Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 6

< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration | Requests | Enforcement
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Jéské Couriano in topic How to proceed
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

How to review a case request?

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion

Hello,

I would like to file a new request, but since the complaint contains more than 500 words / 20 diffs, It would have to be reviewed by an Administrator (as per the rules stipulated in the template) prior to submitting it. Could you please tell me how that works (having it reviewed by an administrator).

Thank you Cealicuca (talk) 11:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Just from personal experience, you should be able to summarize an issue in 500 words/20 diffs. If there's a need for more in the course of reviewing an enforcement request, an admin will let you know. Best, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thank you for the quick reply. The problem is that it involves WP:MEAT, over a long period of time, with at least 6 users: supporting each other, talk about the "team", PoV push etc, history analyzer etc. is pretty hard to summarize and make a convincing case in 20 diffs, since 20 diffs (for 6 users) can be easily considered an accident - so easily dismissed as a trend/habbit. Moreover, some of those are, by themselves pretty innocent. They only become damning when you present the whole conversation (4-5 diffs). So in this case, how should I proceed? Thank you! Cealicuca (talk) 17:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
You may link to talk page sections/conversations instead of diffs: "You may also link to an archived version of long discussions instead of supplying very many diffs." Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thank you both for your help, I really mean it. Please, understand I'm not trying to anger you (that would be quite idiotic of me, considering the circumstances). If there are some things that seem obvious to you, but I don't understand - consider me a dummy, I won't mind, and explain it like you would a dummy :) :
(1) I am still unclear about the review process - in case I have less than 500 words / 20 diffs, is it still needed?
(2) If the review process is still needed, what exactly do I have to do? Simply post it on the main page and afterwards an admin (or several) simply review(s) it? Or do I have to first send it (wiki mail?) somehow to an admin (or several) that will afterwards say that I can post it or not?
(3) I have no idea how to link an "archived version of a long discussion". Do you mean a whole section of a Talk page? I hope so, because otherwise I have no idea what "archived version of a long discussion" is or how to obtain that.
(4) Last thing, even if I include a whole conversation/section in one link (so instead of 4-5 diffs I link the entire conversation/section) - and there are several of those :( - there is still a lot that is consequential and I cannot possibly include it in 20 diffs. The data is covering several years of activity for several users (and frankly I eliminated some of them from the original, because of lack of time...). There is of course direct evidence of the whole thing, but the supporting evidence is just as important because it adds context: motivation, common goals, common PoV, even how to "game the system" (all stated by the editors themselves...) etc. and the picture becomes evident when all the pieces come together. I could trim it down to maybe 60 diffs, excluding links to Wiki tools - analyzers (which are also relevant since they provide invaluable information about timeline, otherwise obscured).
I understand the potential reticence, again - given the circumstances. But it simply is a lot. And there is another certain difficulty in presenting the evidence, one that neither me nor anyone else could eliminate. It is part of "gaming the system", quite efficient I might say. One thing that I can tell you is that they have been able to go on for so long precisely because each "dot", even when caught on the "radar" (and it was caught in some cases) was treated as just a "dot".
Thank you! Cealicuca (talk) 01:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
One reason for the rules to favor short submissions is that long submissions are often weak and unconvincing. You can see this if you browse WP:ANI for a few minutes. Any time you see a thousand-word complaint you are seeing one that is unlikely to get any attention. If there is a genuine problem there should be smoking gun somewhere. A smoking gun doesn't need 1,000 words. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
I see :) Thank you. Cealicuca (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cealicuca: Wikipedians don't like to read WP:WALLS. Also, a single invalid syllogism will totally ruin a poly-syllogism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: Thank you for what clearly is a most sincere advice. It's good that you kept working on your logic since last time. Keep up the good work!Cealicuca (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
@Cealicuca: I suggest that you Google "all swans aren't white" (including the quote marks). It is used on many websites, including three books from Google Books. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
@Tgeorgescu: What exactly is your problem with me? Do you think you fool anyone by coming here and offering me "advice" right after you requested me to get banned? Really? Please leave me alone. Please don't go around on pages calling me names and baiting me into breaking the rules. An one last thing. If you wanna play the smart guy, at least do it right. The don't say "all it takes to show that all swans aren't white is one black swan", as you said, because it's incorrect. One black swan can't prove that all swans aren't white. Get it?
Both of you stop it. Cealicuca, if you think someone is trying to bait you into losing your temper and breaking a rule, letting yourself get sucked into a petty argument about the logic of swan coloration is basically setting yourself up to do just that. Don't take the bait. Tgeorgescu, when you have recently been in a dispute with someone, responding to their questions at pages when you haven't been pinged or asked to do so has shades of hounding. It's not a good habit to get into, especially when you're letting it devolve into a petty argument. Both of you leave each other alone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Conflicting policy on enforcement requests?

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have been advised by the arbitration committee to post an edit request here considering the main page carries the following restriction: "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed."

Having done so, adminstrator GoldenRing removes my post and writes "We don't entertain enforcement requests from non-EC editors and you don't get around that by posting here."

So which is it? Guantolaka (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here, and you cannot circumvent that by posting an edit request, as far as I know. If Arbcom advised you otherwise, please post a link to the discussion so that we call all see it.- MrX 🖋 16:55, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
This was by email from arbcom-en@wikimedia.org. I'm sure they will confirm if you ask them. Perhaps someone can comment here from ArbCom. Guantolaka (talk) 16:58, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

I've received confirmation off-wiki that an arb did indeed direct this user to post here. Without considering the pros and cons of this, I've had a look at the edits in question and will have a quiet word about them. GoldenRing (talk) 12:23, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

And that resulted in further edits to the same page. Can I post an edit request now? Guantolaka (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created a petition at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Petition to amend the arbitration policy: discretionary sanctions and deletions that proposes amending Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy to say that the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions must not authorise the deletion, undeletion, moving, blanking, or redirection of pages in any namespace. The petition part of the arbitration policy amendment process requires a petition signed by at least one hundred editors in good standing. The ratification process then begins and requires majority support with at least one hundred editors voting in support.

There is a parallel RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: community general sanctions and deletions that should not be confused with this one about the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions. Cunard (talk) 08:56, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Two suggestions

Latest comment: 6 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

1. There's a period missing following "*Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on Date".

2. The 500-word limit could be more clearly expressed to relieve doubt about whether this means both diffs and statement combined or not. What happened with me was that I wrote a statement of slightly less than 500 words before realizing that each diff was to have an Explanation. So I wrote short texts for the diffs, which took the combined total to over 500 words. I honestly still don't know whether this was okay or not, so it's easy for me to imagine that others may have the same doubt. Thank you. –Roy McCoy (talk) 07:00, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Roy McCoy, sometimes less is more. If you want admins to look into your request, you need to be more concise. El_C 07:02, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you El_C. I'm sure you're right, but I did try. My original statement, before I saw the rule and someone gave me the same advice you've given me now, was 7,042 words. I boiled that down to under 500 per the rule, and again, if it had been explicitly clear that this was inclusive of the diffs and diff explanations, I would have somehow boiled it down to that too. There's certainly a point at which too much is too much, but on the other hand I think my request as it now is reads fairly smoothly and quickly, and if I listed for example only one or two instances, it would likely appear trivial and could be dismissed on that account also. At any rate these two talk-page suggestions are as brief as could be desired, and I imagine an admin can add the missing period and quickly clarify the rule, unless a vote is necessary for any change. –Roy McCoy (talk) 12:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree with El_C here. This limit is usually only enforced (and even that is often too-strong a word) if admins think someone has been waffling unnecessarily. So make it as brief and lucid as you can. GoldenRing (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Does this suggest that I modify the request after it's been placed? I wouldn't imagine that was allowed. I'm also not sure what is meant by "waffling" here. Thanks. –Roy McCoy (talk) 13:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not that uncommon to modify a request to bring the word count down. So long as it doesn't make other people's comments nonsensical (because they've already responded directly to what you wrote) I don't think anyone will frown. By "waffling" I mean some people write a massive wall of text when the substance of their complaint is three diffs that could be explained in twenty words. Such complaints are unlikely to seriously read, let alone see anything done about them.
Reading through your complaint just now, I think you could cull almost all of the "additional comments" section as it just rehashes what you've said in the diff list. GoldenRing (talk) 14:15, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I'd also counsel you to drop the subject of DS notifications; users are free to drop DS alerts at other editors' talk pages, so long as a similar alert has not been received by them in the past twelve months. This is completely non-controversial and trying to make a point of it is not going to go well. GoldenRing (talk) 14:39, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

The main problem with this board

Latest comment: 6 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Is the peanut gallery as Black Kite put it. I for the life of me do not understand why the only sections in the template are not the actual complaint, the response by the editor complained about, and the results section. Why do you allow for involved users to comment at all? Shocking news yall, the topics that have gotten heated enough to require discretionary sanctions have editors that support their "side" and oppose the other "side". And they invariably support topic bans for their editorial opponents and oppose them for their editorial allies. If you really want to retain a section for uninvolved non-admins I suppose that isnt the end of the world, but seeing as they are uninvolved (so they dont know the history or personalities involved) and non-admin (so they cant action any complaint) I dont even see why that is necessary.

