Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 7
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Bot archived discussion which was not closed/done
Hey, could someone take a look at that? FortunateSons (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Do you mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive332#Makeandtoss and M.Bitton? It looks like the last comment in that discussion was on 28 May so the discussion is probably done and it just hasn't been closed. Adam Black talk • contribs 21:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do, thank you for linking to it. My reading of that is that there is not sufficient consensus for a close in either direction, and was left open for further participation which has not (yet) occurred. FortunateSons (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I haven't really read through it. I just scanned the dates. If no one has added anything in over a week, to a discussion started almost a month ago on 10 May, I think it's unlikely there's going to be further input. Adam Black talk • contribs 22:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- It needs administrative closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I realise that. I was meaning I think that the discussion probably is "done", not that it didn't still need closing. Adam Black talk • contribs 22:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- It needs administrative closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, I haven't really read through it. I just scanned the dates. If no one has added anything in over a week, to a discussion started almost a month ago on 10 May, I think it's unlikely there's going to be further input. Adam Black talk • contribs 22:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- I do, thank you for linking to it. My reading of that is that there is not sufficient consensus for a close in either direction, and was left open for further participation which has not (yet) occurred. FortunateSons (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
indefinite formal topic-ban from the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area
I am indefinitely topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict area. Does this mean I'm not allowed to participate in discussions on article talk pages related to this topic? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, it includes everything everywhere on en.wiki. FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
- Super ninja2 That is correct; however, it was implemented on 8 January and is appealable (at WP:AN) after 6 months, so you would be able to do that on 8 July. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Logging AE sanctions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions
A few years ago Lugnuts repeatedly violated a topic ban, but no one noticed because he was such a prolific editor and because the editors he violated them in disputes with weren't aware of the sanctions. I've considered how to address this a few times over the years, and I've settled on creating a tool that lists such sanctions similar to how page bans are listed when "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" is shown.
However, including AE sanctions doesn't seem viable given the structure of Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, as there would be too many false negatives and false positives. I was hoping admins might be willing to start logging relevant sanctions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as well as the log? I would be willing to go through the logs and transfer any relevant and still active past sanctions over.
If it would help/bribe, I would also be willing to create a tool that assists in closing AE discussions? It would log all actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, and for relevant sanctions log them at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Arbitration enforcement log. If it would be helpful, and not overlap with other existing tools such as Twinkle, it could also support making and logging discretionary enforcement actions? BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- My understanding is that we keep the AE log separately (but include a link to it) because the editing restrictions page would be too long otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Question related to the 500 words and 20 diffs limit
Say you have a case of WP:GAMING, but the only way to show it is to present a lengthy discussion, then what? I'm not sure how to go forward with this, I was thinking of showing some screenshots and highlighting them for practically, but dunno. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- You can ask for an extension (including ahead of filing). My suggestion is to sandbox it and then ask for permission to post that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks Barkeep49! HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment by Sweet6970 arising from the cases of Void if removed and Colin
I am making this comment on the Talk page because it is not directly part of either the cases on Void if removed or Colin. But since I am involved as the person against whom the comment was addressed, I feel I ought to comment.
@Raladic: I saw your original comment to me: promoting transphobic views as protected in a country condemned by the Council of Europe[1] isn't the flex you think it is and Wikipedia is not the platform to promote it.
[1] I deny this accusation, which is unspecific and evidence-free. I did not respond at the time because you subsequently changed the wording of your response to me, but you have never explained your bizarre accusation against me, nor apologised for it. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I didn't make an accusation against you, or at least didn't mean to, which is also why I pre-emptively reworded it to the live comment a few minutes after I wrote the initial response, to ensure it wasn't perceived as such after re-reading the initial comment, which I felt could be misinterpreted wrongly - which is basically what appears you are saying here, hence I reworded it pre-emptively to ensure that no such misinterpretation occurs and we can continue to edit civilly, even if we may disagree on certain topics.
- The comment I made, was specifically directed at this part of your statement:
...In fact, ‘gender critical’ views are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, and several people have successfully made legal claims for discrimination on the grounds of this philosophical belief.
- My reply to you, and more precisely, the reworded (to avoid above said potential misinterpretation) live comment I made in response to your statement of the fact that
such viewssuch philosophical beliefs are protected in the UK (which I don't dispute), but as my comment explained -@Sweet6970, Wikipedia has a higher standard against the WP:PROMOTION of hateful transphobic views than the UK (see WP:HID/WP:NQP).
, which is a simple true statement. On Wikipedia, editors are free to not be barred from editing while potentially holding such beliefs, as long as they don't affect their editing. But the line that we draw on Wikipedia is expressing such views, which are not protected on Wikipedia, as they run afoul of our civil editing policies, with the linked essays on why hate is disruptive (HID) and the more topic specific NQP essay explaining this. - So I do apologize to you that my pre-reworded statement may have been subject to misinterpretation, as it wasn't directed at you personally, but at the fact that the protection of such views in the UK deviate from the protection of such views on Wikipedia, but also that I didn't intend any misinterpretation, which is why I reworded it myself a few minutes after to the live statement to ensure we can all edit civilly on this contentious topic area. Raladic (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- to Raladic: Thank you for your explanation and apology (though I do not agree with your comments about a ‘higher standard’ etc). If it is technically possible, and procedurally permissible, I would like you to strike your original comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- That discussion is closed, so it should not be edited from a technical standpoint. The live comment in the closed section is not factually incorrect, but I will concede to you that I could have used a less strong word and used "different standard" instead of "higher", so please consider it understood as that we have "a different standard on Wikipedia..." :) Raladic (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Can I just point out that only gender-critical philosophical beliefs (i.e. that sex is immutable), not opinions or views, were ruled to be protected under EA2010. Transphobic views are absolutely not protected - part of the ruling said
"(this) does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can misgender trans persons with impunity” and noted that acts of discrimination against trans people are also prohibited by the Equality Act.
Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for that helpful clarification, so I guess technically even in the UK, those views are not actually protected, which helps refute it in the future, just the philosophical belief as you quoted might be. I have struck and used your quote of philosophical beliefs to address the point I was trying to make. Raladic (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- to Raladic: Thank you for your explanation and apology (though I do not agree with your comments about a ‘higher standard’ etc). If it is technically possible, and procedurally permissible, I would like you to strike your original comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Could someone copy over an appeal
It's going to be some time before I'm able to access a computer with a keyboard, so I would be exceedingly appreciative if someone could copy over this appeal and handle all the templates. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- No problem, I copied it over, hope I did it correctly. — xDanielx T/C\R 17:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you very much. If it's messed up I'm sure someone will fix it, but it doesn't look messed up at a glance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
A new editor, Martian Manhunter 1776 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been, in my opinion, whitewashing the article on McEntee. He made a bunch of edits I thought were wrong, I reverted him. I informed him the article was a contentious topic [2]. He carried on. I just reverted him again. Do with this what you will.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- It looks like there were no edits after the notification. I've watchlisted the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Dan Murphy, pinging because I moved this section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
- Indeffed them and their sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Background to POV-pushing AE cases
While there is an ARCA request that these may be in the scope of, I'm opening enforcement requests here for three reasons:
- It remains unclear whether the ARCA request will turn into a case, and even if it does due to the length of time it has taken I will no longer be available to participate. (If a case does proceed with me as a party, I will provide details to ArbCom to demonstrate that it is not ANI flu)
- One of the editors is not being considered as a party for that case
- I believe the evidence here is sufficiently straightforward that AE may be able to deal with it; if they can, that should simplify any potential ArbCom case
Admin input
Something that has been on my mind for quite a while is that other than the shit show I've just started there's no way for admins working arbitration enforcement to get input from other admins without either discussing off-wiki or starting this kind of clusterfuck. While there are some admins that I chat with off-wiki that leads to a selection bias, and still provides a narrow point of view. I've boiled my noodle off and on for months about this, and I can't come up with a solution that doesn't pose it's own issues.
Looking for input in a public forum leads to exactly what we're seeing now, but at least there's transparency. It doesn't make it easy for admins to have frank discussions about behavior and interpretations. It also turns into yet another forum for people to argue.
A limited access mailing list is one way, but having a big admin-only off-wiki mailing list isn't going to make anyone more comfortable with admins and would be vulnerable to leaks. An IRC or discord channel has the same issue. Might as well just throw on a robe and start a cabal.
I don't know if there's any solution, or if the way it is now it's the best we can do with our system. I just figured I'd share some of my thoughts and see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- The simple solution would be to have discussions initiated by admins in their role as an uninvolved admin be designated as "admin-only", with the only regular editors being allowed to contribute being those whose behavior is being discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ways to get admin input without an AE filing:
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at Talk:AE
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at WP:AN
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at WP:ARCA
- asking "is this a policy vio?" at the relevant policy talk page
- saying "I think this is a a policy vio" at the editor's user talk page, or on the page where the policy vio happened (in this case, article talk page)
- waiting to see if someone else raises it
- Levivich (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
Reporting Cross-Wiki problems
If an editor is under ArbCom sanctions and gets into trouble on a different WikiMedia project for similar behavior, is it appropriate to draw attention to that behavior by posting a section at WP:AE? The purpose would not be to ask for additional sanctions on this project, but to be sure it is in the record for future consideration in case the editor asks to have restrictions reduced or lifted. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Ethiopian Epic 2
Symphony Regalia is currently evading ArbCom sanctions on pages related to Yasuke using multiple socks, a new SPI has been opened with more evidence. ぼーしー (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Ethiopian Epic
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 was going to ask to be able to add more evidence, especially since a lot has happened since I opened the request. However, there I saw that there was a SPI into EE and it both casts a new light on to the evidence given, but also could make giving new evidence redundant.[3] I think all the Admins involved in this case should be aware of it. @Nil Einne @Simonm223 @Seraphimblade @Red-tailed hawk @Ealdgyth @Barkeep49 Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- With respect they should be aware of your behavior and your battleground misuse of this talk page despite the big warning at the top. EEpic (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Question
Does the PIA5 remedy apply to cases that pre-date the decision? I thought the answer was no, but I'm less sure now. FortunateSons (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- @FortunateSons: which PIA5 remedy? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- If you're asking about the two-party limit here at Arbitration Enforcement, you're allowed to comment in an AE request even if you aren't one of the two parties (the filer and the person reported) even for future AE requests. It's a limit on whose conduct is under review, not a limit on who can comment. SilverLocust 💬 04:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
- Ah, shit, that wasn’t very bright of me, my apologies. Thank you to you both! FortunateSons (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
AE updates (two party limit, balanced editing restriction, and thanks from ArbCom)
This post should probably go on the talk page, but I am posting here for visibility. In WP:PIA5, the Arbitration Committee has decided to limit all reports at AE to two parties: the filer and the reported party. To reiterate, this is not limited to the PIA topic area. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.
In the PIA area, a balanced editing restriction (shortcut: WP:BER) has been added to your toolbox, as part of the standard set of restrictions. The details of the restriction can be found at the link, but the short version is it requires editors to make no more than a third of their edits in mainspace, draftspace, and their respective talk spaces in the PIA5 area. Editors subject to BER are also topic banned from PIA outside of those namespaces.
