Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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)

@Wbm1058: There's a lot of unecessary diversion. A few off-focus edits don't invalidate SPA. This is also not the place to put other participating administrators on trial... —PaleoNeonate – 00:15, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Adding: when I looked at Tinybubi's links I found interesting previous drama, but found no compelling evidence that one of the regulars in the area is related, and I could compare IP addresses from my own records, they turned out different and from other geographical areas. There also were two particular behavioral points that I could not match with other current editors. My hope is that CLCStudent is really on break so that they can file a successful appeal in August or September. —PaleoNeonate – 00:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I queried ToBeFree’s involvement early on, and they responded, not including their content POV edits in the topic, but enough so. Another admin supporting a topic ban has expressed support to one of the more prominent anti lab leak editors (presumably CutePeach isn’t one of the bastards). The bigger issue here is the complete ignoring of the filer’s same violations they report (this weird tu quoque stuff, everyone knows their behavior will also be examined), the pile on by experienced editors, and the complete lack of clerking for these overwhelming statements. At this point I believe a full Arb case examining behavior of pro and anti lab leak editors would be more helpful, as well as give the necessary structure and clerking for deadlines and word limits and involved behavior. Mr Ernie (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Regarding A few off-focus edits don't invalidate SPA. So, five of RandomCanadian's top ten most edited articles are Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, COVID-19 misinformation, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 and COVID-19 pandemic. Four of top five talk pages by #edits are Talk:COVID-19 misinformation, Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19, Talk:COVID-19 pandemic and Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology. I guess the Canadian is an SPA too – and some off-focus interest in RuPaul's Drag Race UK (series 2) doesn't change that, unless you have some random method for quantifying "SPA-ness". But, hey – I don't want to get into a pissing match over this as I feel that SPA essay shouldn't carry much weight in policy- and guideline-based decisions on editor behavior. – wbm1058 (talk) 04:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Good grief. See this handy list of all pages created by RandomCanadian at enwiki. See 11 May 2020 permalink for how RandomCanadian created one article. Suggesting RandomCanadian has some of the attributes of an SPA is totally misguided. Johnuniq (talk) 05:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

SPA is simply a logical clue, that can, if supported by other editing evidence, be an indication of WP:NOTHERE or WP:RGW and sometimes of sockpuppetry or of online WP-harassment campaigns. A factor to take in consideration for evaluation. Please see the instances of "has made few or no other edits outside this topic" in this discussion for instance (using the {{spa}} template). I'm really surprised to have to explain this to an administrator... —PaleoNeonate – 05:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Good grief indeed. RandomCanadian has over 20k edits in a wide variety of topics. Perhaps next time use a hypothetical example. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Good grief, I thought this was supposed to be less shitty than social media. Guess I could re-take that short break I took at the beginning of the month, but I see that didn't manage to change anything. I also find some irony to the situation, as far as accusations of misbehaviour vs. actual misbehaviour goes. Also, everybody, any comment on CP's draft statement (posted this weekend in Filippino in their userspace)? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 10:57, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps just give him room to write his statement and read it when it's published? I agree with ToBeFree that there's too much fidgeting at this AE as people are getting bored waiting. I also think it's ironic that people getting bored and fidgeting is being used as a reason to not give CutePeach reasonable time to make a statement (especially since admins are allowed 3 months to a year to make theirs, apparently). So I don't really see why CP can't be given the time and everyone else just shuts up for a while? It's not like there's any ongoing disruption to prevent, given that CP has made no content or talk edits for a couple days and has committed to continuing this practice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

As filer, I wholeheartedly endorse giving CutePeach ample time to respond, with the existing caveat that they not create further delay with topic-related edits. And thank you to HighInBC for creating this space to address these concerns without clogging the main case. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is concerned about time. The concern is the appearance that CP may have been using the time to get one last hurray in the topic area before they are likely banned from it. I don't think a single person would be complaining about the time if they were not finding time to edit in the very area under discussion. At this point I am not going to push the issue, the cost is minimal. They have not edited in the area for a couple of days anyway so no worries here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:02, 28 July 2021 (UTC)