The other problem is the TLDR default response to some of the longer complaints. If you are willing to issue year long blocks or indefinite topic bans then I do not think asking you to read either a complaint or a response for 5 minutes is out of line. Yes, there may be diminishing returns with each added diff, but if there is a long term problem it is going to take more than 500 words to lay out. And, lest we forget, this is supposedly an encyclopedia. TLDR as a response has always struck me as something that belongs on reddit, not Wikipedia. nableezy - 23:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Don't you sometimes participate in the peanut gallery? Sir Joseph (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
The problem is if some peanuts participate then other peanuts are needed to avoid a false appearance of community consensus. That problem would go away if no peanuts were allowed. I agree with Nab on this. I would allow the accused more space than the accuser and not allow other non-admin comments at all other than procedural. Zerotalk 01:58, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
In theory I think that would work, I'm just wondering why he's mentioning this as the main area of concern in AE when he is a peanut participant, just not in this most recent AE case. One thing to keep in mind though is that many admins don't read AE actions, they even admit it, so that is a main area of concern as well. So the concern about 500 words is an issue because even if you say you need more than 500 words, which sometimes is true, some admins won't read it and most certainly won't read anything longer. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:19, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes I have, though I dont think that makes it not a problem. In fact I was one of those peanuts the last time I said this was a problem (there is literally no reason for involved parties to comment on an AE except to add diffs about the complaint. Thats a defect in the this board that even allows for comments by involved users. But it does.). It still is a problem. As seen on the current revision of WP:AE. nableezy - 02:31, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
So file an ARCA and see what happens. But keep in mind that I think the whole area needs to be nuked and redone. We should also bring back RFC/U to get away from the cesspool of ANI and boomerangs which harms and enables the toxicity of the environment here. And I also think there needs to be admins "trained" in certain areas, you can't just have admins walking in off the streets handing out sanctions in certain areas if they have no idea what is going on in those areas. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I dont think it needs an ARCA. Most of the rules established here dont come from the arbitration committee, at least as far as I know. All it would take is a consensus here to change these rules (I think). nableezy - 03:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
And they invariably support topic bans for their editorial opponents ... [1] [2] [3] [4] ... and oppose them for their editorial allies. [5] [6] [7] [8] ... I dont even see why that is necessary. Agreed. – Levivich 05:57, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I already said I participate in AE threads. If you think you are being clever then youre a bit late on the draw there. But, dear fellow editor, if youre going to play games with the diffs maybe note that what I added in the four you point out in Sir Joseph's thread would have been the basis for my own AE complaint, and that I actually opposed the ban that was actually given to Sir Joseph and I told him that directly. And that I said both he and Huldra should be warned for soapboxing. Yes, I have a problem with some of the things youve occupied your time with recently, both here and apparently on admin talk pages now. But I am not arguing that I should be exempt from such a ban. My point isnt about any one person, this is about what I think is a structural failing in this board. If you think I am being a hypocrite because I both follow the rules of the board as they currently stand and I think there is such a structural failing in those rules well I dont know how to help you with that belief. The rules currently allow for involved users and non-admins to comment. I would like to change that rule. Yes, it would bar my commenting on threads that I did not open or I am not the subject of. It would bar you too. I think that is a good thing. You have anything to add on that? Otherwise, if youd like to discuss me User talk:Nableezy is thataway. nableezy - 06:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Speaking as someone who has never, to the best of my recollection, participated in an AE thread, there does seem to be something to Nableezy's observation. One potential issue with changing this, however, is that some users are much better at presenting the kinds of arguments that are persuasive in these situations. Or, perhaps more importantly, some users just aren't very good at defending themselves. It might be a lack of experience with Wikipedia in general, less experience with wikidramaboards, less experience with wikilegalese, or it may just be that their communications skills lie elsewhere. Someone might also just not have as much free time to undertake the incredibly time-intensive project of compiling diffs and presenting arguments. In all of these cases, it can be helpful to have a user who's familiar with the dispute as an advocate of sorts -- someone with more savvy, more skill, more experience, or just more time. Yes, that means predictability in who's going to jump in where, at times, but I would hesitate to say that anyone who's taken to AE must fend for themselves. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:25, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I grant you that there are editors that may have difficulty defending their edits in a persuasive manner here. Perhaps allow an editor to designate one person to speak in their defense. As far as editors who are unable to present a persuasive complaint, then they shouldnt be making a complaint is my view. nableezy - 06:53, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom referral

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The recent AE case against Volunteer Marek was "referred to ArbCom" by El C.[9] However I don't see a case request at WP:ARC. Who is supposed to open this case, and under which authority? — JFG talk 14:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

My closing remark was only meant to convey that the request was determined to have gone beyond the scope of Arbitration enforcement, and that any efforts to pursue it further are to be handled by the Committee itself. Perhaps I should have used more precise language, though. El_C 16:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross topic ban

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
We don't entertain enforcement requests from non-EC editors and you don't get around that by posting here. GoldenRing (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Philip Cross has been editing the page Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange a number of times. This is another breach of his topic ban which states "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

This is not the first time that the account has breached the topic ban. Will anyone take any action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guantolaka (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is not a protected page. You can file an enforcement request by clicking the Click here to add a new enforcement request link on that page and completing the information on that page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the response, ElHef, but the page says "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed." Guantolaka (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross topic ban

Latest comment: 6 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
We don't entertain enforcement requests from non-EC editors and you don't get around that by posting here. GoldenRing (talk) 16:01, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Philip Cross has been editing the page Indictment and arrest of Julian Assange a number of times. This is another breach of his topic ban which states "Philip Cross is indefinitely topic banned from post-1978 British politics, broadly construed."

This is not the first time that the account has breached the topic ban. Will anyone take any action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guantolaka (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement is not a protected page. You can file an enforcement request by clicking the Click here to add a new enforcement request link on that page and completing the information on that page. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the response, ElHef, but the page says "Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed." Guantolaka (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

User reporting system consultation 2019

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

[10]Doug Weller talk 18:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doug. I appreciate your pointing to my addition at the reporting system consultation concerning AE. Did you have a comment about this post, or did you just want everyone to read it? I would also like to note that there is a discussion at WP:HARASSMENT concerning the following text which was reverted from the policy page:
On-wiki harassment via repeated groundless prosecutions at administrative boards such as WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:ARBCOM, or WP:AN can lead to sanctions. WP:GANG activity is likewise strictly frowned upon.
I'm not sure what the problem with this text is, it is much more succinct than the existing text and is pretty clearly relevant to problems of harassment as they are experienced on-wiki.
In terms of procedure and gag-rules: though I am prevented from commenting in WP:AE cases to which I am not a party (because I called out Cirt for making stuff up while they were sockpuppeting as Sagecandor), this decision does not extend to off-en.wp, nor does it seem to prevent me from commenting about WP:AE cases either on- or off-en-wiki (as long as I don't do so in the case itself), though I will not try to push that too much as long as the "peanut-gallery sanction" remains in effect.
Disclosure: I was informed about your pointer here privately, Doug Weller, and had not noticed it myself. Again, did you have a comment about the post I made on meta? Was there something wrong with it? 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:11, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The following change to discretionary sanctions awareness requirements has been passed and enacted by motion:

The Awareness section of the discretionary sanctions procedure is modified to the following: No editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict. An editor is aware if:

  1. They were mentioned by name in the applicable Final Decision; or
  2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed); or
  3. In the last twelve months, the editor has given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict; or
  4. In the last twelve months, the editor has participated in any process about the area of conflict at arbitration requests or arbitration enforcement; or
  5. In the last twelve months, the editor has successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict; or
  6. They have placed a {{DS/Aware}} template for the area(s) of conflict on their own talk page.
For the arbitration committee, GoldenRing (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Discretionary Sanctions: Awareness and alerts

Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case commencing

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In August 2019, the Arbitration Committee resolved to open the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case as a suspended case due to workload considerations. The Committee is now un-suspending and commencing the case.

For the Arbitration Committee, – Joe (talk) 12:17, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Personalized kindnesses

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I took the time this morning to look through the AE archives from November 2017 to February 2020 (archives 220-260). I am the one and only person to have ever had a judgment rendered against them which ends with a personalized best wishes,. The notification on my TP also included a cheerful bestest. While this unusual personalization is quite possibly the demonstration of the undeniably "involved" status of the closer, perhaps this new personalized & friendlier justice should be standardized? What do people think? Please do not change the close, as this will be mentioned in the upcoming ArbCom appeal. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 07:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:James J. Lambden/sandbox

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:James J. Lambden/sandbox. Discussion about user content related to Arbitration Enforcement. - MrX 🖋 15:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

How to warn editor about "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES"?

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland is under discretionary sanctions which states "Editors who are deemed to be properly aware of discretionary sanctions and who violate these restrictions..." but how to warn editors? Is there a template or such? Can an admin look into its recent history and warn parties that need it and/or do other admin level stuff (I requested semi here: [11])? PS. The added text likely violates Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations too, but again I an not sure what is the procedure here outside filling an AE report. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:44, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You can notify users by using {{Ds/alert}}. If someone receives a notice, they are deemed "aware" for 12 months. Please check in the edit filter log whether they have been warned in the last 12 months. --MrClog (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
You already see restrictions when trying to edit the page.

