Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration


Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals

Initiated by Thinker78 (talk) at 05:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by Thinker78

I am a veteran editor familiar with the civility, vandalism, consensus and dispute resolution policies, which I regularly consult, ponder about, analyze, and contribute to. I was unduly blocked[1] on 10 February 2024 after being involved in a content dispute.

At times, I notice in my watchlist removal of an ip talk page post. I check it out and most of the time I don't do anything. But sometimes it appears to be an undue removal. I can spend an hour analyzing and investigating the post of an ip. I don't expect others to do that but I expect others to respect it as part of the consensus process. These are some examples of my restores (I have done only about 16 in 8 years): [2], [3], [4] [5]

Ips also have the Wikipedian right per the Five Pillars to present their points in talk pages. I protest the stance that it is a waste of time or disruptive trying to assume good faith and trying to be more considerate with their criticisms. In fact, unduly removing their criticisms or legitimate posts instead of respectfully addressing them damages the project.

My edits of concern and publicizing objectively a discussion with limited reach elsewhere were based on Wikipedia guidance[6] but administrators showed lack of collegiality, lack of consideration and lack of respect when treating me like an anonymous troll,Wikipedia:Civility disregarding the consensus policy and dispute resolution process. Johnuniq and ScottishFinnishRadish issued their warning[7] and block against me without proper discussion.

Admin 331dot did not properly explain why they denied my appeal,[8] in essence just saying they liked it (WP:TALKDONTREVERT). Bishonen went further and not only did not explain why the points of my new appeal did not apply [9] (which I did only because 331dot advised me I could), but further blocked me, mentioning length. But WP:TALK, "If you really need to make a detailed, point-by-point post, see below for tips." They mention number of editors against me, but whatever points they may have had in the content dispute, they could have told me in a discussion beforehand without any need of accusations, warnings or blocks. (Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling).

Because of the perceived arbitrariness, lack of collegiality, imposing instead of seeking consensus, threats and blocks of the whole proceeding, it felt to me (not accusing anyone of) like I was being editorially lynched and I was deeply demoralized. An editor in the thread even said when criticizing me, "It does not matter if your block is entirely unjust. All you can do now is kowtow [...]"[10]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

I am very busy right now IRL, so I don't have time for much other than a short statement. I blocked after they started using Wikipedia talk space to deal with perceived behavior issues. This came up earlier here, after they restored a section that was removed as being in the wrong venue. They have also demonstrated a lack of understanding of what falls under disruptive discussion and editing, and appropriate venues for discussion, after I blocked an IP for this harassment, which was discussed here and here. If anything else is needed from me I'd appreciate a ping, because although I have this page watchlisted I'm not paying much attention to my watchlist. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

I was going to suggest that the case request be declined with a suggestion to Thinker78 that it might be necessary to tolerate the views of the editors who commented at User talk:Thinker78#Chemtrails (permalink) and User talk:Thinker78#February 2024 (permalink). However, reviewing User talk:Thinker78#DTTR (permalink) shows that a similar situation has arisen. That concerns a comment by an IP that was reverted by an editor and restored by Thinker78. A subsequent discussion is at Talk:Mahatma Gandhi#Revert of ip, no explanation (permalink). Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

I regret having spoken impatiently here, but I still believe it was time to revoke talkpage access. Bishonen | tålk 10:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by 331dot

I'm not really sure what the issue is here, but I'm willing to answer questions. 331dot (talk) 08:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

Remind me I must write an essay about Wiki-saviour syndrome. Every so often it happens an editor shows up who perceives there is some perfect lost state of Wikipedia that the community has strayed from. Sometimes lost prophets are invoked (Larry). They then take it upon themselves to kick the moneylenders out of the temple and restore grace. It never ends well. Bon courage (talk) 07:46, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

Talk:Chemtrail conspiracy theory seems to be another talk page with dozen or more reverts like Talk:2023, Talk:Minecraft, Talk:Harry Styles, Talk:Earth, Talk:Mathematics, Talk:Music, Talk:History, etc. There is likely over two dozen more examples that could be listed. The problems with those talk pages generally are that IP users and new accounts don't understand the Wikipedia is not a forum policy, leading to numerous reverts. The chemtrail talk page isn't as bad as the history talk page in terms of reverts, but there have been clear issues given the talk page banners.

I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case. I would encourage Thinker78 to consider leaving a comment on the discussion if they restore in the future and to be more cautious as well. I believe that could have avoid this situation, or at least resolved it better than what occurred.

Regarding the events at the user talk page, I would say that it is disappointing. From my limited perspective, it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. Sadly, it seems that things spiraled when they shouldn't have and now here we are. I think there was a misunderstanding by Thinker78 about Dispute resolution by looking at SEEKHELP instead of CONDUCTDISPUTE. That mistake seems to have led to the block, which is understandable.

The only thing that I could see as actionable was some behavior that leans toward Gravedancing elsewhere, but even that doesn't seem eligible for ANI or the Committee. This case does not rise to the level of the 2018 case mentioned. I think the parties just need to reflect on what happened, filing party included, and try to move forward. To borrow some words from that case, admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" and that can apply to trying to help newer users and IPs.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Super Goku V (talkcontribs) 9:49, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Can you double-check as I don't see any comment restored by Thinker78 at Mahatma Gandhi, just a discussion there. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SMcCandlish

Quoting Super Goku V: I will give Thinker78 credit for trying to look out for these IP users and new accounts, but I think he made an error in restoring in this specific case. Maybe a reasonable assessment, but it shouldn't've led to blocking. I don't see any rationale for administrative action on this at all, much less that severe. It's something that could've been hashed out in user talk, or ANI if necessary. Also, as I've suggested elsewhere, a workable solution to this sort of thing is to not delete comments that lean toward WP:NOTFORUM, but respond briefly to anything substantive in them, note that WP is not a forum, notify the user page about NOTFORUM policy, and then close and archive the thread. This tends to prevent a "censorship of newbies" versus "encouragement of NOTFORUM ranting" debate from even happening.

Quoting SGV again: it feels like a swarm of users descended with some of them increasing the issue instead of trying to resolve it. ... admining is a "thankless and socially difficult job" ....: User talk pages largely exist for editors to work out their differences. This can sometimes get heated, but it's a process and it generally works itself out. When it fails to, we have ANI and other noticeboards. There was insufficient cause for a block much less for talk-page-access revocation. WP is not actually disrupted by an editor defending their actions and objecting to actions that make them feel put-upon, even if they do it vociferously. In short, admins need to take action to protect the project, not to muzzle its participants when they're not actually breaking anything or doing any actual harm.

Also, ScottishFinnishRadish's diffs at Thinker78's user-talk of Thinker78 "canvassing" are not canvassing, but normal, neutrally worded notice in two completly appropriate venues. It is a bit disturbing to me that two different admins jumped on Thinker78 for restoring IP-editor comments on the basis that one admin thinks the material is "nonsense" (Johnuniq), which is content involvement, and in ScottishFinnishRadish's case of accusing Thinker78 of "a recurring pattern of not understanding what is disruptive" after Thinker78 questioned SFR's previous block of someone else in the same content area, which smacks of a different kind of involvement (retributive).

