|
*'''Decline''' for private reasons. A one-account restriction is a distant second choice to me. [[User:ToBeFree|~ ToBeFree]] ([[User talk:ToBeFree|talk]]) 11:01, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
*Based on some private discussions that have taken place, while I am okay with an unblock (keeping the existing other restrictions in place) I am uncomfortable doing so unless we limit WMRapids to using a single account. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 22:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
== Amendment request: Rafe87 BER ==
{{atop|1=Appeal declined. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 00:58, 23 August 2025 (UTC)}}
'''Initiated by''' [[User:Rafe87|Rafe87]] '''at''' 19:56, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
;Case or decision affected
:{{slink|User talk:Rafe87#Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction}}
; Clauses to which an amendment is requested
#{{{clause1}}}
; List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
<!--This list should only be changed after filing by clerks and Arbitrators. All others should ask to add an involved user. One place to request an addition is at the clerks noticeboard [[WP:AC/CN]]-->
*{{userlinks|Rafe87}} (initiator)
*{{admin|Tamzin}}
; Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
<!-- All parties must be notified that the request has been filed, immediately after it is posted, and confirmation posted here. -->
*[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATamzin&diff=1306255589&oldid=1306249090]
; Information about amendment request
*{{{clause1}}}
**{{{clause1-request}}}
=== Statement by Rafe87 ===
I didn't originally consider contesting the sanction, though I didn't think it very fair, because I thought it'd only last 30 days, and I meant to avoid further wear and tear on this space. But, if I understood correctly the clarification provided today by Tamzin, the restriction is actually indefinite and was imposed 30 days after I received their warning, on June 16th. Acting under the apparently false belief that the restriction would take effect immediately and last for 30 days, I threw myself into new projects to avoid breaking the rule. I translated two Spanish Wikipedia entries on modern singers and created a new article on a minor figure in Roman history. Translating the articles, which are fairly long, was quite tiring, and the Roman article, although short, required some research from me in academic sources. But at least I achieved what I thought was required of me: between June 16th-July 16th, my edits to Israeli-Palestinian entries, as I've just verified, totaled only 35, while my edits to the pages I created, as well as others outside the scope of the restriction, totaled 164. My contributions to restricted topics, less than a fifth during this period, were therefore well below the required share, demonstrating I did commit to not violating the restriction. But apparently, all this was for nothing, as I wasn't even restricted in that period. The restriction would only take effect on July 16th, not June 16th. Anyway, from the day the restriction came into effect (the same day I thought it would end!), I returned to editing in the restricted topics at a normal pace, and as such, 70% of my edits since ended up being in them, and Tamzin decided to upgrade the restriction to total for 28 days. My argument is: the rule was confusing and set me up for failure. Why warn an editor he's being problematic in a given debate and then not sanction him immediately, but rather begin 30 days after the act, regardless of how he performs in the mean time? The fault may not have been with Tamzin, who could be applying a traditional remedy rather than something of their own creation, but neither can I be blamed for not being confused about the the matter. Another thing: Even if Tamzin, in their most recent decision, is within their rights to temporarily increase the restriction, the original sanction is disproportionate to the issue imputed to me; one of tone, I believe. Plus, since they the new articles I created were completed, my contribution rate to Wikipedia has dropped; and I haven't had any friction with any editors in the last two months, either. I accept the new sanction imposed for the next 28 days, as it may not have been Tamzin's fault the imposed policy was so confusing to me, but I ask that at least the indefiniteness of the sanction be revoked.
=== Statement by Tamzin (Rafe87) ===
Breaking this into three admin decisions: to BER, to sanction for the violation, and specifically to temp TBAN.
* For the reasons I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rafe87&diff=prev&oldid=1306238070 explained] on Rafe's talkpage, I believe that the level of moderate PIA disruption leading up to the BER was sufficient under the BER's standard of {{tqq|a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area}}.
* I'm [[WP:AGF|willing to believe]] that Rafe misunderstood the sanction, but as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rafe87&diff=prev&oldid=1306225621 also explained] on their talk, the fact that the sanction was indefinite and began to apply after 30 days was explained clearly and unambiguously at least four different ways.
* I initially considered just warning them for this, but it seemed wrong to leave them active in the topic area (still able to edit any non-filter-1339-qualifying PIA pages) while at 210% the BER threshold. This seemed unwise both in terms of the technical implementation of the BER and the norms for sanction enforcement. Instead, the equitable solution to me seemed to be TBANning until the BER percentage drops down to 0, i.e. 28 days from now. This isn't much stricter than if I had just warned, since while above 33% Rafe is effectively TBANned from 1339-qualifying pages; this just means that Rafe also can't edit PIA content on non-1339-qualifying pages, and has to wait till they fall to 0% instead of 33% before reëntering the topic area.