--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 11:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

And Piotrus - also look at the top of the user talk page where some editors are taking advantage of the DS/aware template - see the one on the top of my UTP - it's customized but some use the standard template. Atsme Talk 📧 13:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

How to decide whether an article in scope?

Latest comment: 4 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

At an ongoing AfD two of the “voters” in the discussion would not qualify under ARBPIA’s 500/30 rule. Many of those who support the views of the <500/30 voters believe that the article is not in scope of ARBPIA, and vice versa. I opened a discussion at ANI which was closed early to avoid deterioration, but then it deteriorated anyway. The closing admin suggested coming to AE to figure out whether the article is in scope.[12]

So my question is, how should I open a thread here to figure this out? The form seems structured to make a case against another editor.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Before noticing this question here, I added some text to the article which is directly related to the Israel-Palestine conflict (namely, Zionist purchase of village land from absentee owners). Accordingly, I added notices of the "ABRPIA related content" type. By this action I wasn't intending to confirm that ARBPIA doesn't cover the whole article (which can reasonably be the subject of debate) but just that partial coverage at least is now unquestionable. As a second issue, it is not clear to me from the rules how much contribution to discussions like AfDs is available to non-500/30 editors regarding articles with ARBPIA-related content rather than entire ARBPIA coverage. Zerotalk 04:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

My understanding is that IPs are not allowed to make ARBPIA-related edits. They are allowed to participate in edit processes that contain "related content," just not the ARBPIA-related facet. El_C 13:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@El C: I have seen it enforced as "ARBPIA-related pages" following the most recent changes: Zero0000 summarized it a few months ago[13] as including "Non-EC editors are not allowed to take part in "AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, noticeboard discussions, etc"". Onceinawhile (talk) 09:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't disagree with El_C on this but interpretation is difficult. Suppose an article containing some ARBPIA-related content is proposed for deletion. We can agree that a non-500/30 editor should not be referring to the ARBPIA-related content at AfD, but can they still vote for deletion or retention of the whole article? Maybe their motive, which they are clever enough not to state, concerns the ARBPIA-related part. Zerotalk 21:46, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that's problematic, but I don't see a way around that. In any case, their reasoning should be clearly stated for their preference to have any weight in the eyes of the closer. El_C 21:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Competing requests

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Am I reading things correctly. Are there two competing requests cases? GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

If you mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Alexiod_Palaiologos and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#FDW777, I wouldn't call them competing on face value. In the first, one user had a request opened against them, and in the second, another user had a request against them. I haven't looked into the merits of either, but in many cases, that's probably preferable to focus on each editor rather than having a messy single AE case where diffs are all over the place for different incidents. If it was something that all involved the same incident where one or both editors involvement needed to be examined, then it's better handled in one request if a boomerang was going to happen. It's easier to see if there is merit or if the claims fall flat that way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposed addition to "Information for administrators processing requests"

Latest comment: 4 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

I would like to propose adding the following bullet:

  • Where a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted under Result concerning X.

If I had done this, the previous shitstorm would have been avoided. Guy (help! - typo?) 18:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Seems okay to me --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 18:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I support notification of anyone who is not the filer or listed initially but who might become subject to sanctions during the course of a discussion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
This (I assume) is in relation to the I-28-I AE case. GoodDay (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
No objections to requiring a notification, though I note that this sort of expansion has been done in the past, and sanctions levied against other editors who were not parties to the AE request but who had been notified of discretionary sanctions. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93, sure. My concern here is to ensure that anyone coming to the discussion can see from the headers what the consensus view is of its current scope, as much as anything. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG, that's reasonable, and I don't don't object to the notification requirement. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
This all seems reasonable to me. If the section header is changed though, then please add an {{anchor}} for the old title. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
This proposal seems eminently sensible to me. We need to ensure that admins acting in good faith are not tripped up over ambiguous interpretations of procedure when examining the full details of an AE request. This sort of clarification should be welcome. --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I support this proposal in its entirety. From the above, I see that Barkeep49 and Vanamonde93 have supported the first sentence of the proposal ("Where a request [...] sanctions were requested."), but did not comment on the second sentence of the proposal ("Where some part [...] Result concerning X.") Since there is widespread agreement on the first sentence, I've added it to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header in Special:Diff/979862865 (except with "When" instead of "Where" – feel free to amend). It would be helpful to hear some comments focusing on the second sentence. Formally recognizing partial closures would be useful in situations like the current discussion, in which there is strong consensus to implement an action based on the matter under discussion, while at least one other action is still under deliberation. — Newslinger talk 06:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Newslinger: To be clear, I have no objections to the second sentence; indeed, it was suggested as a means of avoiding the disagreement Barkeep and I had with JzG, and so I had assumed my support was implied, but obviously the context isn't obviously visible here. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. There have been no objections raised to the second sentence, so I've implemented it in Special:Diff/980445311. — Newslinger talk 15:33, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
Newslinger, thanks. This was a difficult situation which exposed, for me at least, a genuine elephant trap. I am pleased that we now have a common sense guide to stop some other hapless admin from making the same naive error I did. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:46, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions question

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I don't have much experience with AE and I have a question about how to request that a particular article be officially placed under WP:ACDS in relation to a specific arbitrartion case for which discretionary santions have been authorized as a part of the final decision.

I am specifically thinking about Conspiracy theories related to the Trump–Ukraine scandal (looking and what's been happening at the talk page there) and Remedy 1.2 of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 00:38, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:Consensus required

Latest comment: 4 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Can we get more eyes on this explanatory supplement about the page restriction? Considering all of the confusion around this provision it's important to get this right. Barely anyone seems to know about this page. Kolya Butternut (talk) 11:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I want more than a handful of people to see and edit this page. Where essay pages offer advice or opinions through viewpoints, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia in an impartial way. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think Kolya may mean that this (and via WP:CRP) is a common DS restriction, provided in multiple 'official' DS templates which link to this page. It's also seemingly used in editing restrictions. Although, I'm not really sure what issues the page has? It seemed fine to my eye. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:40, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
I think the page is decent, but it should be evaluated by the greater community if we are to link to it from DS templates. I personally would like to step away from the page. I would like feedback for this suggestion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
It is an essay. Either it becomes widely accepted or it doesn't. I'm not sure what you want here on this page. The policy is what matters more than the supplemental page, which isn't enforceable by itself. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 12:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
I created the section on this page as WP:APPNOTE to draw attention to the supplemental page so that it may be improved, and if it is to become widely accepted it must be widely known. Or, we could work on making this page the policy page if this restriction is not described elsewhere. Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
DS technically allows for any restriction to be made. CR is just a common one so it has a pre-defined template, but an admin can set whatever they want as a restriction. Hence I'm not sure to makes sense to turn it into a policy page. Unlike WP:3RR (or its 1RR supplement), it is not possible to enforce a CR provision outside of DS (afaik). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I thought 1RR was a DS restriction? But anyway, can't we have a policy page for any DS restriction? Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
What I mean is that 1RR is a special case of 3RR (with nearly everything else being the same), and 3RR is a policy. But afaik it's perfectly acceptable for an admin to impose a modified 1RR restriction which behaves in a way contrary to WP:3RR's rules. And imo no, not really - individual DS restrictions do not have community consensus, they are set unilaterally by a single admin. Even ignoring that part, it'd be infeasible/slightly pointless to document each one. They can vary widely in scope, a restriction could even be (and is, on some articles) that a specific source is prohibited. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
I understand that it's likely pointless to document every one, but just like how we documented WP:1RR at WP:3RR we could document Consensus required at WP:CONSENSUS. Just as we have community consensus for how 1RR works we can have community consensus for how Consensus required works, regardless of how often it's implemented. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:43, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Bot archivation

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can we instruct the bot only archive closed requests (like, for example, at WP:RFPP - but there a different format is used). If the request is stale or non-actionable, an administrator must decide that it is not actionable.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Sock puppetry by Space Cadet

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I choose option (1. I am replying as soon as my irregular schedule allowed. It's hard to reply when the evidence is so slim but anyway:

  • I am Polish and as far as I know most Polish users use diacritics. I've even seen many users of different ethnicity do the same as well.
  • I think the level and the general command of English language is very different.
  • I don't undesrtand the logic behind "...first he pretended... ...then "he knew"... . So if I knew first and said "You're talking about a disruptive edit warrior with a big Block Log ...", then pretended I don't know anything - then I would be in the clear?
  • I always discuss controversies on the talk pages in a polite civil, polite way without reverting, sarcastic comments, name calling, etc.

