Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Request for dispensation regarding maximum diffs/words

G'day all, I have been preparing an AE report regarding long-term POV pushing covered by ARBEE. As you would be aware, it is harder to make a case against its exponents than against editors who cause short-term disruption. In order to properly demonstrate the long-term aspects and scope of the editing behaviour in question, I would like dispensation to use more than the normal limit of 20 diffs and 500 words. My report is 22 diffs in the body of the report (plus another seven diffs of problematic behaviour on various boards), and other than brief diff explanations and required aspects of the report, the "Additional comments by editor filing complaint" is 325 words. I expect that I will need to briefly respond to challenges from the editor being reported and to questions from uninvolved editors and reviewing admins, so ask that I be given some additional leeway in the word count to do that as needed within reason. Could a reviewing admin let me know whether this would be ok or not? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:52, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sensitive to the fact that long-term POV-pushing can often only be established via a large body of evidence, so I am generally supportive of such requests. I hadn't been aware that the instructions allow for such an extension from a single administrator, but I am happy to grant it. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

The instructions just say "except by permission of a reviewing administrator", so I assumed this meant it only requires a single admin to agree. Thanks Vanamonde93, I'll go ahead shortly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 discretionary sanctions review: community consultation

Editors are invited to provide feedback in the discretionary sanctions community consultation, which is open until April 25, 2021.

This consultation is part of the Arbitration Committee's revision process for the discretionary sanctions procedure, which sets forth a special set of rules that apply in topic areas defined by the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of this revision process is to simplify and clarify the procedure and resolve problems with the current system of discretionary sanctions.

For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:21, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

2021 Boulder shooting

I would like to request for a notice to be placed at the talk page of the 2021 Boulder shooting article stating that the article is covered by the AP2 discretionary sanctions. There have already been quite a been of political soap boxing and wild speculation at the article's talk page, and people really need to be reminded to behave. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Nsk92 I have added the DS/AP, and I have revdeleted all of OctoberWoodland's quite inappropriate speculation about the shooter, and warned them. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, thanks! Nsk92 (talk) 01:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of recent close

For anyone who's interested, there is a discussion at this thread on @Awilley:'s talk page regarding the comments he made about @DGG: in a recent AE close. SPECIFICO talk 17:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Wbm1058's concerns about ToBeFree

@Wbm1058: Your contributions to this enforcement page so far have been more about ToBeFree than the actual topic of the enforcement. What is more they don't seem relevant as none of the concern's about CutePeach depend on ToBeFree.

Your first attempt to imply that ToBeFree was involved has been roundly rejected as specifically not meeting the standard set out in WP:INVOLVED.

Today you pointed out that ToBeFree has indeed acted in an administrative capacity in this topic area.

Now as further evidence you are referring to User:Tinybubi and them being upset about a page being protected. You did not seem to point out that this "new" user said "We have seen many accounts like yours before, and you almost always end up getting banned and never let back(link to CLCStudent LTA)" which makes it clear that they are not exactly new here. Nor do you mention that this same user was blocked for harassment in the very thread you link to[1].

This is adding a lot of text to an already very large discussion, and it is off topic and of dubious value to the case. I request that you put further commentary about ToBeFree here on the talk page instead of in the enforcement section itself. If any of it turns out to be relevant or the case at hand, or have merit regarding ToBeFree then it can be moved there. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

(I have seen the concerns, had previously addressed involvement concerns and chose not to join the intra-review mudslinging there. It seems that while some are still waiting for a statement from CutePeach before making a final decision, the current lack of the awaited input results in yet another round of "tu quoque" statements among the waiting people.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

And, perhaps I should point that out, please have a look at the timestamps of the topic ban proposals. Three administrators proposed a topic ban, two of them explicitly indefinitely, before I made my decision. They didn't depend on me, so focusing on my specific review as if any level of involvement or whatever misconduct from my side had an effect on this result is a straw man: As a thought experiment, if you like to, ignore my analysis and everyone who referred to it in theirs. It doesn't affect the result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work in the area and please ignore the unfounded accusations intended to enable SPAs like Tinybubi who has 50 edits, almost all of them related to pushing COVID nonsense, including that breath-taking "We have seen many accounts ..." link above. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 27 July 2021 (UTC)