Finally, the Committee has unanimously decided to formally thank administrators for volunteering at AE, especially in the PIA topic area. Keep being awesome :)
Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
- I think separate threads for qualitatively different reports is a very good idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Clarification
So, I didn't understand
In WP:PIA5, the Arbitration Committee has decided to limit all reports at AE to two parties: the filer and the reported party.
to mean that no one else's related behavior should be commented on by workers in an AE report. But the people who disagreed with me are people who are much more familiar with the thinking of the committee, so I thought I'd bring up whether that was how others are interpreting this too. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
- I believe that this is a continuation of the exchange at "Result concerning TommyKirchhoff", where you recognised a concern with a third user's conduct, but other admins considered that that was out of scope. For me, I recognise that it is counterintuitive to be told 'we can't talk about that' when you raise disruptive conduct on a noticeboard about disruptive conduct. I do agree with the other admins, however, that there has to be a clear boundary for these reports. The two-user rule has been introduced because AE threads were becoming increasingly complicated. The solution has been to limit them to two users. There is nothing to stop an editor bringing a separate report on a third user, but that absolutely has to be done under a separate thread. Were the rule not to apply to patrolling admins as well, the same underlying problem (noticeboard threads becoming too complicated) would continue arising. Don't forget that the rule provides that AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so, but I do not think that the mere existence of other disruption is sufficient reason to bring additional users onto the report. Better reasons would be, for instance, tag-teaming or canvassing. (Point of housekeeping: this sub-thread and the original post should move to the talk page.) arcticocean ■ 09:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Break for a week
@Liz, I'm going to be activating the enforcer for a week. If I'm interpreting this correctly, editors think I might want to edit the article again?
If that's the case, they can block me indefinitely- I'm not going back to the article again. It's not my article. It's not my server, it's not my problem. I don't know why my reading of sources gave way to that slip... and the user page catharsis was my first thought? I don't know. Tags? Trying to interpret thoughts over and over again, and screwing it up?
Well, this is the best idea I can think of. I could wait six months, but it's super unpleasant, given what I know about MediaWiki, you know?
Anyways, I'm out. ⸺(Random)staplers 03:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Extension request
I'd like to make an extension request of 111 characters to respond to Simonm's response in my AE case, which itself came from a granted extension; I think their response is misleading, or specifically, the diff they provided doesn't actually back up the claim they made. Toa Nidhiki05 17:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Toa Nidhiki05 you can have 150 extra words. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Barkeep49:, Warrenmck just posted a massive wall of text on top of their already very, very, very lengthy statement. Is there any way I can get an extension to... at least close out a response, I guess? I can't really respond to most of Warrenmck's, because there are zero diffs, but their comments are outrageously long at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 13:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've just reverted their comment, which I think is the more appropriate course of action here given the length, content, and timing of the comment. signed, Rosguill talk 15:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Thank you! Toa Nidhiki05 15:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I've just reverted their comment, which I think is the more appropriate course of action here given the length, content, and timing of the comment. signed, Rosguill talk 15:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Hey @Barkeep49:, Warrenmck just posted a massive wall of text on top of their already very, very, very lengthy statement. Is there any way I can get an extension to... at least close out a response, I guess? I can't really respond to most of Warrenmck's, because there are zero diffs, but their comments are outrageously long at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 13:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- The fact that Warrenmck has evidently made good on their threat to brick that account, even despite the fact that the discussion was essentially going their way beside a slap on the wrist, makes me think that the
massive wall of text
diff identified above was likely a show of intentional brinksmanship and they will in all likelihood return with a sockpuppet account. Something to bear in mind in case we do see uncannily similar accounts pop up in the future. signed, Rosguill talk 20:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Query
I was looking at some older AE cases from around 2017-2018 due to a current case at ANI right now and these cases are distantly related to the current dispute. But what I question is that in all of the cases I'm looking at in the AE archives mention that the first infraction that an editor is found responsible for regarding violating Arbitration restrictions is punishable by a month's suspension. From my limited experience at AE right now, the blocks and topic bans currently imposed on editors are much longer these days. I just wonder when this "standard" changed because I can't find any guide to sanctions like this in the instructions included on the AE page. Thanks for any additional information experienced admins can relay about the history of adminning at AE. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- This observation is correct and the trend has been going on even longer than that. Offenses that would have resulted in a 48-hour block in the early days are now likely to trigger a topic ban. It would be interesting but difficult to do an objective survey. One outcome of this escalation of penalties is the loss of people who just need a slap to turn them into valuable editors. A reset is badly needed but I don't have my hopes up. Zerotalk 08:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- There is literal AE enforcement - the enforcement of an arbitration decision. These remedies are limited to a 1 month length for a first time block - at least they are if the case uses the standard enforcement mechanisms. Then there are contentious topic (and its predecessor discretionary sanction) actions. Many of these CT/DS actions are taken through discussion at the venue of AE but they have their own set of rules different than the enforcement rules which can be set for each case (though mostly use the standard set linked above). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, sorry to ping you to a month-old discussion...as I work more at AE I'm discovering more I should know, and I'm trying to compile what I need to know (User:Valereee/Individual admin actions) and this is something I didn't know: a first time AE remedy should be no more than a 1-month timed block? The reason I ask is that I've seen multiple indefs/1 year then convert to individual admin block. Am I conflating something? I apologize if I'm just being stupid here. Valereee (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee for literal arbitration enforcement, almost all cases have the standard enforcement provision which says the first block for violating a case should be no more than a month. Most of what happens at the AE noticeboard isn't actual arbitration enforcement. Instead most of what happens there is enforcement of the contentious topic procedures. Those procedures don't have this limitation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- Got it, thanks! Valereee (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee for literal arbitration enforcement, almost all cases have the standard enforcement provision which says the first block for violating a case should be no more than a month. Most of what happens at the AE noticeboard isn't actual arbitration enforcement. Instead most of what happens there is enforcement of the contentious topic procedures. Those procedures don't have this limitation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, sorry to ping you to a month-old discussion...as I work more at AE I'm discovering more I should know, and I'm trying to compile what I need to know (User:Valereee/Individual admin actions) and this is something I didn't know: a first time AE remedy should be no more than a 1-month timed block? The reason I ask is that I've seen multiple indefs/1 year then convert to individual admin block. Am I conflating something? I apologize if I'm just being stupid here. Valereee (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