Sorry, but this is all I could fit in my current short timeframe. I'll be back soon, comments welcome. @Sandstein:, @Space Cadet:
Happy editing to all, Space Veteran (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Page restriction request

Latest comment: 4 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Could someone assist Armatura with asking for a page restriction as a discretionary sanction? See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2#1RR_for_Battle_of_Shusha_(2020). The template doesn't seem to work for page restrictions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Many thanks, KevinL, for trying to help. Also asked on the article talk page, hoping that one of the admins who dealt with NKR-related topics previously might assist. Regards, Armatura (talk) 00:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:AN would be the easiest one, but the request makes perfect sense to me, and I will impose the sanction in about an hour when I get to the office, no need to duplicate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  Done--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Time to archive

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could we possibly switch from seven days to at most like five days? This board is getting a little cramped with closed requests. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Info about the 500 words limit

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, I didn't understand if, for the one who fills out the form, the limit of 500 words only concerns this part:
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Or also this part
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Can I write 500 words in all? Or only in the first part 500, while in the second there are no limits? Thank you, I'm so noob.--Mhorg (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the word limit applies to the total of all the explanatory words you add, in whatever section. EdJohnston (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Concern about recent influx of collapsed content

Latest comment: 4 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

My sense is that this doesn't happen often here (trimming by collapsing). But ever since MVBW started doing so in the report that features themselves, it seems to have spread to most other AE requests currently live. I just wanted to emphasize that I'm not particularly a fan of the practice, so I do hope it doesn't become a regular thing. Thoughts? El_C 17:26, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I will not do it again. My very best wishes (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, no worries. El_C 17:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Collapsing in a thread about collapsing? Well, yes! Anyway, let's not have the actual content behind these various complaints spillover tooo much in this discussion. Thanks. El_C 18:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
This is like a chain reaction. Someone places new accusations, another contributor places more rebuttals, etc. Why? Because I guess the contributors have no idea which of the accusations will be taken by admins very seriously. Another problem: a lot of the accusations are false, but one needs to know more details to make a judgement. For example, Mhorg just posted a number of new accusations, claiming "wikistalking" everywhere with supporting diffs like that. How is that harassment if I did not even touch the content he recently included to this page? And so it goes. My very best wishes (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
By chance in this month of discussions you are reverting my edits from 2015, either on articles you have never touched, or reverting my stuff on articles you haven't touched for over a year. Now you end up again on an article that you have never edited, and you edit the part related to the topic that I have covered few hours before. Do you seriously want to claim that you are not checking all my moves? What do I have to do to be left alone?--Mhorg (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
None of my edits or comments was harassment. I am only trying to explain you the policies, like in our latest discussion here. My very best wishes (talk) 18:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Maybe it is I who do not know English well, but it seems to me the situation I am experiencing this month. Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding: "Hounding on Wikipedia (or "wikihounding") is the singling out of one or more editors, joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor. Hounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia."--Mhorg (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Additional pings to users who are using collapsed content in AE requests at the present moment: Paul Siebert, Nicoljaus, Springee, LokiTheLiar, SpicyBiryani (a lot). Also, to expand a bit: my view is that collapsed content sorta works to circumvent the word limit, so, I think that a simple diff showing what was removed, would better live up to the spirit of that requirement. Thanks! El_C 17:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
My collapsed content is a timeline, and needs to be to show reverts over time. I would just link the relevant history page except that people specifically requested that I provide more evidence when I did that. Loki (talk) 17:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, Loki. That kind of usage of collapsed content is one which I think actually is appropriate for the noticeboard. El_C 18:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
They're a lot of pretty serious allegations against me so my statement was kind of doomed to be long from the start. If any further word count cutting is needed I'll just add a diff to the removed content, but considering the stage of discussion we've reached now, I don't think any more long statements and cutting will be necessary. SpicyBiryani (talk) 19:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
SpicyBiryani, that is incorrect. Significant trimming is still necessary as your response to the complaint continues to grossly exceed to assigned word limit. El_C 19:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Right, I'm doing it now. It was 1 in the morning for me when you posted this so I couldn't do it then. SpicyBiryani (talk) 07:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Request for dispensation regarding maximum diffs/words

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

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)

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

Discussion of recent close

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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

Latest comment: 4 years ago16 comments10 people in discussion

@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[14].

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)

(moved from ArbE) Wbm1058 re allegations of non-neutrality of ToBeFree, I wasn't going to say anything, but I'd like to draw attention to these two edits you made to User talk:Jimbo Wales before weighing in here: [15] [16]. I personally don't think this is enough to say you're WP:INVOLVED either, but I actually think a case for you being INVOLVED is stronger than one against ToBeFree for not responding enough. I don't think either of these truly qualify as WP:INVOLVED, to be extremely clear.--Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 18:34, 27 July 2021 (UTC) (moved 14:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC))

Competing AE reports

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Competing AE reports, rarely end well. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Open case section archived

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The section concerning Dabaqabad was archived without closing. I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't closed yet, but if appropriate, could someone who knows what they're doing pull it back from the archives? Thanks! ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 10:03, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments10 people in discussion

I assumed that Wikibreak counts as time, but @Deepfriedokra: is saying wikibreak is not included, then he reverts his own edit.

Please be aware that the six-month TBAN means six months of active editing. Time on Wikibreak does not count. Cheers, --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:48, 25 November 2021

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Echo1Charlie&oldid=1057069900

So, if someone stops editing for two months after one month topic ban, his ban is still in effect? --Knight Skywalker (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I do know that this is often taken into account when an appeal is made to the community to end a ban early or to end an indefinite ban. However I am not aware that the timer on timed bans is paused when taking a wikibreak. Honestly I am not 100% sure. I don't see anything in the banning policy, or the arbitration policies, or the wording on the topic ban. But I may be missing something. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 13:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
There's no reason to assume that the timer pauses during a wikibreak (also known as life) and a rule like would pose difficult to enforce in most cases. Politrukki (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Not sure if my opinion counts, was just intrigued by the topic title on the watchlist. But it feels deeply unfair to "pause" a sanction if the user is away. I had a 6-month topic ban from politics once because I was, well kind of a jerk. But if I had just taken off with zero edits in that time-frame, some people think it would still be in effect upon return? That seems awfully punitive. Zaathras (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Never, ever saw that a person could wikibreak a TBAN away and then take up where they left off. In every WP:AN(I) discussion I ever saw, it was said that this was gaming the system and that the person must demonstrate the ability to constructively and actively edit in other areas. I reverted my comment because I was told I was wrong (on IRC as I recall). --Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Time-limited bans are not effected by wikibreaks (which is just a formal way of saying 'not editing'). What often happens when people do take the 'Well I just wont edit then' is that when its time to appeal (if its not a hard limit) absolutely multiple editors will go "You just buggered off, are you going to go straight back to doing what you did before?" and often vote oppose lifting the ban, because everyone knows they just socked for the intervening 6 months. #cynic. Essentially admins should remember if they are placing a time-based ban, is that it should be time-before-appeal, not time-before-automatic lifting. The other unstated and oft-forgot thing about time-based bans is that they are rarely there for the benefit of the person banned, they exist to give everyone else a break from them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:34, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's much more likely that this gaming-the-system thing is a separate issue. It would be ludicrous to ALWAYS pause ban timers for wikibreaks. If somebody gets a TBAN or a site ban, and then goes for 6 months of nature hikes and reading Ralph Waldo Emerson and reconsiders how they spend their life, and returns to edit productively and actually does, would you really reimpose their TBAN because they didn't have "productive editing" in the meantime? Gaming-the-system just seems like a separate but related issue — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 16:46, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Time is time. If it is a 6 month tban, it doesn't matter what they do during those 6 months. It would be too subjective to place limits on them requiring certain kinds of other work. If they wikibreak for 6 months then come back, it is kind of moot as they are likely to get in the same trouble. My perspective has always been that the purpose of the tban isn't to help that person, it is to help that topic by removing that person, so what they do in the meanwhile doesn't matter. The fact that they didn't participate in other areas CAN be taken under consideration if they get dragged to AE again after the tban expires, as their entire editing history comes into play. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 10:29, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • If you're top-banned from something for six-months & so take a six-month wiki-break. When you return, the topic ban will have expired. Either way, during those six months, you didn't go around that specified topic. GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, I do believe you were wrong, young Fritter. A time-limited t-ban can just be wikibreaked (wikibroken?) away. That's why I'm against time-limited bans, and hardly ever place them or recommend them; they don't tend to be conducive to learning anything, but more to merely waiting out the ban. Might those AN(I) discussions you've seen have been about indefinite t-bans? Because they're very different in that respect. When appealing an indef ban, a user had better have constructive editing in other areas/projects to point to, or the appeal will be rejected: "What have you learned about neutral editing in the meantime? Oh, nothing? Right, appeal declined". Bishonen | tålk 16:42, 12 December 2021 (UTC).

Query as to how AE should operate – are arguments to be made via edit summaries?