Happy to answer any further questions. <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 20:32, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
:@[[User:CaptainEek|CaptainEek]]. Sure, I'll quote what I said to Rafe on their talk:{{tq2|1=Daniel Case protected the article [[Alaa Al Najjar]] on 12 June and logged that at [[WP:AELOG/2025/PIA]]. I clicked on it to see the context of the protection, clicked onward to the article now titled [[Killing of al-Najjar children]], saw an RM, clicked through to that mostly to see if any [[WP:ECR|ECR]] enforcement would be needed, and saw that you were trying to disrupt the RM [by striking a comment and trying to prematurely close it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_al-Najjar_children&diff=prev&oldid=1295064501] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Killing_of_al-Najjar_children&diff=prev&oldid=1295276819] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Killing_of_al-Najjar_children&diff=prev&oldid=1295276857]]. I reverted you and warned you. A few days later I checked back in (as I often do after warning a user), saw [[Special:Diff/1295738595|this standoffish comment]] (later withdrawn, but not at the time), and then looked further at your edits and saw a history of temperature-raising participation, most notably [[Special:redirect/logid/170225236|moving]] the article {{-r|Rafah aid distribution incidents }} during [[Talk:2025_Gaza_Strip_aid_distribution_killings#c-Smallangryplanet-20250606071800-Smallangryplanet-20250605163100|an active RM]]. I saw you had a high percentage of PIA editing, and given ArbCom's guidance that a BER {{tqq|simply requires a finding that it would be a net positive for the project were the user to lower their activity in the topic area}}, I judged that to be an appropriate intervention.}} <span style="font-family:courier"> -- [[User:Tamzin|<span style="color:#E6007A">Tamzin</span>]]</span><sup class="nowrap">[[[User talk:Tamzin|<i style="color:#E6007A">cetacean needed</i>]]]</sup> <small>([[User:Tamzin/🤷|they|xe|🤷]])</small> 21:47, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
=== 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.
<!-- * Please copy this section for the next person. * -->
=== Rafe87 BER: Clerk notes ===
:''This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).''
*
=== Rafe87 BER: Arbitrator views and discussion ===
*{{U|Tamzin}}, can you give a bit more of a procedural background? Was this a result of an AE filing? What was the offending conduct? [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:25, 16 August 2025 (UTC)
* '''Decline''' – the BER was absolutely valid, bordering on too light. Rafe's comments at RMs and other venues are fairly aggressive and tend to raise hostility in the topic area (per Tamzin's links), but that doesn't even cover the apparent POV-pushing, like repeatedly ([[Talk:Killing_of_al-Najjar_children#c-Rafe87-20250613161100-Aquillion-20250613153700|1]] [[Talk:2025_Gaza_Strip_aid_distribution_killings#c-Rafe87-20250603230200-Erminwin-20250602195700|2]]) advancing the argument of ~"well if reliable sources don't agree, my personal opinion that it's a massacre should take precedence", based on what is at best a misreading and at worst a cherry-pick of [[WP:NCENPOV]]. I'm sure I could find other examples if I kept looking, but since we're not discussing a topic ban, I'll stop at saying yes, the blunt behavior made the BER necessary, especially given the lower standard required for imposing one. As for the mistaken interpretation of the BER that led to the topic ban, I'll AGF, but it's probably best to let the counter reset rather than doing lots of date math to try and sneak in edits wherever possible. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 20:01, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Decline''', per leek. [[User:ScottishFinnishRadish|ScottishFinnishRadish]] ([[User talk:ScottishFinnishRadish|talk]]) 21:12, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 22:04, 17 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' and support the action taken by Tamzin here. [[User:Daniel|Daniel]] ([[User talk:Daniel|talk]]) 20:40, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Decline'''. [[User:Elli|Elli]] ([[User_talk:Elli|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Elli|contribs]]) 20:56, 21 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - AE restrictions are implemented with less process than other areas of Wikipedia, so it is important that our editors are made aware before they happen. I do hope Tamzin will reflect upon this request and modify their language a little for clarity when implementing solutions in the future. That said, Tamzin was absolutely right on the decision they made, BER is an excellent solution for the troubles in the area, and I don't see any issues with what has been imposed. I also don't believe that Tamzin's text was egregiously confusing and therefore I see no reason to modify or remove the BER. [[User:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:var(--color-base);">''Worm''</b>]]<sup>TT</sup>([[User talk:Worm That Turned|<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>]]) 08:03, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
*'''Decline''' - Per Worm That Turned. - [[User:Aoidh|Aoidh]] ([[User talk:Aoidh|talk]]) 13:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
{{abot}}
| 