- I share the impression that this is a trend, but I do not necessarily it as a problem. Some admins - myself among them - have always been opposed to time-limited sanctions for POV editing, and I believe this attitude has become more common. Also, there is the advent of partial blocks - where previously a short site-wide block may have been the most proportional remedy, long-term page- or namespace-blocks are options that still allow editors to edit productively elsewhere, and have become commonly used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
- My perception of arbitration enforcement is that the penalties are less severe today than they used to be. For context, I have been involved in enforcement essentially since a couple of years after the first discretionary sanctions remedy, which created administrative discretion as we now know it. (Arbitration enforcement existed before then, but authorised only for specific users or pages.) In those 15–20 years, at various times I've been an enforcing administrator and an arbitrator (and co-draftsperson of the last version of discretionary sanctions). Seen over that range of time, administrators today are handing down less severe penalties. There is greater use of warnings, short blocks, and time-limited topic bans. Going back around ten years, the prevailing concern was administrator heavy-handedness and that led to development of the 'awareness' requirements. For a number of years afterwards, while non-aware users were protected from sanctioning, administrators were still tending to give very heavy sanctions for any contravention, provided the awareness notice had been issued. Only in the past few years has the pendulum swung back and administrators started to use shorter or narrower restrictions. I do think this reflected a general trend in the community towards shorter or narrower sanctions, probably linked to the introduction of partial blocking, as Vanamonde93 says, or also reflected in it. Probably, the trend is related to the departure of a critical mass of the 'hanging judge' admins who used to be active at AE. Like everyone else, I don't have quantitative data to support my view, but it is curious that the three of us are viewing things so differently… arcticocean ■ 13:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Sexual assault in relation to GENSEX
| Asked and answered. Let's keep this from duplicating the noticeboard thread. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 09:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is sexual assault covered by WP:GENSEX? In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#FMSky, the opening statement covers both. Daisy Blue (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)
@Daisy Blue: Hello, I never had a GENSEX topic ban at any point. It was a ban for transgender related issues which has since expired --FMSky (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC) |
clarification
I'm confused by this wording under Important information>Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions:
"No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:
- the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
- prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below)."
What kinds of non-CTOP individual admin actions require explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator to modify? I mean, I default to at least pinging the blocking admin, can't remember when I've ever not at least done that, and if they completely object, I'm done unless it looks like a clear case for XRV, but I didn't know there were non-CTOP blocks placed by an individual admin that I needed explicit prior affirmative consent. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- NM, I think I've figured it out. This is for non-CTOPs arbcom remedies, which confusingly enough includes ARBPIA5, which I would have assumed fell under Arab-Israeli conflict, a CTOP, but which is something different and subject to a whole different set of rules. Yow, this shit's complicated. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone have an objection to me changing "Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions" to "Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions" to make this less confusing? Valereee (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
- I've made that change. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
- Anyone have an objection to me changing "Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions" to "Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions" to make this less confusing? Valereee (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Question about diffs for talk page discussions
Yesterday, I filled out an AE form for the first time, and in the section titled "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it," for the evidence that came from talk page comments, I gave comment links rather than diffs, with the thought that it enabled people to more easily see the comment in context, whereas with a diff it's not possible to see subsequent responses without extra work. Another editor asked me to replace all of the comment links with diffs, which I did. I totally understand why we should give diffs for article edits. But I'm still wondering why it must be a diff for talk comments, when (as I see it) a link to the comment provides more information. Would someone mind explaining the reason? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
- The point is at least partially so that reviewing admins don't need to verify that the comment is genuine and hasn't since been changed. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 22:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)
AE process confusion
I'm confused. At this point several admins have indicated they haven't come to a decision. Are they awaiting further mitigating remarks from me, or for further admins to respond. If the former, it would be useful to know what they are looking for. -- Colin°Talk 13:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- AE decisions happen by rough consensus, so we're waiting for that to form. The parties have given us all the shape of the conflict by now, and made clear their positions, so unless there's late-breaking evidence there's not much for you or others to say at this time. If a sanctions proposal is put on the table (which it's not yet clear will happen), there might be more room for your participation, e.g. to say you'd be amenable to a specific sanction or to propose a counter-offer; in that eventuality I'd be fine with giving you a limited extension to reply on that front. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 13:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks. -- Colin°Talk 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Extension request
Hi @Tamzin! Could I have a small extension? Since everyone is discussing different options for resolution, I had a small one I wanted to propose that just came to mind. Snokalok (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Tamzin. If Loki's rather late post has any bearing on a admin's decisions, I would like a chance to respond to it. Otherwise I take your earlier point about largely ignoring them. -- Colin°Talk 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I do not think it will, since it does not cite any evidence. If an admin responds to it favorably, I'd be inclined to grant an extension.