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Newimpartial, probably being aware that they have exceeded the word limit, is now arguing with me via an edit summary. [17] Is this permitted? How should I respond? Sweet6970 (talk) 15:50, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats not cool. Having an edit summary as an explanation of your edit, sure. Having an edit summary make an argument with a blank edit??? nableezy ) 16:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Nableezy, it didn't occur to me to reply here, or I would have done so. I wasn't trying to add words under the radar - I have already said what there was to say formally in response to Sweet6790; his reply to me showed that we are continuing to talk past each other, and my clarification was essentially just for his her benefit and mine. I wouldn't expect admin to read or take into account a dummy comment I make in an edit summary, though of course it is available for everyone to see and consider if they wish. I wish I had thought of posting here, instead, since it is clearly a better option. Newimpartial (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I dont think adding replies here help either. If youre over the word limit and the admins will not extend it further you basically have one option. Stop talking, since removing old things that have been replied to already is a no-no as well. If you want to keep arguing the point, ask for an extension of the limit. nableezy - 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
to Newimpartial: I’m not bothered because, after all, I’m a woman, so I’m used to the assumption that I am man, but I have declared on my User page that I am a woman, and I asked the computer to call me ‘she’ . If you ever feel inclined to get righteous about someone being misgendered, remember that you’ve done it to me. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
This really is not the page to continue arguing the point. Your initial query was fair, just continuing the same argument is not. nableezy - 16:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Sweet6970 I really am sorry, and have corrected, above. I don't recall any previous instances where I didn't catch mistaken pronouns on WP before anyone else did, but I have blown it this time. I hope my unintentional error didn't give rise to hurt the way deliberate misgendering tends to do, and I will try harder to catch my mental gaffes in future (I remember making one at Talk:Elliot Page that gave me nightmares, though I'm reasonably sure Elliot never saw it). Newimpartial (talk) 17:15, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, re: this edit, I did not see it until subsequent chatter and was therefore unaware of the misgendering it contained, during the above exchange.
However, I can't really see how it could have been unintentional, given her previous comment six weeks ago, that "mansplaining" is a condescending entitlement of which the meaning isn't changed because those who do it wrap themselves with a multi-colored gender flag, which seems to recognise that my gender identity isn't reflected in male pronouns, given the context of that discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Speaking from an admin point of view, I don't look at the edit summaries, to be honest, just the words in the report. I will say that making null edits just to "try" to bypass the word limit is not acceptable behavior, regardless of how ineffective it is. I wouldn't recommend the practice, as a pattern of it might be seen as disruptive by any admin passing by. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Allegations of proxying meatpuppetry

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

I believe that someone who was tbanned by arbcom is currently engaged in WP:PROXYING (I have lots of evidence but see this smoking gun). What is the most appropriate place to make such allegations, here or at WP:SPI? The nature of the evidence is very SPI-ish, meaning comparing behavior, writing style etc. But at the same time, this is not sockpuppetry and checkuser will obviously not be of use here.

Thanks and sorry if this is the wrong place to ask this question.VR talk 19:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Here (on the main page, not on the talk page) or WP:ANI, definitely not WP:SPI--Ymblanter (talk) 19:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed rescinding of several DS regimes

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Page watchers may be interested in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Discretionary sanctions topic area changes. Izno (talk) 18:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Alternatives?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am dealing with a situation where an area is under AE, a user is not hearing me, but I'd still prefer to avoid bringing it to this board if at all possible. I'm wondering what alternatives are available. I don't think I can go to any particular admin per WP:CANVAS. I am trying to avoid going overboard per WP:DONTBITE. Is there a way to ask for gentler admin attention than what this board typically provides? Adoring nanny (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

A couple thoughts @Adoring nanny without having done background research. Some areas have an admin who regularly does work in it. Asking for their thoughts is pretty typical and is generally not considered an issue. Other forms of dispute resolution, like WP:3PO may also be available to you. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

im on the same situation @adoring nanny, but instead is a user that caused to build a fake consensus with hirelings and calling friends out based on fake accusations to me. Amoeba69th (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Do AE appeals have word limits?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

It's unclear if the AE word limits apply to appeals. The header mentions the word/diff limit applying to "Enforcement requests and statements in response to them". It's unclear if appeals are "enforcement requests", and the two are distinguished in the header by differing processes.

The preload that generates the sections for enforcement requests adds two mentions of the limits, but the template used for AE appeals never mentions any (though it does direct involved editors to keep statements "brief"). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The past week saw low admin participation at AE and many requests were prematurely archived without attracting any comments - I and others had to undo such bot-edits. Will it be feasible to force the bot to not archive any un-collapsed section? For example, threads at WP:RX are only archived if marked with {{resolved}}. Thanks, TrangaBellam (talk) 05:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

TOC limit

Latest comment: 3 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

@Levivich: Regarding Special:Diff/1095201516: Could you shed some light on how the TOC limit hinders accessibility for folks using screen readers? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

How would you jump to a subsection using a screen reader if there is no TOC hyperlink to the subsection? Screenreaders can't scroll and skim the way eyes do; if the screen reader has a "jump to next heading" feature, it still requires going through a bunch of the page linearly to get to a specific section; where as a TOC is easier to navigate (you can skip "down" to level 2 headings, and then "over" to level 3). Try it out for yourself with a screenreader and I think you'll see the difference (I did). Even without a screenreader, I found it difficult to find what I was looking for without a TOC. (And I would ask: what is the purpose of a TOC if it only lists the top level headings? Why not list the subheadings?) {{toc limit}} is useful when there are lots of sub-sub-sub headings, but I think limiting TOC to 2 is kinda silly, and limiting it to 3 on the AE page is not useful, because statements are level 4 headings. You don't want to have to read the whole page to find out if any new statements have been posted. Levivich[block] 01:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This change breaks navigation for everyone when an AE report is closed but not yet archived as AE reports are collapsed upon closing. And in my testing, with a screen reader, and perhaps this is only my ignorance in using a screen reader, it made it much harder to navigate to a different AE case that further down the page. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
When you say "breaks navigation", you mean when someone clicks on a sub-thread of a closed report, it doesn't go anywhere, because the report is collapsed? But the rest of the navigation works fine? That's probably a reason not to collapse a report, rather than (functionally) remove the TOC. If the TOC is limited to 2, the only place you can get to is the top of a report; you can't jump anywhere more specific than that. You have to go to the top of the report and then scroll from there. But all that said, if anyone disagrees with the change, of course feel free to revert it. Levivich[block] 01:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
...but while we've raised the subject, why are AE threads collapsed anyway? It makes it very difficult to find things; you can't search them (without uncollapsing first); in the archives you can't CTRL+F and find-on-page without manually uncollapsing all the sections (or, my method, search the source code); you can't use the TOC (as BK points out above). This is all for what, reduce the length of the page? It's not even that long of a page. ANI, for example, has far more threads, and we don't collapse threads there. Or anywhere else? If you ask me, we shouldn't collapse threads at AE. Levivich[block] 01:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I think collapsing the thread sends a pretty clear signal of "this is what has been decided, do not edit further" whereas we see at ANI that people edit closed discussions all the time. As to the original discussion, I'm very interested in making Wikipedia accessible so I want to sit on it for a bit but absent further discussion I plan to take you up on your invite to revert the change. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This is another one of these cases where doing the work ourselves is not necessarily a good idea. Web accessibility is a complex subject which has dedicated experts; the WMF has an interest in making MW accessible, and could easily hire a specialist who'd do a better job at it than editors arguing whether to collapse tables or not. François Robere (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking the same thing: accessibility concerns should be resolved by experts (which I am not).
Thinking about this more, it's really the collapsing of threads that "breaks navigation", and if the only reason we're doing it is to discourage people from commenting in a closed thread, that's a pretty silly reason (there is no harm from people adding to a closed thread, and it can easily be reverted). If the only reason we're limiting the TOC is because the threads are collapsed, then what we should do is not collapse the threads and not limit the TOC. But then the issue is collapsed threads, not TOC limit, and that's an issue that, IMO, makes navigation more difficult for everyone, screenreaders or not. Levivich[block] 16:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I’m fine with the full TOC existing alongside collapsed threads. If you click a TOC link and nothing happens, it’s because the section is already on the screen, not because something’s broken. And the screenreader argument seems pretty straightforward, even without expert consultation. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The proper solution would be, once again (Re: the discussion on your TP [18]), to drop Wikitext as an all-in-one management tool and start thinking in terms of a content management system. Instead of marking threads as "closed" and manually monitoring them for changes (because we have nothing better to do?), threads should be actual database entities that can be marked as locked and stay locked. Also, on the subject of navigation: how many times have you found yourself linking to an ongoing discussion, only to find the link useless a week later once the discussion has been "archived" (ie. its URL changed)? François Robere (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement on a page?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Suppose an uninvolved editor happens to notice a large-scale edit war going on on a particular page that's under discretionary sanctions. (This happened just now at the Teahouse.) What's the correct way to report the edit war so that the sanctions can be applied (assume that all the users involved are {{ds/aware}} already)? The page says it can be used for arbitration enforcement requests related to a particular page, but there doesn't seem to be any option to do that behind the "new enforcement request" link. Do you report all the users involved in the edit war individually? --ais523 00:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Ais523: Much like at AN/I, AE will look at every major player in an issue writ large, and nothing stops you from adding more users to the same request provided you do it as or immediately after posting. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v a little blue Bori 00:53, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jéské Couriano Thanks for letting me know; I decided to edit the template-generated text to refer to multiple users rather than one, and named the request after the page where the edit war is occurring. (It seems best not to name it after either user, as that might be interpreted as taking sides.) --ais523 01:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Jurisdiction over community GS enforcement