Diclaimer(?): I've had disputations with Thinker78 in the past (including recently), but also a civil and productive discussion (via email). So, I'm neither a Thinker78 fan nor critic. To the extent Thinker78 has been intemperate in some of this, I think WP:HOTHEADS may be worth reading, especially the WP:CAPITULATE section, which I think pretty much describes what happened with this blocking: if one makes enough noise, it may inspire someone else, with the ability to do so, to apply a gag. But this should not actually happen unless the project really is being disrupted. CIVIL, NPA, AGF and related policies are not requirements for brevity, cheerfulness, or obsequious politeness. Some discussions will be a bit heated, and long, and that is okay.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  15:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Consensus process, censorship, administrators' warnings and blocks in dispute, and responses to appeals: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/2/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • I do not think there is anything here that rises to the level of requiring arbitration. Talk pages of prominent articles, or those about controversial subjects, frequently attract "drive-by" comments either angry at us for not adhering to their particular point of view, making comments for the sake of commenting, or just posting word salad. These comments are rarely serious attempts at improving the encyclopedia. I tend to think the best course of action is to ignore these comments unless they are - by their nature or volume - disruptive to collaboration on the talk page, but equally I don't think removing the comment in question here was improper.
    On the block, I'm not sure it's one I personally would have made - absent evidence that Thinker78 had made a habit of restoring such comments against the advice of others - but that's as far as I get. It's important to remember that we as volunteers have a limited number of hours as a group to 'spend', and dealing with "I don't like it" comments from users otherwise not engaged with Wikipedia sucks up some of that time. I entirely sympathise with the view that volunteer time is indeed better spent elsewhere. firefly ( t · c ) 10:35, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with Firefly; the admins in question may have been slightly heavy-handed but I do not immediately see anything necessarily requiring a full case to sort out. Decline unless that changes. Primefac (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I largely agree with what SMcCandlish has written. However, I don't think any of the issues raised so far feel "ripe" for arbitration at this time and so I am leaning towards declining. I am waiting, however, for further community feedback before formalizing that vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline I don’t think any actions taken here were unreasonable or heavy handed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 16:45, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Requests for clarification and amendment


Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

Initiated by TenPoundHammer at 21:13, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Conduct in deletion-related editing arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested

9.1) TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
— Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing § TenPoundHammer topic banned (1)

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • This (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing; I can't figure out how to format this template properly, as I get a redlink no matter what I do to the title) was passed a year and a half ago. I would like to appeal it per the condition of This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

  • A limit may be placed on how many AFDs, PRODs, and CSDs I may place in a day or week (e.g. one a day, five a week, etc.)
  • I may maintain a list of content I plan to nominate for deletion with evidence that I have done WP:BEFORE (in the case of articles) or otherwise understand why the content should be deleted.
  • I am not to send material to AFD immediately after it has been de-prodded.
  • If another editor argues "keep", I must refrain from personally attacking them if I disagree with their opinion.
  • If an editor argues "keep" and presents sources, I must refrain from bullying them into adding sources into the article.
  • Optional: Anything not intended for a deletion outcome (de-prodding, renaming a category), obviously vandalism or hoax (G3), or clearly done as maintenance (G6, G7, U1, fixing an improperly formatted discussion) may be exempt from the limitation.
  • Optional: Another editor may volunteer to check my work and make sure if I am working within restrictions.
  • If I am deemed capable of working within the restrictions for a period of time (e.g., one month), restrictions may be lessened. However, if I exhibit behavior in violation of the restrictions, actions may be taken as needed (e.g., return to full topic-ban from deletion).

Per Thryduulf, I have chosen not to pursue complex restrictions further, but instead demonstrate that I understand why my behavior led to an XFD topic ban in the first place. I would like to present my understanding of my ban and appeal it accordingly. Thryduulf suggested my conduct since the topic ban is conducive to lifting it, and I would also like to show an understanding, and attempt to resolve, my past tendentiousness, recklessness, stubbornness, and other negative effects on the deletion process as a whole. My past behaviors included massive queues of nominations which flooded the queues, caused sloppy errors in fact checking and other practices of WP:BEFORE, attacks on editors whose participation in said discussions I disagreed with, and so on. I would like to appeal to a partial or full reversal of this ban -- whichever is decided better for me -- to prove that I have learned what I did wrong since the topic ban was enacted.

(Comment: This template is severely borked and I don't know how to unfuck it. I've tried a million things. Can someone fix this please so it's readable?)

This is my first time doing something like this, so I don't know all the ins and outs. I was told it can be appealed so I am attempting in good faith to appeal it. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:55, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TenPoundHammer

I was asked by ToBeFree (talk · contribs) to provide a view on what led to the topic ban. It's my understanding that my behavior in XFD included mass nominations which flooded the queues; aggressive behavior toward those who voted "keep" (e.g., browbeating them into adding the sources they found themselves, aggressively confronting them on source quality, general WP:BLUDGEON tactics); poor application of WP:BEFORE (likely stemming from the frantic pace in which I was nominating); and misleading edit summaries (e.g., saying an article was "deprodded for no reason" when the deprodder did explain their reason and/or added a source). No doubt my actions negatively impacted the opinions of other participants in such discussions, which instilled in me a feeling of bias against me that only made my actions even worse. I can also see how informing editors of active deletion discussions on relevant topics constitutes WP:CANVASSing, such as the entire "List of people on the postage stamps of X" debacle. I also expressed great frustration in my inability to properly execute any WP:ATD such as redirection, not thinking that maybe my attempts to redirect or merge content were being undone in good faith and not as some sort of vendetta against me. In general, these show a track record of being sloppy, knee-jerk, and aggressive, and trying way too hard to get my way in spite of what others think. And again, I can see how such actions have caused others to view me unfavorably even before the topic ban was issued.

I know this isn't the first time I've been here, and my deletion tactics have been problematic in the past. Ever since I was topic banned, the thought of "how could I have done that better?" was on my mind, and I'd been formulating theories on how I could have approached XFD better. It didn't help that I spent much of 2022 unemployed and I was not in a good mental state because of that. I feel that I am overall in a better state as an editor right now, as to my knowledge I have not had any conflicts with editors in the months since the topic ban. I also feel that I have formulated solutions to keep the previously mentioned problems at bay and take a more measured, less stressful approach to XFD. This is why one such proposal should the topic ban be rescinded was for me to keep a list of articles I intend to nominate, with proof of WP:BEFORE being done. I had attempted such a list before the topic ban, but it never got very far and I'm sure I was already too deep in the throes of my angry hasty approach. But now I've had plenty of time in which I feel I have sufficiently cooled down and can tackle a more systematic approach.

I did take some time to try and find sources for some TV articles I had questioned the notability of in the past. In just the course of a few minutes I was able to give Stump the Schwab a source, but found it difficult to find others and tagged it with {{notability}}. Ego Trip's The (White) Rapper Show I trimmed some plot summary out of and added a couple reliable sources which I feel are just enough to assert notability for the show. By comparison, Fast Food Mania did not seem to be a notable show, and I made a post here with my analysis of sourcing. This is the kind of behavior I wish to continue executing, so I can take a more measured approach with more time to present my findings or lack thereof before (if the topic ban is lifted) sending anything to XFD.