- P.S., I've written a new essay, User:Tamzin/Arbspace word limits. Bit late for this thread, but maybe of use for the future. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- I have obviously responded to that point. As of now it hasn't changed my thinking, but I have opened the door to further comments. If in response to my request there's something that causes me to consider changing my suggested outcome I will grant you an extension. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
- User:Tamzin It's late here. Either you've misread my text or I've misread your reaction. I've replied. I'm off to bed. -- Colin°Talk 22:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)
Word counts in the AE template
I have started a discussion here that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)
Clarification on POV pushing and AE action
This is an issue I've asked about in passing, but I'm hoping for a more concrete answer now that WP:ARBPIA5 has concluded. One of the primary challenges around contentious topics, including ARBPIA but also a few other CTOP/GS areas like AMPOL and RUSUKR, is that editors who frequent the area will engage in long-term WP:CPUSH. Editors who are openly hostile are easily dealt with, but it's still ambiguous as to how we address subtle POV pushing besides opening arbcom cases.
I was concerned that the committee was discouraging discretionary topic bans at AE, but Moneytrees provided a response saying that arbcom is "explicitly not" against such sanctions and that admins are not interpreting it otherwise.
My question is twofold. First, what is the general opinion of admins (active at AE or otherwise) on the subject of sanctions for editors who edit or !vote in a way that consistently favors one ideological position in a CTOP? Second, what is the standard of evidence or the type of diffs necessary to open an AE request for such editing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)
- Maybe there should be a separate notice board for POV pushing like there is for edit warring? Kowal2701 (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2025 (UTC)
Wrong section
Not sure how clerking works here but this response to Tryptofish by Graham_Beards is in the wrong section. Could someone please move it down? Loki (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, and it strikes me as rather unbecoming for an administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:29, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's been dealt with. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2025 (UTC)
- Now Graham Beards is commenting about me in the section for uninvolved administrators. Since he is an involved administrator, his newest comment should really be moved to his own section. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the context of their past participation is included in the subthread where they made this comment and that there are no new allegations being made, my inclination is to leave the matter be at this time. Also, per the 2-party rule adopted after ARBPIA5, if the conclusion is that Graham Beards' cannot comment on this topic as an uninvolved admin, then the comment should simply be removed, as only uninvolved admins are allowed to raise concerns within an AE report regarding the conduct of editors other than the filer and the "defendant" (in this case, RelmC and Colin), and an involved editor would be asked to file a separate report if they wanted to raise substantive concerns regarding your conduct. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks, Rosguill, and I appreciate the work you have been doing about this. I, too, was thinking about this in relation to the 2-party rule. I also think that I have been very transparent about my past history here, so the uninvolved admins already have the information that they need in order to weigh my comments appropriately. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with Rosguill that if Graeme is not an uninvolved admin the comment should be removed. But what is the thinking behind why Graeme is not an uninvolved admin? Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Since you ask, I think it's contained in what Rosguill wrote in reply to Graeme in the results section where these comments are. I could expand further (other past events), but I won't, due to the 2-party rule, and the fact that I want this thing to get wrapped up, not to metastasize even farther. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Barkeep49 Graham's only two comments at AE that I was able to find in a search going back to before their re-sysop were both made as a participant commenting in defense of Colin's editing of GENSEX topics, in October 2023 and September 2024. That may have otherwise flown under the radar, but given that the extent of their argument against Tryptofish's participation is that Tryptofish was not a party to the dispute and is unfairly rehashing old grudges, it seemed a bit hypocritical. The situation is admittedly complicated by the fact that Graham's initial comment was inserted as a threaded reply to Tryptofish in Tryptofish's section, and was only moved to the admin section by me, so Graham hasn't exactly asserted that they're either involved or uninvolved. I could see valid cause for complaint if they were to proceed to issue a unilateral sanction, or extensively argue for a particular outcome, but that has not occurred and seems unlikely to occur at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 20:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me that admins can't post in another's section, but it certainly isn't ever done (as compared to ARC or ARCA where Arbs definitely can but it remains unusual for an arb to do so or proposed decision discussion pages where arbs do reply in others sections regularly). Regardless that makes a good case for why Graeme shouldn't be considered an uninvolved admin for the discussion about Colin. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Parsing this out a bit further, I agree with Rosguill that Graeme has never explicitly asserted whether or not he is involved (but in my opinion, he should know), and I also think Barkeep49 has it right that Graeme should henceforth be considered involved. It might follow logically that the thing to do now is to remove all three comments in the results section (Graeme's comment moved there by Rosguill, Rosguill's reply, and Graeme's subsequent reply), or to relocate all three of them to a section for comments from Graeme, but I don't feel strongly about that. I want to assert that Graeme's original comment to me in my section was entirely one of implying that I had acted disruptively in participating here, on the basis that I was acting out of an old grudge – but I also assert that I have, in fact, been transparent about that from the very first comment that I made here, so I'm very confident that I did nothing to mislead the admins. As noted, if anyone feels otherwise, the 2-party rule applies. There's also the reasonable concern about how much weight the admins should give to my opinions, and I have no problem with that, but that concern should be raised outside of the section for uninvolved admins. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- It's not clear to me that admins can't post in another's section, but it certainly isn't ever done (as compared to ARC or ARCA where Arbs definitely can but it remains unusual for an arb to do so or proposed decision discussion pages where arbs do reply in others sections regularly). Regardless that makes a good case for why Graeme shouldn't be considered an uninvolved admin for the discussion about Colin. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Given that the context of their past participation is included in the subthread where they made this comment and that there are no new allegations being made, my inclination is to leave the matter be at this time. Also, per the 2-party rule adopted after ARBPIA5, if the conclusion is that Graham Beards' cannot comment on this topic as an uninvolved admin, then the comment should simply be removed, as only uninvolved admins are allowed to raise concerns within an AE report regarding the conduct of editors other than the filer and the "defendant" (in this case, RelmC and Colin), and an involved editor would be asked to file a separate report if they wanted to raise substantive concerns regarding your conduct. signed, Rosguill talk 19:53, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Comment request