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion
  Moved from AE (diff)
 – -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Just for clarity, should all of these requests for enforcement of the GS go to AN(I)? It was unilaterally moved here by an admin the last time I had put one of these on ANI, so I just want to be clear going forward. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:24, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: Unless there's some RfC or ArbCom motion I overlooked, yes, community GS enforcement is entirely through community processes (AN/I, AN, individual admins' talkpages). Happy to be corrected if I'm wrong, as it would be nice to have it done here; but I don't think there's been consensus for that to date.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

So our terminology bites us a bit here. In common parlance DS = ArbCom thing and GS = community thing. If we're getting technical, and what is AE except a place to get technical?, all DS is a part of GS (all squares are rectangles). If something is ArbCom passed it can come to AE while if it is a community passed GS it needs to go to AN/ANI. The current DS reform suggests a way for the community to enable community GS to come to AE but for the time being this venue isn't available to non-arbcom passed sanctions. Hope that helps, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I should have said "community GS", and have amended the section heading and my comment; I don't think it's in dispute that this board has jurisdiction over, say, the ARBPIA GS, much as it has jurisdiction over (almost) any other enforceable arbitration sanction. (Most ArbCom GS is enforced at RFPP, but I do recall Dennis Brown making an ARBPIA GS p-block here a while back.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 16:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I suppose this is somewhat separate from the question of if it's wiser to handle these sorts of things at AE or AN(I). If it isn't currently allowed (which appears to be the advice I'm seeing above), then it might be wise to allow it at some future point given that AE appears to function much more civilly when dealing with discretionary sanctions requests than do some other noticeboards. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
GS should go to AN or ANI. I don't recall issuing a GS sanction, but often I will make "standard admin action" sanctions, which are simpler, and often have more flexibility, including being able to appeal at AN/ANI. But getting back to the original question, GS really should be appealed at AN/ANI, primarily because it is beyond the scope of AE, which centers on Arb restrictions, rather than "general" restrictions, like GS. Even the governing policy says "Appeals are made to the administrators' noticeboard and not the arbitration enforcement noticeboard (AE) or to the Arbitration Committee (but case requests can still be filed)." At AN/ANI, the format is such that the community has a larger voice, where at AE, even if there are multiple admins speaking, the action isn't a consensus, it is an action imposed by a single admin that "owns" that action. This is why it is considered wheelwarring to revert an admin close at AE, while it isn't at AN/ANI. AE simply isn't set up for GS "community imposed" restrictions, it is only set up for single admin actions (even if there is a consensus) on very narrow topics, with strict limits on what can be done. GS sanctions can literally be anything the community wants them to be. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:42, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Status of the awareness system?

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is the status of the awareness rules? I know there was talk somewhere of changing them. Have they been changed recently? Adoring nanny (talk) 13:58, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Soon Selfstudier (talk) 14:01, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Applicability of WP:REDACT

Latest comment: 2 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion
If editors wish for an official opinion about the relevance of WP:REDACT to AE, the proper venue is WP:ARCA. Moving a dispute from the main AE page to the talk page does not reflect well on anyone. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


@Bishonen, Vanamonde93, and Doug Weller: I am in need of a procedural clarification independent of the merit of the case in hand.

It is my belief that WP:REDACT applies to AE — that is, editors cannot fundamentally alter their previous posts after they have been replied to by others. Is that true? TrangaBellam (talk) 20:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't know the "correct" answer, but I do have an observation. Rationally, it seems like you shouldn't fundamentally change your comments once they're replied to. However, I've seen tons of people do such a thing at WP:RFAR, so I'm not surprised someone did so here. I suspect it's more common on pages with a strict word limit and un-threaded discussion. I'd suggest a "don't just remove/replace text if it's an important change; don't get upset about it if it's an unimportant change". --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Floq. In this case, Elinruby had accused me of deciding on an editor's ethnicity, which I believe, is sanctionable conduct since editors ought to have no business in probing into their colleagues' ethnicity. So, I asked for a diff. In response, Elinruby altered his post and the allegation vanished! I do not find this to be an "unimportant change."TrangaBellam (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
It's true on talk pages. People certainly changed their statements quite a bit in the Gitz6666 saga, but perhaps nobody invoked the rule and it's that simple. My point however is that as a party to an AE complaint, TB should not be reverting statements made in the complaint, and it's emblematic of their conduct in this case. Elinruby (talk) 21:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
in hopes of moving discussion forward: I consider the phrase I omitted to be an off-topic aside about how I can understand why Minaro123 would be frustrated. His frustration is not the point however; the point is that the complaint is fundamentally about content that TB doesn't like.Elinruby (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh; if this is part of a larger dispute, I guess I'll go elsewhere. Just looking for a place to make a helpful generic comment, I don't want to get involved in other peoples' fights. There are fewer and fewer places to do that on WP. Everybody hates everybody 24/7. Good luck to you both. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this happens but I think it should be an exceptional thing and generally avoided. I’ve struck through comments of mine I’ve decided we’re wrong. And if it makes the reply make no sense it shouldn’t be done. Ditto if it’s a criticism of another editor, it should be struck through. And of course it can look bad to someone looking at the history. I haven’t looked at the case. Doug Weller talk 21:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Minaro123 has said that he is from Dha, a village of Minaro people. When I first encountered him was talking about the village elders there. We got past that, lengthily, but the accusation TB is trying to suggest simply isn't there. If TB seriously didn't know his ethnicity then I don't know what to say. It's all over the talk page. Elinruby (talk) 21:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No Floq, we need to know in the abstract, so thank you. I think TB is saying it's important because supposedly I made an accusation, shrug, and no doubt will accuse me of making another now. I really need to go but if we can establish that there's a real rule that is simply not usually invoked then of course I'll abide by it. I am more interested in since when do the parties get to revert other people's statements. Elinruby (talk) 21:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Three editors acting in concert

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am intending to bring a matter here where three editors have acted in concert over perhaps a half-dozen post. Can the request be combine in some way under a single section or must they be raised separately? If they can be combined, how would this be done? Cinderella157 (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Disregard please. I have worked out what I think is a reasonable and acceptable solution. Cinderella157 (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Pings of me failed

Latest comment: 2 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Re the recent request related to Naliboki massacre. Attempts were made to ping me. I never saw any ping. Idk what is up with that. My main feedback would have been that I felt the article became much better as a result of the overall interaction. I find it unfortunate that editors are being sanctioned. This area needs more editors, not fewer. I did not read all the back-and-forth mud here or on the talk page. Not being an admin is nice. Pinging the closing admin @HJ Mitchell, though it's probably too late to have any impact. Would be good to know what's up with the non-pings though. Is there a software bug? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what went wrong in Special:Diff/1142515122; sometimes it's an issue with the signature and the timestamp in it. Modifying existing pings often fails – even when done like in the diff, it seems. The most failsafe way to ping editors is to link to their userpage in the edit summary of the comment, which has the additional benefit of a notification that points to the diff, not the (possibly deleted) section of the current page. I'll show how this works by pinging you both in my edit summary. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not see any ping. Adoring nanny (talk) 18:21, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Please check your ping settings then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
(ec) @Adoring nanny: pings only work if you type the editor's username perfectly and sign in the same edit. They don't work if you go back an edit your comment, for example. And for what it's worth, two editors received warnings and one received a fairly mild sanction intended to prevent edit warring. I agree with you that more eyes are needed on the subject area but it's a "contentious topic" because people have strong feelings about it and disputes often get out of hand, so we expect editors to be on their best behaviour. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
Did my ping of you work? Adoring nanny (talk) 18:26, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
The one at the start of this thread? Yes. That's what drew me here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Springee Case

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I have a whole list of diffs further attesting to Springee's POVPUSHING on a BLP we've edited together, but one within GENSEX (including some GENSEX POVPUSHING/FRINGE there as well). Would it be permissible to provide a short statement? AFAICT TBAN doesn't seem to mention AE cases and I've had a lot of experience with this editor. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 14:22, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Topic bans apply everywhere on-wiki, on all pages and in all discussions, except for clarifying or appealing your topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@ScottishFinnishRadish May I speak to Springee's disingenuous accusations against me at my ANI case per BANEX: addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum? I don't want to dispute the results of the ban, just their behavior there, since they accused me of things I flat out didn't do that were contradicted by the diffs they themselves provided and arguably hounded me after. It's a bit tricky since most of their disingenuous accusations were about my behavior on the Cole article, and at one point they commented on the contributor and not the content by citing the ANI case at the Cole article to discredit me, but I could stick solely to problematic behavior at the ANI case and not mention the ad-homimen argument at Cole. Additionally, they made disingenuous accusations about my conduct at FAIR at ANI unrelated to the GENSEX portion, so I'd also mention that. While that FAIR part is unrelated to GENSEX and I know I'm free to mention it, it would be better with the context of their other disingenuous accusations at my case. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely not. The point if for you to exit the topic area. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
What Guerillero said. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Chechnya as part of Eastern Europe and the Balkans