Since it was brought up on my talk page, I would like to know: is participating in WP:DRV (which I honestly forgot even exists) a violation of the topic ban as it stands? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 19:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the result is to allow me to participate in XFDs but not initiate new ones, what would the conditions be to lift the topic ban entirely? I assume a second appeal after twelve months (the time established in the original topic ban), provided my behavior in the interim stays on point and no further problems arise? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 01:22, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would appreciate some clarity on manners such as de-prodding, WP:REFUND, etc. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 20:47, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: So at what point is this considered passed? Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 21:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly: @Cunard: I agree, blar'ing was not covered under the original topic ban. I stated clearly (or at least what I thought was clearly) in my edit summaries every time my attempts at a WP:BEFORE and why I think the redirect was justified. Some were obvious enough, such as a one-sentence stub on a song being redirected to the artist or album, that I felt a more elaborate edit summary was not needed. I also did not delink the articles as a courtesy to any other editors such as Cunard, in case they found something I missed. Ten Pound Hammer(What did I screw up now?) 14:38, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)

A complex list of things you can and can't do is unlikely to gain the favour of the committee - complex restrictions are hard for everybody to remember, complicated to work out whether specific behaviour is permitted or not, and generally easier to accidentally violate. Instead, something like narrowing the scope of the topic ban to allow participation in deletion discussions initiated by other editors but retaining the prohibition on you nominating pages for prod or XFD is more likely to gain favour. Any removal or relaxation though will only happen if you have demonstrated an understanding of why the topic ban was initially placed and your conduct since the ban makes it seem probable that your presence in deletion discussions will not be disruptive. I have not yet looked to see whether both are true. Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: your current restriction prohibits you from taking part in "deletion-related discussions", that includes DRV. Thryduulf (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to Izno's suggestion, although it would need careful wording, e.g. it should mention explicitly whether they are allowed to discuss the deletion of drafts, and what happens regarding pages moved into or out of a namespace they cannot comment on (for simplicity I would suggest not allowing comments regarding redirects that either are in or which target namespaces they cannot comment on). Thryduulf (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: wrote I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. I don't think it's clear that the proposed wording does prohibit all of those. I would read topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. as:

  • Clearly prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions at XfD
    • Initiating or closing discussions at DRV
    • Initiating or closing discussions challenging deletion discussion closures at noticeboards
    • Initiating or closing proposals, RFCs and similar discussions about the deletion of pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)
    • Adding proposals to delete to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
  • Clearly not prohibiting:
    • Participating in any of the above types of discussion
    • Participating in discussions about challenged closures
    • Responding to queries about deletion discussions or comments left in such discussions
  • Implicity prohibiting:
    • Initiating or closing discussions about (mass) draftification
    • Adding proposals to draftify to discussions about what to do with an article or set/class of articles
    • Blanking and redirecting pages or initiating or closing discussions proposing such
  • Being entirely unclear about:
    • Nominating pages for PROD or speedy deletion
    • Endorsing PRODs placed by others
    • Deprodding or challenging speedy deletions initiated by others
    • Asking for clarification regarding the closure of a deletion discussion
    • Supporting or opposing proposals regarding the deletion or draftification of pages or types of page
    • Asking for deleted pages to be REFUNDed to draft or userspace

Accordingly I would suggest the topic ban be worded more clearly, perhaps something like: TPH is topic banned from:

  • Nominating or proposing pages for deletion or speedy deletion
  • Endorsing or declining proposed or speedy deletion nominations
  • Challenging the closure of a deletion discussion (at DRV or elsewhere)
  • Closing any deletion-related discussion
  • Initiating or closing proposals to delete, speedy delete or draftify (types or classes of) pages (e.g. new or expanded CSD criteria)

They explicitly may:

  • Participate in deletion and deletion review discussions.
  • Challenge proposed or speedy deletion nominations by posting on the talk page.
  • Seek clarification regarding the closure of deletion discussions.
  • Request pages be REFUNDed to draft or userspace.

Thryduulf (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: The proposed restriction specifies the topic as only initiating or closing deletion discussions which is a lot narrower in my reading than it is in your apparent reading - e.g. PROD and CSD are not "discussions". The current restriction explicitly states "broadly construed" the proposed one does not, it is therefore reasonable to assume that its absence is intentional and significant. Certainly I cannot see any reasonable way to regard participating in deletion review discussions as prohibited by the proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 18:30, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree the word "topic" is irrelevant to my comment because whether TPH is "banned" or "topic banned" from initiating or closing deletion discussions makes no difference to what they are and are not permitted to do. Thryduulf (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Jclemens

It would be reasonable to restore TPH to participation in existing XfDs opened by others, and this will give the community time to see how that interaction goes. That is, a good few months of collegial comments, working towards consensus, finding sourcing or describing its absence, honoring ATDs, and the like would go a long way to demonstrating that TPH is moving past the binary battles of the old school AfDs we both remember. I'm most concerned that AfD participation is too low to sustain good discussions on more open AfDs at a time, and this would prevent that as a problem. I have seen TPH's desire to improve the encyclopedia, despite our being on the opposite sides of a lot of discussions over the years, and I would be pleased to find the dip in participation quality called out in the case was an anomaly in a long-term editor's carer. Jclemens (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Cunard's experience below, I am withdrawing my support and suggesting that the sanction be extended to include redirection. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Izno

I remain of the opinion that the ban from all XFD was overly broad. The FOF for TPH referenced article deletion exclusively. Another alternative stepping stone besides banning from nominations and lifting otherwise would be to retain the ban in these areas (AFD, CSD in main space, RFD in main space, CFD for main space categories?, PROD) while removing it from the other forums. IznoPublic (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

If you do decide to lift this restriction, I'd encourage you to leave a provision allowing an uninvolved administrator to reïmpose it should it become necessary down the road. The appeal is pretty good, but the appeal in 2019 was also pretty good, so while I hope it won't happen, I think it's important to have a failsafe in case things go south again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cunard

I started a talk page discussion with TenPoundHammer a few days ago about TenPoundHammer's blanking and redirecting of Monkey-ed Movies (link), Skating's Next Star (link), Monkey Life (link), 2 Minute Drill (game show) (link), and Monsters We Met (link) for lacking sources. I was able to find sources for these articles so reverted the redirects and added the sources. I asked TenPoundHammer not to blank and redirect articles as it was leading to notable topics no longer having articles.. Cunard (talk) 18:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 18 articles. Of those 18 articles, 14 were about television series. I monitor Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television so am focusing on the redirects of television series articles. I reviewed the first three television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected: My Tiny Terror, Steampunk'd, and Window Warriors. I found sources for these articles and reverted the redirects. I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later. It took me several hours to find sources and expand just three of the 14 television series articles that TenPoundHammer redirected.
TenPoundHammer is resuming the actions that led me to create Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1101#TenPoundHammer: prods and AfDs, which was closed as "This matter has been escalated to the arbitration committee, which has opened a full case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conduct in deletion-related editing on this and other related matters" and is cited as "June 2022 ANI" in this finding of fact. TenPoundHammer is continuing to redirect articles despite my 3 March 2024 request to stop the redirects.
I ask that the topic ban be amended to prohibit proposing articles for deletion and to also prohibit blanking and redirecting pages. This remedy does something similar for a different editor in the same arbitration case. Reviewing this volume of redirects consumes substantial editor time. The redirects are leading to numerous notable topics no longer having articles. The redirects prevent the topics from undergoing community review at AfD, which TenPoundHammer is topic banned from. Cunard (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote "I have not searched for sources for the other television series but plan to do so later" regarding TenPoundHammer's redirects of 14 articles about television series between 11 March 2024 and 16 March 2024: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. After spending many hours searching for sources, I reverted all 14 redirects and added sources to all 14 articles. For several of the topics (such as Queer Eye for the Straight Girl and Dice: Undisputed), sources could be easily found with a Google search.