I would like to post two sentences (52 words) in response to Voort's posts. -- Colin°Talk 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
- Granted. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 23 May 2025 (UTC)
I would like permission to post 100 words in response to SarekOfVulcan's post. -- Colin°Talk 17:29, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- Four hours have passed and I suspect the admin squabble below has meant this request got lost. I'm going to bed shortly. So I'm going to take a punt and post it anyway. I can't imagine any just refusal considering SarekOfVulcan just joined in and is is speculating over my hypothetical future misbehaviour. -- Colin°Talk 21:50, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am not an admin but I would like to suggest to you that:
- a) as pure advice, responding to everything someone else says that is contrary to your position is usually not wise even if you are trying to defend yourself in a proceeding against you
- b) doing so without an explicit extension when you're already at over 1700 words is certainly not wise Loki (talk) 22:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- While we’re adding pure advice, I’m going to say that - perhaps this is just a function of me being a zoomer - but, doing this [4] at an admin who is deciding whether or not to impose sanctions on you, does not seem like an ideal move. Snokalok (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
- I was inclined to say no, but rather than saying no I thought I'd leave it for some other admin to consider. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:45, 28 May 2025 (UTC)
Barkeep49, et al, can we at least have a moratorium on new admins and additional negative remarks about me, my past, or my hypothetical future behaviour. You can surely make a decision, consensus or no-consensus, after almost seven thousand admin words already. There are over 440 active admins and I could do with a good night's sleep, which I haven't for 10 days. -- Colin°Talk 16:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I am certainly sympathetic to the stress this has caused and am sorry to hear about that impact on you. It's why I was trying to move us to consensus a week ago and why I encouraged a closing yesterday. But I have no ability to place any kind of moratorium on other admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Yet you can place a moratorium on me. This is not how I view Wikipedia. Editors and admins are equals, just you guys have some extra buttons on your UI. This cruel "trainwreck" isn't my fault. -- Colin°Talk 17:14, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
Meaning of rough consensus
Moved from the Colin AE discussion
...(Failing that, my meta-opinion is that there's no such thing as "no consensus" between two options with a rough-consensus standard, and that, with all arguments having been reasonable, the warning/FoF would pass by simple headcount.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 17:28, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't anticipate having time to weigh in adequately on the main substance of this report in a timely fashion, and stepped in over the possibly-involved-admin issue because it seemed relatively bite sized, and like it could otherwise further delay admins discussing the main outcome if left unaddressed. I do however agree with your meta-opinion in abstract, that in a rough consensus tie between two sanctions at AE, the lesser sanction should be adopted in the absence of consensus for the stronger one (provided that there isn't some special case that would make the lesser sanction somehow directly counterproductive on its own) signed, Rosguill talk 17:54, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, in this case I at least have argued that a lesser sanction would be counterproductive, but my meta-opinion is just based on the idea that a simple headcount can constitute rough consensus if no greater degree of consensus is available. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I think that headcount needs to be something that arguably has 50%+ of admins rather than mere plurality but I don't see that being an issue here as we've already combined various nuances/positions to get to two options which I think is something the rough consensus also encourages us to do. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- By counterproductive, I was thinking more along the lines of "creates a perverse incentive". signed, Rosguill talk 18:38, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- Well, in this case I at least have argued that a lesser sanction would be counterproductive, but my meta-opinion is just based on the idea that a simple headcount can constitute rough consensus if no greater degree of consensus is available. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 18:00, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't agree with that meta-opinion. Plenty of discussions that use the rough consensus standard (e.g., AfD) result in no consensus outcomes. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:05, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I authored the phrase "rough consensus" in CTOP and regret that it has been somewhat ambiguous. I'm in agreement with voorts that a 50/50 split between "no action" and "some action" is generally no consensus (not rough consensus for any option). To the extent that it's a 50/50 split between a lesser sanction and a greater sanction (defined as a sanction that prohibits all the same conduct as the lesser sanction and more), those advocating for a greater sanction are also implicitly saying the lesser sanction is warranted, so the consensus ought to be interpreted for the lesser sanction. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I mean if we're talking about authorial intent I co-authored that with you. I don't think anything either of us has said contradict each other. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with CaptainEek, SFR, and Seraphimblade. When there is a true split in opinion, and both sides have reasonable positions, the only possible outcome is "no consensus". voorts (talk/contributions) 02:23, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I authored the phrase "rough consensus" in CTOP and regret that it has been somewhat ambiguous. I'm in agreement with voorts that a 50/50 split between "no action" and "some action" is generally no consensus (not rough consensus for any option). To the extent that it's a 50/50 split between a lesser sanction and a greater sanction (defined as a sanction that prohibits all the same conduct as the lesser sanction and more), those advocating for a greater sanction are also implicitly saying the lesser sanction is warranted, so the consensus ought to be interpreted for the lesser sanction. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:49, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- A rough consensus is a consensus that is rough. I reject any sort of numerical approach. For some issues, a 50/50 split is no consensus. Sometimes it is still a rough consensus for a particular outcome, especially because most of Wikipedia is not a vote. Plenty of Wikipedia works on rough consensus. I also reject that a lesser sanction should be favored over a stronger sanction when opinions are close. Might it be sometimes wise to do less? Sure. But as a matter of course? No. AE admins need leeway to make this process work. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:31, 29 May 2025 (UTC)
- For me, what makes a rough consensus is that it doesn't necessarily match up exactly with what individuals want. It's sort of a compromise solution that tries to make things work while addressing most concerns, and that makes those who formed the consensus say, "well, I guess that's about the best we can expect from that. I accept that result."
