’d give them a pass, but they’ve continued. A few minutes after filing this appeal they asked if they were still banned. I don’t think they are competent enough to edit within the constraints of the ban. It was User:331dot who gave them the ban. Doug Weller talk 21:03, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I wasa bout to write that I wasn't sure if I should be posting in this section as I was the one who banned them, had a moment of doubt, looked at their talk page history and saw 331dot's name so deleted that and added their name. Embarassing to say the least! Doug Weller talk 06:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri

Kashmiri topic banned for one week by Callanecc. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 12 April 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 Kashmiri

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
BilledMammal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Kashmiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles#ARBPIA General Sanctions
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Violated WP:1RR at Allegations of genocide in the 2023 Israeli attack on Gaza:

  1. 21:06, 3 April 2024
  2. 20:24, 3 April 2024

Refused to self-revert.

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)
  • Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on 14:13, 5 March 2024
  • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 19:50, 16 February 2024
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

07:18, 11 April 2024

Discussion concerning Kashmiri

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 Kashmiri

  • @Callanecc It would be polite to let the accused respond. There's no urgency (alleged breach took place more than a week ago), and closing the discussion two hours after filling, no other editor having had a chance to participate, is a tad out of process. — kashmīrī TALK 07:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Kashmiri

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I've topic banned Kashmiri for a week for the 1RR breach and not reverting after being notified. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kashmiri I had originally intended to comment and encourage you to self-revert and explain until I saw that you had effectively been given that opportunity a few days ago. I have, however, left this thread open so that you, and others, can comment. That might include presenting a case that the sanction is unnecessary. Further, on 'out of process', any uninvolved admin can apply any sanction at any stage. The purpose of this board is to report potential breaches and then allow admins to discuss potential responses if they need to. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190#Clarifications_and_other_requests"