Between 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024, TenPoundHammer redirected 33 articles. Almost all of those redirects are in the music topic area which I do not focus on. I am concerned about the large number of redirects of topics that could be notable. Wikipedia:Fait accompli is an applicable principle as it is very time-consuming to search for sources on so many articles. Cunard (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer redirected three book articles on 20 March 2024 and 21 March 2024: 1, 2, and 3. I reverted the three redirects and added book reviews. Cunard (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefly (talk · contribs), you are the first arbitrator to comment in this amendment request since I presented evidence of continued disruptive editing on 18 March 2024. Should I present the evidence and request for expansion of the topic ban in a separate amendment request or keep it here? Cunard (talk) 10:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefly: I am responding to your question about "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings". Before the 2 August 2022 deletion topic ban, TenPoundHammer nominated numerous articles for proposed deletion and articles for deletion. He also redirected numerous articles in 2022. This link shows the last 500 redirects he did before the 2 August 2022 topic ban. If you search for the text "Tags: New redirect Reverted" on the page, there are 189 results. At least 189 of the redirects he did between April 2022 and July 2022 were reverted.

I am not aware of other recent negative interactions around these blankings. This could be because blank-and-redirects get significantly less attention than prods and AfDs. Television-related prods and AfDs are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Television and Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Article alerts. But blank-and-redirects are not listed anywhere so editors may not have noticed. I would have not become aware that TenPoundHammer had begun redirecting a large number of articles had he not redirected Monkey-ed Movies. He had previously nominated that article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monkey-ed Movies, where I supported retention.

It is unclear to me whether the existing topic ban includes proposing articles for deletion. I recommend that the topic ban be expanded to prohibit both proposing articles for deletion and blanking and redirecting pages since there is previous disruptive editing in both areas where he has prodded or redirected a large number of articles about notable topics.

Cunard (talk) 08:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I'd prefer to avoid voting for customized, user-specific sanctions – there's either a topic ban or there isn't. Also, no formal sanction should ever be needed to require adherence to the policies against personal attacks, harassment or similar behavior. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello TenPoundHammer, no worries. If I see correctly, the appeal currently contains a list of proposed replacements for the existing topic ban, but it doesn't describe what led to the ban and how this changed in the meantime. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:58, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, TenPoundHammer, and sorry for the slow response. I'm fine with reducing the scope of your topic ban, as for example proposed in the first motion below. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TenPoundHammer, thanks for asking. Motions are majority decisions; looking at WP:ArbCom#Members,* we'd currently need 7 support votes for the motion to pass. There are 5 so far.
    (*This can be more complicated when an arbitrator is generally inactive but decides to join the discussion here, in which case they're "active on the motion" and counted as active here. Irrelevant in the current situation.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am open to the idea of amending the TBAN so that it is a topic ban on initiating deletion discussions rather than a topic ban on deletion discussions as a whole. However, @TenPoundHammer: could you elaborate on how you would approach such deletions discussions differently than in the past? - Aoidh (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not immediately opposed to amending the topic ban following TenPoundHammer's reply above. Primefac (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My !vote is to modify the TBAN. I think a TBAN of initiating deletion-related discussions (that is, nominating articles for PROD, XfD, etc.) and closing deletion discussions is appropriate, but I am willing to lift their ban on participating in deletion discussions. I would also add the stipulation that any admin can reimpose the TBAN for all deletion discussions if they find that TenPoundHammer has returned to the bludgeoning and harassment conduct that led to the TBAN. Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Barkeep and reinstatement if concerns continue: I would rather that the reinstatement be indefinite, with TPH having to come back to ArbCom to get it lifted again, accompanied with an explanation of their conduct. I do not want to stop TPH from being able to appeal (as admin make mistakes, and TPH should be able to point that out) but also if TPH's full TBAN is reinstated I do not want it automatically lifted because of a time limit. Z1720 (talk) 01:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Z1720: I am suggesting that an individual admin could only reinstate for the first 12-18 months. So if no one does in that time, it would have to be reinstated by the committee or community rather than as an individual admin action. If reinstated it would then be indefinite. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm open to a modification along the lines of what Z1720 suggests (also not opposed to Izno's scope) though I would want the ability for an individual admin to reinstate for 12-18 months given the conduct issues from the case during discussions and the previous failure when a TBAN was removed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    TPH: it's probably better for someone who will be on the committee next year to tell you, but I would want at least 12 months of problem free editing and truthfully longer because of what happened previously when a topic banned was repealed. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appeal shows the appropriate level of self-reflection and understanding of the problems. I think this is a classic case of a good editor with a blind spot in a particular area. I'm quite happy to consider lifting or loosening the restriction. I'd be happy with either allowing TPH to participate but not initiate, or with lifting completely with a caveat like EW's that means it can be re-imposed with minimal bureaucratic overhead. I could also see my way to supporting something a bit more nuanced if those two options don't gain traction. Not that I doubt TPH's sincerity, but this seems to be a big blind spot and complaints about TPH and AfD stretch back many years (I seem to recall seeing complaints back when I was first starting out 15 years ago). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with modifying the TBAN to permit participating in XfDs (but not starting or closing), with an uninvolved admin being able to reimpose the full tban within the first 12 months. Maxim (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified

TenPoundHammer's topic ban (Remedy 9.1) is modified to read TenPoundHammer (talk · contribs) is topic banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter. An uninvolved administrator may reimpose a full topic ban on deletion discussions (broadly construed) within the first twelve months.

Support
  1. Feel free to wordsmith. Primefac (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "topic" removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is fine. Primefac (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support as written. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Aoidh (talk) 00:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Maxim (talk) 13:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
:# I think this is a reasonable enough solution. firefly ( t · c ) 09:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC) Striking while I consider the evidence around blanking-and-redirection, without prejudice to restoring the vote. firefly ( t · c ) 14:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. (As I'd prefer to avoid supporting user-specific/custom restrictions and TenPoundHammer has understandably asked for how this discussion continues, I'll formally add an oppose vote here so my non-support is properly counted and we have 6 arbitrators who have already voted.) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Arbitrator comments
Generally supportive, but as written I don't think the motion includes PROD, which I strongly believe it should. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this motion doesn't include PROD, I'm afraid the current sanction doesn't either. And I can see that, as proposing deletion is meant for exactly the cases that are perceived to not require a deletion discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The previous motion was broadly construed and this is not. If I recall correctly that's where the thinking was that it included things other than XfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep would you like to add "broadly construed" at the end of the first sentence? I would consider this addition to include PROD. Z1720 (talk) 16:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would also include CSD which I don't think is the current intent? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see that the current restriction applies to CSD or PROD and nor does this one. Ultimately I support largely lifting all restrictions but with the ability of an uninvovled admin to re-impose them. If there are issues with TPH's deletion-related conduct in the future we can look at them then. ArbCom retains jurisdiction over the matters it hears. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic bans are broadly construed by default, "unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with this. Note: As this is a topic ban, I'd say it clearly also prohibits complaining about someone's decision to nominate an article for deletion, challenging deletion discussion closures on the closer's talk page, starting noticeboard threads about deletion closures or participating in deletion reviews. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:20, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, if I understand correctly, you either believe that in the current case, the word "topic" shouldn't have the meaning described at WP:TBAN, or the word "topic" should be removed. While that's an option – a user-specific custom ban type – I personally wouldn't support it. A topic ban from closing deletion discussions, or less ambiguously, a topic ban from deletion discussion closures, does include discussions of such closures, e.g. at DRV. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf, that would already be said by the text "TenPoundHammer is banned from initiating or closing deletion discussions". Adding the word "topic" then just adds confusion and ambiguity. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that neither CSD nor PROD are deletion discussions, and I'd say that assuming they're included in the original remedy is a bit far-fetched. Regarding "topic" and "broadly construed", the motion is currently demonstrably not clear enough about what is included and what is not. I'll strikethrough "topic" in the motion as it's either irrelevant or confusing or comes with unintended implications. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine adding "broadly construed" as it was in the original motion and does allow for less pigeonholing. I would also agree with those above who indicate that the original does not mention CSD or PROD so this one probably should not either. Primefac (talk) 19:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, now that "topic" is gone and my interpretation of the proposed ban is narrow, I personally would recommend against adding "broadly construed". To decide this, perhaps an example would be needed of behavior that is meant to be (additionally) prohibited. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cunard - thank you for the ping. I have struck my vote for the time being. I am sympathetic to the idea of including blanking-and-redirecting as part of the new restrictions, although at that point I have to wonder whether we're reaching a point where it would be better to keep the original restrictions in place until they can be removed more cleanly... firefly ( t · c ) 14:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Has there been any debate or otherwise negative inter-editor interaction as far as these redirects go? BLAR does not seem to be covered under the original restriction, so pointing to it as a "problem" to consider with regard to deletion-related editing seems odd to me. Primefac (talk) 14:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I probably should have clarified that I've not come to a conclusion there, but wanted to pull my vote while I consider. I agree that it's not part of the original restriction, but I think it's reasonable to consider BLAR 'deletion-related editing'. Your point around "have there been any other negative interactions around these blankings" is what I'm looking for at the moment :) firefly ( t · c ) 14:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: Gender and sexuality