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Do topics relating to Chechnya and neighboring North Caucasus regions apply as a contentious topic here under Eastern Europe and the Balkans? I noticed that some of the articles in this area didn't have the Template:Contentious topics/talk notice template, and I assumed it was just an oversight, but then I saw that even Chechnya and Chechens didn't have such a template. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Chechnya is part of the North Caucasus, which is considered to be a subregion of Eastern Europe, so the contentious topic procedures should apply. The Caucasus Mountains are the conventional boundary between Europe and Asia in this area, and Chechnya falls definitively on the European side. I am not aware of any controversy whatsoever surrounding these geographic conventions. So yes, looks like an oversight. Generalrelative (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It's also been my understanding that, per the "broadly construed" character of CTOP measures, topics relating to any part of Russia, including parts not on the European continent, are considered covered. signed, Rosguill talk 17:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
So would editors be justified in adding the CTOP template to talk pages of North Caucus articles as they see them, or is there a more comprehensive answer? I ask because the ethnic conflicts in this area seem to provoke more argument than many other parts of Eastern Europe and I think it would be helpful to give this area special attention and to ensure that there are fewer ambiguities about CTOP in this area. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, CTOP templates can and should be added. In my experience, part of the difficulty of editing this area is that there are very few sources in English, and very few editors who are familiar with the various (and often unrelated) languages of the region such as Ossetian, Chechen, Ingush, Mingrelian, Tatar etc. ; Russian sources are typically available, but when dealing with historical ethnographic publications in Russian it's often difficult to tell academic RS from (still nominally academic) fringe material. signed, Rosguill talk 18:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

BAN appeals

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello, I would like to confirm that this Project page is the forum where we are supposed to place our appeals on bans? ౪ Santa ౪99° 15:17, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

If your ban is Arbitration Enforcement, then yes; just follow the instructions at WP:AE to For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}. See also Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Appeals and amendments. Galobtter (talk) 18:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Galo, I really appreciate it.Yes, it must be enforcement, I think; it's ABAN under "a WP:GENSEX discretionary sanction". ౪ Santa ౪99° 19:34, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed decision for Poland available

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As admins patrolling AE may not typically follow arbitration cases closely, I'd like to advertise that Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Proposed decision has been available for a few days. I'd personally appreciate feedback on the proposed remedies that are not particularly cut and dry (e.g. not the (T)BANs). Izno (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

?, A friendly advice

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Iskandar323, @Fad Ariff

Both of you are learned users. What we all are here @ Wikipedia for developing constructively or personalising right @ ARE. As uninvloved user just observing like many other users would be watching this board. Please do not answer at all. Just think silently in your own minds.

Bookku (talk) 12:46, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Question About Contentious Topic Areas

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi, a clarification as to "broadly construed" in respect to WP:ARBEE and Russia/Soviet Union. Does this capture articles about the Soviet Union in a global context - specifically, the Sino-Soviet border conflict and like? Please ping in response. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I accidentally alerted a user on their user page instead of user talk.

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

I accidentally left[19] an alert on User:The void century instead of User talk:The void century. The user reverted and let me know about my error. My question is -- can we now presume that the user is aware? Or do I need to alert their talk page? I'm a bit concerned because I've seen requests thrown out for not alerting the talk page. But double-alerting is also a no-no. Adoring nanny (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

​With the introduction of the contentious topics procedure, editors who have been alerted to any contentious topic in the past can be given the alert using any message that conveys the contentious topic designation. As such, the message being left on their userpage (while unconventional) is still a message to make the editor aware. Obviously, the notices shouldn't be left on the user page, but this message was read by them as it was reverted. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 19:10, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Something similar came up in an AE request I filed last year. The short answer is WP:NOTBURO applies. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:37, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
They reverted it and brought it up with you directly so they are aware of it. This does however appear to present a conundrum, in a perfect world the person who's user page it was would move it to their talk page and *then* delete it. That way the template would be visible in the talk page's history and the uncomfortableness (for both parties) of double-alerting would be avoided. @The void century: would you consider this course of action? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
done The void century 22:42, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Requesting information

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Sorry for my limited understanding. I wish to know if the article of Islamic feminism is already covered by WP:CTOP- WP:CT/GG and would it be okay for me to issue awareness alerts to some of editors editing the article.

It's not that I wish to escalate any of the issues of the article at this point (Usually I much prefer to rely on WP:DR processes) but on safer side may prefer to keep some editors alerted if topic is already gets covered under existing policies. Hence requesting information and guidance. Thanks Bookku (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Feminism, including Islamic feminism, falls under "gender-related disputes or controversies", yes. (I have not looked at whether any editors are behaving in a way that would merit AE action.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 09:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
"..(I have not looked at whether any editors are behaving in a way that would merit AE action.) .."
That is quite fair, I am also not looking for any AE action at this stage. I was just looking for information which you provided. Many thanks. Bookku (talk) 09:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sengol (the sceptre, installed in Indian parliament)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Heritage Vs. modernity in itself an eternal human struggle at times gets politicized, with perceived political gains and losses, then polarized and spill over in opensource Wikipedia results in unfortunate long term edit wars.

In my honest perception, history of the presently titled Sengol seem to indicate if not sooner then later it's likely to need extended confirmed and 1RR. The article is already tagged with Template:Controversy, I came here to understand, whether Template:Controversy already makes it 1RR or that is some different process?

Bookku (talk) 16:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Bookku: {{controversy}} does not make an article WP:1RR. The {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} is used to advertise 1RR when placed by an administrator. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Gender topic alert, Which code should be applied?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@ Template:Alert/first four codes seem to be available for gender topics. For example I wish to alert Daddystelios (contribs link). Which code one should prefer to apply?

Bookku (talk) 04:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Any will work. All will generate the same template afaik EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, choose any. Some topics have multiple codes for historical reasons, and all of them will produce the same result. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Requesting a look at the article for CTOP

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Though contentious topic area but the article Hijab usually might not have seen much edit warring before. I am not sure it's still ANI or ARE level yet. But this time some thing seems to be unusual needs more watch listing of the article and Idk what is the right time for additional page or CTOP restrictions wish some one looks into present disruptions.

Requesting a look at the recent history of the article Hijab and Talk:Hijab.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Requests here get moved into the archives by a bot with some regularity, sometimes when consensus among commenting admins seems to be clear but no one has taken the extra step to implement and close. Should this page have time based archiving? It seems like a person ought to be making these determinations. MrOllie (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Probably a bot should only archive hatted discussions after a couple days (I know cluebotIII can kind of do that but I think you can only use a template to mark for immediate archival which happens within a couple of hours). Galobtter (talk) 04:30, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Is this kind of rhetoric permitted on I/P talk pages?

Latest comment: 1 year ago22 comments10 people in discussion
Note: This talk page should only be used for discussion about the way arbitration enforcement operates: how to use the enforcement noticeboard, who can post and why, etc. Please find another venue and/or move (i.e. {{Moved}}) this discussion. Enterprisey (talk!) 19:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I'm not quite sure where to go with this, so I am posting it here. Could an admin or arb look at this diff. "Zionist enitty"? Really? A word search of the page shows that this is not the first time that this particular nomenclature has been used by editors on that extremely contentious, battlefield-beset talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 22:26, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The user's talk page may be a first step; I have notified them now. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
I was on the fence as to where to go with this. No, I did not consider going to any user pages, and frankly, unless the term was used accidentally, I'm not sure it would be fruitful since it has been used repeatedly. If this is not right for my query, I guess this can be closed. Coretheapple (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Coretheapple, wherever you report this and put it up for discussion, you'll have to notify those you're practically, even if not directly, asking administrative action against. A WP:ANI thread with a list of *{{userlinks|...}} lines at its top might be an idea. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:19, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