- I agree with Kevin that supporting a higher tier sanction implicitly supports a lower tier, but in the current situation there is explicit rejection of a lesser sanction which changes the rough consensus calculation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- If I'm closing an AfD, and there's roughly equal support for "redirect" and "delete", that's a consensus that there shouldn't be a separate article on the subject, and in that case I go with the "lesser" remedy of redirect (presumably, those arguing to delete would still be mostly satisfied with that as the outcome). On the other hand, if those arguing to delete explicitly say "I don't think this should be a redirect because (insert reason here) and I explicitly want deletion", that may change the calculation. So, it can be implied that support for the greater is also at least some support for the lesser, but if the person making the argument explicitly rejects that and makes clear they support only the greater remedy, they should be considered as in opposition to the lesser one. In practice, that could mean a "no consensus" outcome that results in nothing happening, but well, that was their call. Seraphimblade Talk to me 02:08, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- In content disputes, regular editors are encouraged to find ways to get to consensus. This can mean altering one's initial position after hearing subsequent comments, in order to find consensus. It can mean being flexible, for the sake of the greater good. It does not mean "you have to have unanimous consent, and I'm going to hold my ground until the rest of you agree with me." It does not mean "let's wikilawyer the true meaning of consensus." Editors who make a habit of doing those latter things find themselves in hot water. Here, we have had a bunch of the most experienced and respected administrators who have failed to demonstrate an understanding of what regular editors are expected to know. All this discussion about how to define "rough consensus" misses the elephant in the room: that no consensus was reached, of any kind. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think any of us were looking for unanimous consent; there were two camps that were at opposite ends of the sanction spectrum and strong arguments on both sides. We can't always reach consensus. Sometimes, a group of people are not going to agree on a course of action, no matter how hard they might try. I also don't think a good faith discussion clarifying what "rough consensus" means in the context of AE is wikilawyering. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- Cold comfort. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I mean, I actually read that discussion as having consensus for both outcomes. Not everyone supported either possibility, but most people were OK with both of them. There were only a handful of hard holdouts. Loki (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
- I don't think any of us were looking for unanimous consent; there were two camps that were at opposite ends of the sanction spectrum and strong arguments on both sides. We can't always reach consensus. Sometimes, a group of people are not going to agree on a course of action, no matter how hard they might try. I also don't think a good faith discussion clarifying what "rough consensus" means in the context of AE is wikilawyering. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:51, 30 May 2025 (UTC)
New and improved Contentious topics/talk notice
Hi AE admins! Template:Contentious topics/talk notice has been expanded with additional functionality, designed to make it easier for you to tag articles. The quick version:
- You can now specify multiple CTOPs in a single banner! Just pass them as additional parameters (e.g.
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|blp|ap|covid}})- To facilitate this change,
|<topic code>|briefno longer works. You need to specify|brief=yes.
- To facilitate this change,
- Page protection is automatically detected, so you no longer need to specify
|protection=. - {{Contentious topics/talk notice}} and {{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice}} have been merged; specify restrictions as normal. For instance,
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap|1RR=yes}} - Topic-wide restrictions are automatically detected and enabled. So
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|a-i}}automatically enables 1RR, ECR, and the 1,000 word limit.
Feedback welcome! Next on the list is better support for section-by-section specifications (for instance, to indicate that the entire article is a BLP but part of the article is covered by PIA). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:58, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
- Hi @HouseBlaster, this sounds fantastic! The only issue I can see is that page protection isn't always done as an AE action but instead as a normal admin action. If it's a normal admin action it shouldn't be included in the template. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:30, 2 June 2025 (UTC)
- That is a great point—
|protection=yesindicates that the protection is an AE action. It populates Category:Wikipedia pages about a contentious topic mislabelled as protected if the page is not actually protected but the parameter is provided. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:37, 2 June 2025 (UTC)- @HouseBlaster, would it be worth clarifying to |aeprotection=y? Just thinking of my own possible future confusion. :) Valereee (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Great idea—I've added
|aeprotection=work as an equivalent of|protection=. I don't think we should drop support of|protection=for backward compatibility; this enables admins who are in the habit of pre-modification syntax like|protection=semito continue what they are doing. (The old syntax still works, provided the page is actually protected.) Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:19, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Great idea—I've added
- @HouseBlaster, would it be worth clarifying to |aeprotection=y? Just thinking of my own possible future confusion. :) Valereee (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- That is a great point—
Extension request
Could I please have 400 words to respond to Extraordinary Writ's commentary on my evidence at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist? Samuelshraga (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- Granted, although I would encourage you to hold some of them in reserve. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)
- Please could I have 200 words to respond to Silverseren's accusations about me in the same section, given that my conduct is within the scope of the filing and the accusations are serious. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- Can I have 200 words to respond to Berchanhimez? Snokalok (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- I have no problem with this extension being allowed if an admin agrees to it, since I figured people would want to respond to my statement and I came in quite late bringing up something "new" - namely the userpage. I don't think I'll need an extension at this time since I think I made my points clear and since they're mostly general in nature I don't think there will be more for me to say. But I'd like to reserve the right to request an extension to my statement if I feel it's necessary. This is the first time I've felt I needed to make such a long statement at AE - normally when I've contributed it's been clear cut "open/shut" cases with no extension necessary at all - so if I'm commenting here prematurely or inappropriately I apologize. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- In addition to the 200 words I've asked for to respond to Silverseren, I would like to request 100 words to add new evidence that pertains to YFNS. Samuelshraga (talk) 07:48, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Can I have 200 words to respond to Berchanhimez? Snokalok (talk) 04:38, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- Please could I have 200 words to respond to Silverseren's accusations about me in the same section, given that my conduct is within the scope of the filing and the accusations are serious. Samuelshraga (talk) 21:20, 4 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuelshraga, @Snokalok, @Berchanhimez, I'm not sure responding to other commenters is helpful unless admins start talking about the information those commenters presented. If admins do start discussing, and you need to respond to that discussion, ask for an extension then. That said, no objection to any other admin giving these extensions. Valereee (talk) 11:00, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee I appreciate the reply. I'll accept it with regards to my first request - I won't ask to respond in this filing to Silverseren's accusations unless admins consider them worth discussing. However, I don't think it addresses my request about new evidence pertaining to YFNS though, which is not a response to others' comments. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuelshraga, you can have 100 words. If you can say it in 25, I'd suggest doing so. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee thank you. Could you please update the word limit template to my section to reflect this? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- If I could figure out this new template, I'd be happy to. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee thank you. Could you please update the word limit template to my section to reflect this? Samuelshraga (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Samuelshraga, you can have 100 words. If you can say it in 25, I'd suggest doing so. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee I appreciate the reply. I'll accept it with regards to my first request - I won't ask to respond in this filing to Silverseren's accusations unless admins consider them worth discussing. However, I don't think it addresses my request about new evidence pertaining to YFNS though, which is not a response to others' comments. Samuelshraga (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Extraordinary Writ/@Valereee I would like to file a case against VIR for longterm CPOV-pushing/PROFRINGE behavior. My current draft is about 800 words. I'll try and further cut it down (aiming for ~700), but may I be pre-emptively granted 1000 words for the initial statement and necessary follow-up statements? Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- YFNS, I get that I made a pretty severe statement against you here, but can I recommend you not do this? Doing this will appear as retaliation for VIR trying to contribute to this discussion - in other words, a clear WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. If you keep this up I'm going to ask for an extension here to the case against you to add/reference this comment and any further you make (including a case if you file one with or without an extension) as evidence of your battleground mentality in this topic area, and trying to push editors you disagree with out of the topic area. I'm not yet doing so - because I'm trying to give you the chance to reconsider this and retract this.If there is enough evidence against VIR there are at least half a dozen editors/admins who have contributed to the case against you that would be able to file such a case - even if you can't do so yourself (ex: if you end up topic banned). Let them take this on - don't add more fuel to the "fire" against you. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 22:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist, speaking only for myself, unless all of these diffs/arguments are so intertangled that none of them makes sense without all of them, I'd rather you gave us the three (or however many allows you to stay within the limit) very most compelling diffs and arguments and ended with, "I have another six (or however many) compelling diffs I'd like to present, but that takes me over the word limit". I believe @Tamzin has offered to help with crafting reasonable AE cases around GENSEX (Tamzin, forgive me if I dreamed that), perhaps she might help? Valereee (talk) 17:38, 6 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee: Sorry to bug you, but I've been thinking about whether I wanted to ask for an extension or not to explain how the filing of the case against VIR ties in with the rest of my statement. It's less necessary since Springee has already referenced it in their statement, but I still think that it ties well in with my statement too about whether YFNS is a net positive in this topic area and battleground/"overwhelming others" behavior. If you think it would help, 150 words or so should be enough for me to tie in the timing of that request and the fact that at least two others have said they were working on a request but weren't ready to file yet. If you don't think it would help you and other admins to have it tied in directly to the comments I originally made, then no harm no foul. I get that this topic area (like Arab-Israeli conflict) is very difficult for AE so I will take no negativity if you think it's clear enough already and further comment from me would just make more words to sift through. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 23:17, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee apologies as apparently I forgot to send this and it's been sitting as a draft.
- They are intertangled unfortunately. It's not a case of "look, this edit breaches policy" it's more "here's him repeating the same exact related set of PROFRINGE arguments across multiple articles/forums, acknowledging it's an issue, and starting again". Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:09, 10 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist I'm willing to give you the 700 you think you absolutely must have to create the case, but I've got to warn you: it's quite likely admins here will be counting Every. Unnecessary. Word. That's in addition to the general feeling that if the first diff or two opened isn't compelling, why are we looking at the rest.
- I am sympathetic to the idea that some behavioral issues are more difficult than others to prove without extensive diffs/explanation, and CPOV is one of them. And I get that sometimes things really are intertangled. Is your CPOV case really dependent on the profringe case and vice versa? Or are you just trying to use profringe to provide a motive for CPOV? Because for me personally I'll stipulate: I don't need to know why someone is sealioning, and it might just muddy the waters to try to prove someone is profringe which is why they're sealioning. Valereee (talk) 16:26, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think I'm at 750 words but I appreciate that. I'm omw to a wedding so won't have time to trim the statement until late tonight.
- They are linked. WP:profringe calls out a lot of behavior via a vis promoting fringe theories via consistently citing their proponents and ignoring NPOV.
- The fact the POVs he pushes are fringe is a large part of it. It would be tendentious to keep pushing a pov consensus finds isn't neutral, say "the most able commander in historic battle XYZ was general Bob". A problem, but not the worst hill to die on. When the pov is "most trans kids grow out of it" or "kids are catching trans from the internet en masse" that is not only pov pushing but promoting fringe views about a minority demographic - the fringe warrants higher scrutiny because of how sensitive the content is and because it frankly has a chilling effect on LGBT editors. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:47, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Valereee in case you didn't see, I wanted to give you a heads up that I trimmed the statement down to 600 words the other day Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2025 (UTC)