Initiated by Sideswipe9th at 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Gender and sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:ARBGENDER#Motion: Remedy transfer to Gender and sexuality shell case (February 2021)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Add WP:ARBECR as an optional restriction that can be applied on a per-article basis.


Statement by Sideswipe9th

The GENSEX content area currently contains some of the most contentious articles on enwiki. There is an anti-LGBT+ culture war occurring in large parts of the Anglosphere, and some of our articles document the people, organisations, and events involved. As of 7 March 2024 there are 34 indef-ECPed articles, and 1 indef-fully protected article. Of those 34 indef-ECPed articles, 8 were articles whose first protection log entry was indef-ECP.

In September 2021 ArbCom enacted ARBECR for use in the WP:APL and WP:CT/A-I content areas, as a content area wide restriction due to widespread disruption. While GENSEX as a whole does not see the same level of disruption, individual articles within it do. Articles like Gays Against Groomers, Libs of TikTok, and Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine often see spikes in talk page activity whenever those groups tweet about Wikipedia. Articles like 2023 Nashville school shooting document crimes committed by trans or non-binary people, which are subject to intense off-wiki disinformation campaigns (NBC News, AP News). Occasionally we get articles that are subject to misinformation like Lakewood Church shooting, where groups like Libs of TikTok spread misinformation that the perpetrator was trans (Vice, Advocate, The Independent (UK)).

One area we see frequent disruption in are biographies of trans and non-binary people. This typically takes the form of deadnaming and/or misgendering of the subject. Because of the overlap with WP:CT/BLP many of the articles that see this type of disruption are often protected under the BLP CTOP, and where these articles are protected the disruption typically spills over to the talk page. Often revdelling and/or oversight is needed, for both articles and talk pages. Currently it is typical for protection requests to be escalated both in the severity of the sanction (ie semi -> ECP) and the duration (ie 72 hours -> 1 month -> 6 months, etc). It is also typical for the disruption to resume once a time limited sanction expires, forcing patrolling editors to return to RfPP. Because of the frequency of disruption to GENSEX bios, having ARBECR as an option in the standard set of sanctions would make long term protection of these articles much more straightforward, as it would provide an avenue to long-term protection outside of an WP:IAR based indef protection as a first action. My sandbox evidence has 5 examples of bios in this content area where indef-semi or indef-ECP were the first protection action.

While drafting this request, an example of where this restriction would be helpful has occurred; Sweet Baby Inc. As evidenced in the recent GamerGate ARCA there are some sources describing this as GamerGate 2, and this has been reflected in the volume and quality of the talk page discussions about the article. There are currently several non-extended-confirmed editors who I would describe as POV pushing and advocating for content changes that go against multiple policies and guidelines. On 12 March 2024, several high follower Twitter accounts began tweeting their displeasure about the article's content, with one canvassing Twitter users to the article talk page (evidence can be emailed to the committee if required). ARBECR would be extremely helpful for this talk page and article, in the same way that it is helpful for combatting disruption on Talk:Israel–Hamas war.

The selective nature of this proposal could put a higher burden on new and patrolling editors than the content area wide version. However this is also something that already affects those editors, where ARBECR is applied to an article whose CT/A-I content is secondary to the primary topic of the article.

To sum up, I think we're pretty far from requiring ARBECR across the entire GENSEX content area. However I think it would be useful for ARBECR to be available as a per-article page restriction as part of the standard set of restrictions available to uninvolved admins in this content area. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:03, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To Barkeep: ARBECR confers one additional restriction that standard article protection does not; non-extended-confirmed editors are only allowed to make non-disruptive edit requests (WP:ARBECR#A1). Since I opened this request, 12 revisions on Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. were RD2ed, and the talk page has now been semi-protected for a week (page log). While ARBECR would not prevent talk page BLP violations, it would significantly reduce the potential for them. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: To clarify, are you suggesting an article talk page only variant of ARBECR#A1, with non-EC editors only being permitted to make edit requests on the talk page, while still allowing non-EC editors to participate in discussions about the article at other venues? Would the article also still be extended-confirmed protected? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: When you're saying admin should ECR talk pages, are you meaning admins should ECP talk pages? WP:ECR as currently written doesn't have a provision for just talk page restriction, nor can admins apply it outside of content areas authorised by the committee. As Aquillion notes for ECP, anything other than short-term semi-protection for article talk pages is prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: No worries. In that case, please see mine and Aquillion's points about ECPing talk pages being prohibited by WP:ATPROT. Extending ARBECR on a per-article basis however can be done without breaching ATPROT. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: I suspect extending ARBECR on a per-article basis would be an overall less controversial move to the wider community, than establishing a new ArbCom/CTOP exemption of ATPROT via ARCA. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: On evidence for disruption at other noticeboards, an IP editor just made a comment at a RSN discussion on a source publication they wanted added to the Sweet Baby Inc article. That comment has the same type of bad faith accusations and threats for administrative action that were being made on the article talk page prior to it being semi-protected. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: Just to note, the issues at Sweet Baby Inc briefly spilled over to WikiProject Reliability earlier today, and Talk:Sweet Baby Inc. was semi-protected second time yesterday for much of the same reasons as the first semi-protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Barkeep: Yeah, maybe. But I think two clarifications are needed if we're not enabling ARBECR on a per-article basis; That long-term or indefinite protection (semi or XC) of a talk page is allowable under CTOP if the circumstances indicate it (eg, prolonged off-wiki disruption or canvassing attempts). And that indefinite protection (semi or XC) of an article, as the first logged protection action, is allowable under CTOP if the circumstances indicate it (eg, article is about a highly contentious topic, see my sandbox evidence for examples where this has already happened).
The first clarification is necessary because I suspect there are admins at RFPP who will say that ATPROT prevents this. The second because there are admins at RFPP who require escalating durations before a page can be long-term protected against disruption, despite the need being advocated for by those requesting protection. With those two clarifications about the current processes, the need for per-article ARBECR is potentially non-existent at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clerks, I'm currently at 715/1000 words. Could I request an additional 250-500 words for back and forth with the committee if it's required? Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Primefac: I don't think we're at the tipping point for the entire content area, but we are for specific articles and their talk pages within it. This is why I'm asking for it on a per-article basis, rather than topic wide. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Nil Einne: I would envisage it the same way you have. If Elliot Page was ECRed, it would apply to any venue that specific article is discussed (eg AfD, BLPN, NPOVN, etc). It would not cascade to sub-articles like List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page or any other article/page where Page is mentioned as part of the content. Those other pages would need to have their own ECR protection. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Daniel Case

In the time that I've been reguarly reviewing the admin noticeboards, RFPP has seen regular requests to protect BLP articles about trans or non-binary people who prefer that standard pronouns not be used. Invariably these do not come out of disputes over the subject's birthplace or nationality—they are, as Sideswipe documents, deliberate misgenderings and deadnamings. Since these biographical issues are unique to this topic area, I have protected them (and tagged the article talk pages) under GENSEX rather than BLP. I have of late taken to RevDel'ing these edits as we would do with edits that use slurs or defamatory language to describe people, and I would also suggest to ArbCom that it encourage this as well.