By its own admittance, Israel is an ethnostate. By its own admittance, Israel is a Zionist project. I see no issue with referring to it as a Zionist entity as it is a racist entity and not a state. Before judging my reasonable word choice, I ask that arbitrators review the OP's own behavior on the talk page. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 12:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that you find a different topic to work on. Any future in this area will surely be extremely brief. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:22, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
That is very threatening. Why are you speaking to me in this way? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Using the most inflammatory wording to refer to things in a highly contentious topic made even more contentious by an active war is not appropriate. Zionist entity and IOF should both be avoided. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The talk page is full of references to Hamas as terrorists, a very pejorative term, and many other terms describing the organization including ironically "terrorist genocidal organization". The term Zionist entity, as stated in our article, is common parlance in the Arab world to refer to Israel. Are we saying only what is acceptable in the western world is acceptable on Wikipedia? The term Zionist is accepted by the Israelis themselves. It is factual description of the ethnostate. Zionsism is literally written into the laws by name.--- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I'm saying that when I see those phrases used as personal commentary about Hamas rather than discussion regarding sources I warn for that behavior as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
You are essentially saying that I cannot refer to Israel as anything but Israel. In order to participate in the discussion, every time I refer to the country, I have to legitimize it. What is an acceptable alternative for you? Can I refer to it as the "Zionist country"? Do you realize that I consider what you are advocating for as anti-Palestinian racism. That insisting on the use of the term Israel is itself inflammatory "personal commentary". --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
It is not conducive to a collaborative editing environment, analogous to uniformly referring to the West Bank as Judea and Samaria, to the Gülenist movement as FETÖ, or to the US as Amerikkka. The phrase is rooted in the historical views of states and organizations that refuse to recognize Israel diplomatically, and is the equivalent of signing off all your messages with "I think Israel is bad". Obviously, most people editing these topics have an opinion as to whether the various factions of the conflict are good or bad (and with what to each individual feels like good, even unassailable reason), but if our goal is to write a neutral encyclopedia article, terminology that is not used by neutral RS and which inherently expresses the views of one side of the conflict is a recipe for more fighting and less writing. signed, Rosguill talk 16:52, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Eloquently put. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The usage of the term "Zionist" beyond its original context can be a subject of controversy, particularly when employed as "The Zionist entity has engaged in a huge information war" to derogatorily refer to Israel and the Jewish community as a whole. It is imperative that we refrain from engaging in name-calling and instead employ official and impartial terminology, allowing rational judgment to prevail over emotional biases. Ultimately, if one finds it difficult to maintain neutrality and manage personal biases, it may be advisable to reconsider active participation on Wikipedia, as it strives to uphold a neutral standpoint. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 17:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I have never spoken about the Jewish community here or on the talk page. You are conflating Zionism with Judaism, which is itself anti-semitic. Please do not equate the actions of Israel with Judaism. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:11, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. While we are allowed quite a bit of latitude for expressing our own personal views in some venues here (but not all venues), we also want to avoid bringing more heat than light. That just starts flamewars and turns the situation into a partisan warzone, rather than a collaborative group of editors who, although they have personal opinions that are often very different, can collaborate and keep their focus on documenting what RS say. There is a big difference between consistently calling Trump a treasonous "#PutinsPuppet" (quite offensive and inflammatory to some editors) and discussing the RS, world leaders, and leaders of intelligence agencies who call him exactly that, all in the context of documenting the use of such epithets about him in article content. The first is an unnecessary poking of the bear that will derail the purpose of the thread, and the second is a constructive and necessary effort to improve article content, regardless of how controversial and offensive the word(s). Just avoid soapboxing in the wrong venues. Conversations on your talk page are different from the proper use of article talk pages. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:20, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
@Rosguill, I often refer to America as Turtle Island. Are you saying that is also not allowed? --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I would argue that my use of the term Zionist entity does help build a better Wikipedia. It is important to note that I don't look for opportunities to use the term. In fact, I try to find every opportunity to not use the term. However, there are instances when talking about the ongoing genocide and the war that I find myself having to refer to the Zionist entity. When such occassions arise, rather that use the biased term Israel to refer to the entity, I use the term Zionist entity which is a factual description of the government. I am happy to use alternatives if people prefer: the occupiers, the Israeli forces, etc... But saying I have to call it Israel and nothing else is ridiculous and not conducive to collaborative environment that includes a variety of viewpoints.
Unless you are saying that only those that recognize Israel's right to exist can edit on Wikipedia. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 19:28, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
This is plain description. Is anyone claiming that the Israeli state cannot be termed using this descriptor? It's not really contested language. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I understand the very broadbrush behavioural principle here, but it seems like WP:NOTBURO territory. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:55, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Are we not allowed to call the Chinese government the communist regime? Or Syria's government the Baathist state? Iskandar323 (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Question / Edit request

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I wanted to report a user here for disruptive editing which primarily focused on a contentious topic. However, I found the submission formatting requirements here to be too restrictive and so I reported them at WP:ANI instead. At ANI I was advised by one editor that it would be better to submit my report here. Is it possible I could make a small post to this noticeboard to draw attention to and to redirect to the report made at ANI? Even if it doesn't follow the required submission format? My reasoning for this request is based on the policy "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy". Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 09:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC) The case I'm referring to is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#BilledMammal_disruptive_editing. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Consultation: Admin information draft

Latest comment: 1 year ago18 comments5 people in discussion

Feedback is requested on a draft to replace the information at AE for administrators. This text will replace the prose currently in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header (which is used for the top of AE) in the collapsed text titled "Information for administrators processing requests". Arbitrators have already given feedback on this text; I look forward to responding to the community's feedback. Thank you to everyone who leaves comments. Z1720 (talk) 20:49, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed text

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

  • Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
  • When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
  • Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
  • More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

  • Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
  • Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
  • You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
  • Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Feedback

Feedback on the proposed new text can be left below:

Some feedback:

  1. "Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced case and read all the evidence (including diffs) presented." is unclear. "Case" is used elsewhere in these instructions to refer to the AE request at hand. Is "referenced case" the relevant ArbCom case? If so, does "all the evidence (including diffs) presnted" refer to the ArbCom case or the AE request?
  2. "When a request widens ...": can the notification requirement be limited to editors who are not already participating in the AE discussion? I know this is part of current guidance, but I have almost never seen it followed for boomerangs, etc.
  3. Can the arbs comment on the reasons for removing the following current guidance items?
    • If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
    • Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.

I hope this feedback is helpful. Glad to see AE getting some attention. My thanks to the arbs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Here's some responses:
  1. Agree that this can be worded better. Perhaps: "Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request." Thoughts?
  2. This wasn't discussed when I asked for feedback from Arbs. My personal opinion (not ArbCom) is that if someone proposes sanctions on an editor, that editor should be notified of the discussion even if they previously participated in a different section of the request. If the editor is already actively participating (that is, they have commented about proposed sanctions against them) then a notification may not be required. Is there a better way to word what is in this draft, or is there something at AE that needs to change to align the noticeboard with this instruction?
  3. It was removed for a couple of reasons. One was that the initial draft instructions were quite long; arbs requested that they be reduced, and these were two of the bullet points removed. This also conveyed a scary tone and could prevent administrators from wanting to be involved in this area. Also, my opinion (not ArbCom) is that these bullet points are redundant; I think admin should know that blocked/banned users might react negatively, and that if admin's comments are a net negative they might be asked to stop participating. I do not think restating these principles was necessary, but I am happy to hear contrary opinions or how these could be reworded.
Thanks again for the feedback. Z1720 (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I like your proposed language for 1. The exception you mention for 2 (active participation) is maybe so common sense that it doesn't bear mentioning, and I do think efforts are commonly made to solicit participation of editors once sanctions are on the table for them, even if the specific template isn't used. Thank you for the insight on 3. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Wording for bullet point 1 has been changed above. Z1720 (talk) 22:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I've seen people ever notify "officially" for a WP:BOOMERANG. I think people assume the filer has obviously seen and following the request; and anyways a sanction is not usually going to be imposed without a response from the filer/the filer being aware. Galobtter (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
The "when a request widens" bullet point is copied from the instructions currently at AE. I think it is there to notify admin that they should not impose sanctions on someone if they were unaware of a discussion to do so. I think the first sentence can be shortened but am unsure how. I like the guidance for partial closures, so I would like to keep that. Z1720 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Just a minor grammar fix: in the first line, the final word of "variety of admin" should be "admins" or "administrators". Thryduulf (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fixed. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

On a minor copy-editing note, I suggest replacing Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. with "Not all enforcement requests will describe behavior restricted by ArbCom." isaacl (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "show behavior" is not the best wording, but am unsure that describe is the best choice. What about "Not all enforcement requests will pertain to behavior restricted by ArbCom."? Z1720 (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the subject should be different, since the requests themselves ought to pertain in some way to arbitration committee-enacted restrictions. How about "Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by the Arbitration Committee." On a secondary note, how about replacing the couple of uses of "ArbCom" with "Arbitration Committee" for uniformity (or "arbitration committee" everywhere)? isaacl (talk) 19:06, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I like this wording the best. I'll include your wording in a couple days if there are no objections. I am going to emphasise the short-form of ArbCom in the first instance to keep the instructions shorter. Z1720 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your consideration for the change in wording. Regarding references to the committee: looking at the rest of the header and the embedded instructions, the only use of "arbcom" is in the email address. So I still suggest either writing it out in full, or at least the first use of "ArbCom" should be in parentheses after "Arbitration Committee". isaacl (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe this has been done in a previous edit. Z1720 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
When I wrote that I meant the first use within the header, rather than simply within the embedded instructions. Upon reflection, my personal preference is to just use the entire term, in alignment with the rest of the header. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Note to commentators: I will leave this open for at least two more days. Barring any major objection or concern, I will then move these instructions into the template. Z1720 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the above notice, the proposed text above has been placed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Header. Thanks for everyone who participated. Z1720 (talk) 20:33, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requesting a word limit extension

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What is the appropriate way to request a word limit extension? And is it frowned upon to do so? (In this case I'd like to briefly respond to a comment which mentions me directly.

Presumably I can just add a request for extension to my statement but as this would take me over the word limit I'd like to confirm that that is appropriate.

Thank you, IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:39, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Go for it, just don't use more than you need. Please keep it concise. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

How to proceed

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was told to "go to AE" regarding concerns presented here. I'm not sure how to present this as it doesn't seem possible to file a request for enforcement unless it be against a specific editor. I'm seeking guidance here on how to proceed with this. IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

This is an issue I ran into in the wake of the Suicide of Eden Knight; I had to mangle the template and noted the request was nonstandard for the same reason. There seriously needs to be templates for requesting page-level or otherwise non-editor sanctions. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v Source assessment notes 15:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive_6&oldid=1242785543"