Sometimes these have spilled over into articles only incidentally related to GENSEX issues, like Cheshire home invasion murders (one perpetrator, convicted of rape in the case, has subsequently transitioned in prison) and more recently Music of Minecraft (one of the two composers is trans) along with the aforementioned Sweet Baby article. I doubt these will be the only ones.

When I protect articles, I generally prefer to start with semi for the shortest duration possible. And that is how I have generally tried to protect these articles. It's good to assume good faith on the community's part, that once the little break is over, everyone will be grown up.

But with these articles, enough of them have worked their way up to indef semi or ECP, or been put there by admins less willing to give the community the benefit of the doubt than I am (and looking back at the AE logs, I too have reached the point of long-term and indefinite protection like I recently made to Hannah Gadsby and India Willoughby. Even I will admit that it seems like a mere formality with many of these articles to not start with longer-term protection, because almost every time we get there eventually anyway.

Look at 2022 NCAA Division I Women's Swimming and Diving Championships ... we thought last year that since the event was long over we could unprotect it. Instead we had to put two years worth of semi.

I would defy anyone, actually, to find an example of a relatively decent-length article about a trans or non-standard-pronoun person that we've had for some time which hasn't had to be protected like this. Looking at last year's log for this topic area, I see articles whose protections will expire sometime soon and will likely have to be reprotected (some of which, like Maia arson crimew and Bridget (Guilty Gear), already have been so far this year). Go back another year, and you'll see the pattern continuing.

I really believe it's time that we include at least misgendering and deadnaming as behavior covered by ARBECR. Maybe it doesn't have to be imposed as soon as the article's created like we have been doing with PIA (at least for articles in that area closely related to the current conflict), but we can definitely give admins the OK to impose it at the first sign of that disruption. It will definitely cut down on admin work down the line, and it seems like it already has been the default posture of some of the reviewing admins for some time now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nil Einne

I have no objection to any of these proposals although I definitely agree with User:Sideswipe9th that it's better if we allow admins to apply ARBECR as needed rather than apply it to the entire topic area.

BTW, User:Daniel Case, perhaps this is WP:BEANS but I think the risk is low. Georgina Beyer passed away just over a year ago, but this was well after a lot of the craziness and unless I'm missing something apart from a 7 day semi protection [11] about 2 weeks after her death due to some misgendering, the article seems to have survived relatively without problem despite this lack of protection and being of decent size [12]. (I mean there early problem reoccured but was resolved via blocking. The problem AFAICT seems to be mostly from editors insisting on removing female and calling her male in edit summaries, although I think at least most of these have stayed away from inserting male into the article.) I think it helped that she was significantly out of the public eye in recent years although I also think her pioneering role is still fairly well recognised within NZ.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(There's another example I can't discuss here for various reasons but could email if anyone is interested which while it is ECP protected, which I don't object to, looking at the circumstances I don't think it really fits into the pattern either.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:51, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sideswipe9th: and arbs: think we need clarity how per-article ARBECR applies to other pages. For topic level, as I understand ARBECR, it applies everywhere. So editors cannot bring up such issues at BLP/N or other noticeboard nor can they participate in AFDs etc as they can only make edit requests. I feel when disruption moves to another article admins can deal with it as required so isn't an issue but trickier for noticeboards. IMO if article-level ARBECR is applied it should apply not just to the article talk page but to all pages when discussing changes or concerns over that article like with standard ARBECR. Importantly, as I understand it, this technically allows any EC editor to close or revert any discussion by non-EC editors. However it doesn't apply to other articles so ARBECR on Elliot Page would not apply to List of awards and nominations received by Elliot Page (but an admin can apply it to both). And it's fine for editors to mention something of relevance at Elliot Page in discussion about the list but suggestions for changing Elliot Page would generally be off-topic on the list talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

  • I don't think really anything more is needed here than something like the community said about the Armenia-Azerbaijan general sanctions, where the liberal use of ECP to combat disruption was explicitly encouraged. As someone who had his name all over the AELOG over the last year about this case, I think de facto we already are using protection pretty liberally to stop bigotry, but an explicit instruction to do so would still be good guidance. Courcelles (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regarding the advantages ARBECR offers traditional protection - it is of course extremely rare for a talk page to be protected, per WP:ATPROT, and indefinite semi-protection (let alone ECR protection) for talk pages is almost unheard of; but much of the disruption is currently on talk, as the redactions of BLP violations on Sweet Baby Inc. show. And more generally, prior to semi-protection the talk page was a mess of WP:FORUM stuff, WP:ASPERSIONS, general complaints about Wikipedia as a whole, and requests that were obviously not compatible with policy, repeated in every single section to the point of disrupting all other discussion there. ARBECR would let admins place slightly looser but more persistent restrictions on talk pages that would still allow new and unregistered users to make edit requests while limiting the scope of disruption; I don't think that extended-protecting a talk page, by comparison, is a viable long-term solution even if policy allowed it. --Aquillion (talk) 16:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Do admins realize that they can apply ECR to pages in WP:CTOPs, though? I'm not opposed to just "they're already allowed to do it and they probably only need to do it occasionally" - I definitely don't think we need it for the entire topic area, just a few pages that have been the target of persistent off-wiki canvassing that has spilled over onto talk - but I'm not sure admins realize they can (has it ever been done?) So it might require a clarification. --Aquillion (talk) 01:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also see this just-now opened WP:AE request where an editor is appealing indefinite ECP on an a page done under AE (in a different topic area), which may be relevant to discussions of whether, when, and how admins can apply ECR. --Aquillion (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Wordsmith

As has been discussed, WP:GENSEX is a massive topic area with plenty of fuzzy borders. There are plenty of good contributions from non-EC editors, and many of Wikipedia's efforts to reduce the gender gap intersect with this topic area and include encouraging new editors to work on articles. Applying WP:ARBECR as the default would have too much collateral damage. Applying 500/30 to individual articles and other pages is already available as part of the standard set, so I don't think there is any change that needs to be made here. If the current protection expires and disruption resumes, admins can impose more long-term protection. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Swatjester

I am generally in favor of giving more tools to administrators trying to address disruption on contentious topics. So I'm aligned with the proposal. In terms of what the language looks like, personally, I agree with Sideswipe in that I'd like to see it as an expansion to the already-authorized list of standard restrictions. This has the benefit of 1) not requiring any change in process to implement, and 2) achieves the "as-needed basis" element without hindering any administrator's ability to escalate straight to it it, if they believe that's necessary. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 18:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SWinxy

RE: Primefac. Yes, there would be a negative impact by preemptively locking GENSEX articles under ECP. Small but helpful edits by non-extended confirmed users (and all IPs) at Death of Tyra Hunter would have been prevented from positive changes. This article also has never received protection in the two decades it has been there. But I don't know the extent of the negative implications that a preemptive protection would bring, and how to weigh that against the harm of the status quo. But I do know it would be some hinderance in the pursuit to collaborative encyclopedia building. I prefer having it be the norm that things can go straight to indef ECP if determined necessary. SWinxy (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I would like to ask the opposite question: would there be a significant and/or negative impact if we restricted all pages in this topic area to extended-confirmed editors? As a corollary, if I come across a page with Pending Changes enabled but every IP edit has been reverted, I will often switch it to semiprotection. If PC seems to be keeping out the worst of it but there are productive edits, I generally leave things be. This request seems to be indicating we have a tipping point of a similar nature.
    In other words, are we at this point with the entire topic area, broadly construed, where it is more practical to just prohibit everything, or would we lose out on enough not-bad contributions that we might turn folk away from the area entirely? Primefac (talk) 12:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • re:PF As we just established in the last clarification, this is a large topic area and one whose scope is not always immediately obvious. Both of these would be concerns for me to making ECR default and the evidence we have so far of disruption is not sufficient to overcome those concerns. As for the original request, page protection is already part of the standard set and per the request is being used by admins. I'm not sure how that differs from adding ECR to the standard set for the topic area. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is why I asked the question. Primefac (talk) 14:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sideswipe9th, @Nil Einne I understand the need to ECR the talk page but any time we do ECR in wider ways we get lots of requests for clarifications. So "You can't discuss this article at a noticeboard but can discuss a related article" is bound to create more of these requests and so I'm still back to "let admins use the authority they already have" or making clear, perhaps just through clarification here or perhaps through motion, that talk page ECR is definitely appropriate in this topic area before trying some kind of more sweeping solution. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sideswipe: I'm suggesting "admin should ECR talk pages when they have been disrupted". Is there evidence of noticeboard disruption from non-ECR editors? If so I don't think that evidence has been presented yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sideswipe: Yes I'm admittedly using ECP and ECR interchangeably and I shouldn't. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Conceptually it's important to remember that Contentious Topic procedures are a delegated grant of ArbCom's authority, in this case to To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This is why we ArbCom can act in ways that are an exemption to consensus. For instance there is a consensus, codified through policy, that says when an editor may be blocked. Contentious topic overrules that consensus and provides other criteria. There is a consensus against protecting article talk pages. As shown with ECR, ArbCom can overrule that consensus and provide other criteria. So WP:ATPROT doesn't strike me as some special barrier. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The exception already exists. Nothing new is being established. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @‌Sideswipe9th thanks for the update. My read of this reinforces the idea, for me, that our current processes can work here. Do you have a different read? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aquillion good news is that this very discussion can lead to that clarification. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

Initiated by Robert McClenon at 23:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
India-Pakistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACossde&diff=1214440521&oldid=1212446773

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APetextrodon&diff=1214440584&oldid=1212279589

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AOz346&diff=1214440640&oldid=1210896395

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUtoD&diff=1214440697&oldid=1214316349


Information about amendment request
  • Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/India-Pakistan#Contentious_topic_designation
  • Add Sri Lanka to list of countries within scope of contentious topic.


Statement by Robert McClenon

Sri Lanka has a common cultural history with India, and a common political history with India including British rule in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century and resistance to British rule.

Disputes over Sri Lanka and the Sri Lankan Civil War are common

I have just failed a dispute at DRN over an atrocity that was a prelude to the Sri Lankan Civil War:


Declined Arbitration Cases https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1159486635#Liberation_Tigers_of_Tamil_Eelam (10 June 2023)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1158663393#Sri_Lanka_Armed_Forces (5 June 2023)

Archived Disputes at WP:ANI

Archived Disputes at WP:DRN

Explanation and Clarification

I thank User:Oz346 for submitting an RFC to resolve the question of language in the article about the 1977 pogrom. The RFC and this amendment request are independent of each other, to address a specific content issue and a general problem of disruptive editing about Sri Lanka, resulting in too many disputes. The purpose of this amendment request is to identify Sri Lanka as a contentious topic, which will authorize administrators at Arbitration Enforcement to deal proactively with disruptive editing with sanctions such as topic-bans. I have also initiated one RFC concerning the UN report on the Sri Lankan Civil War, and am about to initiate another RFC concerning the reported sexual abuse by Sri Lankan peacekeepers in Haiti. The frequency of content disputes about Sri Lanka illustrates a need for a contentious topic designation. I could have submitted a Request for Arbitration, but it seems less difficult to expand the area of the existing designation. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank User:Pharaoh of the Wizards for mentioning WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation. I see that that project says: This WikiProject has served its stated purpose and is now defunct. I think that any conclusion that the project has been successful is premature. I do not mean that the project has been a failure, but that declaring victory and going home was premature. I think that the contentious topic designation can be and should be used concurrently with other efforts at reconciliation. Any reconciliation project is voluntary. The contentious topic procedure is binding. The editors who do not participate in a reconciliation project are the editors who should be topic-banned. The admins at Arbitration Enforcement can and should make a distinction between editors who work for reconciliation, and those who do not. It will take longer for peacemaking editors to revive the reconciliation project than it will take for the arbitrators to expand the scope of a contentious topic by adding another South Asian country. As User:Vanamonde93 points out, the colonial histories of Sri Lanka and of India were separate, but the modern histories of the two countries are entangled. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cossde

I thank Robert McClenon for attempting to reach a resolution in the DRN. This is not a decision I take lightly and hence I took some time to think it over and I feel I agree with Robert, Sri Lanka needs to be designated as a contentious topic and the on-going disruptive editing about Sri Lanka needs to end. Cossde (talk) 14:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon, the need to designate Sri Lanka as a contentious topic and include it in arbitration has been made evident in recent edits by editors mentioned here. Edit waring has taken place in Sexual violence against Tamils in Sri Lanka and List of attacks on civilians attributed to Sri Lankan government forces, where WP:NAT editing is taking place where editors are removing cited content and adding highly controversial content with sources that have not been established as RS and have refused to demonstrate verifiability of sources per WP:CHALLENGE. Funny enough government commissions that have had question on biasness by these editors in RfC have been cited as RS. This only emphasises the need to designate Sri Lanka as a contentious topic.Cossde (talk) 13:02, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Petextrodon

Statement by Oz346

Due to the failure of this discussion: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#1977_anti-Tamil_pogrom

I have opened up a RFC. I believe that RFC have a much higher chance of solving these disputes, due to the input of multiple voices, and will be probably be less time consuming for all involved. Oz346 (talk) 01:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by UtoD

The Sri Lankan Civil War directly involved India which initially supported the LTTE and later carried out a military intervention where Indian forces clashed with the LTTE resulting in the LTTE assassinating the Indian Prime Minister. The presence of the Indian forces within the country was also a major cause of the Marxist uprising in 1987 which happened alongside the Civil War. It is certainly related to India and Pakistan in the greater context. - UtoD 17:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards

I thank Robert McClenon for trying to resolve disputes in this area and Oz346 for submitting a RFC to resolve a dispute. But having edited in this area for years.I do not see it at having raised at this point to the level of the need for Contentious_topic_designation.Wikipedia:WikiProject Sri Lanka Reconciliation has taken care of disputes in this area for years and think we can revive it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Further the issues with Sri Lanka are distinct from the issues for India/Pakistan.Sri Lanka was never part of India during British Rule even Burma Province or Myanmar was part of India, British separated from British India on 1st April 1937.But Sri Lanka has always been separate.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde

I have not read the specific disputes linked above, but I want to note that as a consequence of Indian intervention in the Sri Lankan Civil War, and the subsequent Assassination of Rajiv Gandhi, a substantial portion of this conflict (though by no means the entirety) is already covered by the ARBIPA CT designation. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

There appears to be sufficient evidence of Sri Lanka being a (lowercase) contentious topic, as evidenced by Robert, that should warrant it officially becoming a Contentious Topic; whether that's as part of an existing India-Pakistan coverage or it's own independent CT, is rather immaterial given that the India/Pakistan CT doesn't have any additional topic-wide restrictions beyond the standard ones. 21:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith (2)

As stated by Vanamonde93, a substantial portion of this topic area overlaps with WP:ARBIPA already. I'd also like to note that parts of it are also covered by WP:GS/CASTE, which includes political parties and other social groups in Sri Lanka. It might be worth a review to see if these topic areas can be rolled into one umbrella case, similar to WP:GENSEX. If Sri Lanka is designated as a separate Contentious Topic, we could have articles covered under the new CTOP plus WP:ARBIPA, WP:GS/CASTE and WP:BLPSE at the same time. That may create more confusion than it would to just merge them. The WordsmithTalk to me 22:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Abhishek0831996

I would recommend against inclusion of Sri Lanka to ARBIPA. Sri Lanka is not as controversial compared to Pakistan, Afghanistan and India. Whenever disruption is happening in Sri Lanka-related topics, we can easily deal with them under our general guidelines like WP:DE. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • While there is geographical proximity to India, and obviously the shared British Colonial rule, the issues with Sri Lanka strike me as distinct from the issues for India/Pakistan. As a shortcut to this Sri Lanka appears 4 times in our India article, while Pakistan appears 29 times. So I'm initially inclined to say it would not fall under that umbrella and would need its own evidence to justify the creation of it as a contentious topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Barkeep49; this might need a case (or a CTOP motion similar to WP:HORN if things are straight-forward enough) but expanding IPA to include Sri Lanka does not appear to be an appropriate step. Primefac (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with my colleagues above - this would need a motion supported by independent evidence. firefly ( t · c ) 09:05, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan contentious topic area already covers – broadly construed – edits related to Sri Lanka as long as they are also related to India, Pakistan or Afghanistan. If I understand correctly, the request is about widening WP:ARBIPA so that Sri-Lanka-related content that has nothing to do with India, Pakistan or Afghanistan is additionally included. However, the reason provided for this request is that "Sri Lanka has a common cultural history with India [...]", which appears to be irrelevant to the request, as that aspect is already covered by the contentious topic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330

KronosAlight

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning KronosAlight

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
KronosAlight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBPS
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [13] 10 March 2024—violating WP:PSCI
  2. [14] and [15] 11 March 2024—ad nauseam advocacy for violating WP:PSCI, WP:ASPERSIONS; see also their previous edits at that talk page wherein they accuse me of violating WP:NPOV.
  3. [16] 10 March 2024—accusing me you're on the wrong side of Wikipedia's rules on NPOV
  4. [17] 10 March 2024—accept that you are violating Wikipedia rules
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on [18] 10 March 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
  • I do not seek a formal sanction, but someone needs to tell them they need to take a break from WP:Advocacy for WP:FRINGE science.
  • the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity—this is not part of WP:RULES, they are inventing rules of their own making. In fact, citing Boslough (2023) is more than enough WP:V for the YDIH being pseudoscience.
  • So, Boslough (2023) is sufficient for WP:V my view, and Holliday c.s. (2023) is an extra bonus.
  • If you want an example: K.R. Popper admitted that Marx's predictions were scientific, but these predictions failed in the real world. So, it suffices to quote Popper in order to show that Marx was mistaken.
  • @Aquillion: Wikipedia already has the article Younger Dryas impact hypothesis. There it is presented in full detail.
  • a maximalist interpretation—for those in the know: a WP:FRINGE interpretation. And no, we don't incorporate fringe theories into mainstream articles. We don't incorporate pseudohistory into Bible scholarship articles.
  • @Nycarchitecture212: You should mind both WP:BOOMERANG and WP:SANTA. Accusations of antisemitism without providing evidence are WP:ASPERSIONS. What you ignore is that scholars belonging to Reform or Conservative Judaism, see e.g. [19], [20], [21], [22], and "consensus based on archaeology" at [23], also oppose fundamentalist pseudohistory. And secular Jews completely oppose it. I'm not saying that Orthodox Jews are bad people. All I am saying is that their views about Ancient Israel have been debunked by mainstream historians and mainstream archaeologists.
  • @ScottishFinnishRadish: I don't think it was their first time, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1150#Nycarchitecture212 is deleting mainstream scholarship about Judaism. Especially [24]. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning KronosAlight

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by KronosAlight

I don't support the theory under discussion. It's at best an amusing science fiction narrative, but doesn't have (at least yet) any serious scientific backing.

As a simple statement of principle, a single academic research paper claiming to have debunked a theory propounded by multiple other authors with their own peer-reviewed academic research papers cannot be the basis for a claim in the 'voice' of Wikipedia that a theory has been "refuted" (which is the wording apparently desired) of neutrality vis-a-vis NPOV. This wouldn't hold in any other field or area of discussion, otherwise every paper claiming to have refuted Karl Marx for example would have been considered definitive, rather than a field of open and intense contestation. We would, at minimum (and I've been contributing to Wikipedia for 11 years now), take a passive voice of 'Critics claim that ...' for example, or some variation thereof.

There is nothing wrong with saying something alone the lines of, 'The theory has been considered pseudoscientific by critics' followed by the citation. There *is* a problem with the line "The theory has been refuted" followed by a single citation to a single paper. That is very, very rarely how research papers work.

Tgeorgescu was invited repeatedly to provide further citations - because, of course, multiple papers over a sustained period by peer-reviewed journals is a legitimate basis upon which a Wikipedia article can verify the verdict of falsity or pseudo-scientificity.

He has not done so, when it would have been much easier than endlessly arguing with me for simply enforcing NPOV.

I invite him yet again to do so - if a scientific theory has in fact been *refuted* (i.e. conclusively demonstrated to be false), it should not be difficult to find citations to reputable peer-reviewed scienific journals demonstrating so. In fact I suspect he would not find it difficult to find multiple papers seeking to debunk the claims made in this context, which might make such a cumulative case.

The easiest resolution would be for Tgeorgescu to simply cite the papers he claims (and I think do) exist in a new edit in order to justify the original wording of the article. I have no problem with him doing so and the wording then remaining the same. The Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis is not considered mainstream science, and this too would be fair to note in the article in question, but the claim that it has been definitively "refuted" with reference to a single paper isn't in line with how Wikipedia balances these important questions of neutrality, bias, and pseudoscientificity.

  • I'm not endorsing the theory – I think it's basically science fiction, a mad mixture of Ancient Astronaut Theory and Young Earth Creationism. But you need more than just one paper which has received little coverage and, last time I checked, basically no citations of its own, in order to justify the claim that it has been "refuted", which is a conclusive and final claim, not a provisional one.
    If the citation of a single academic paper (and I of course do not doubt that the paper itself was subject to entirely valid crutiny via a rigorous peer-review process) is "more than enough" to declare a niche scientific theory "debunked", then I do wonder what the minimal Wikipedia requirements might be to make such a claim. What’s the ‘low bar’, compared to this ‘high bar’?
    That isn't how the scientific process works, which necessarily involves back-and-forth disputes in which multiple researchers and schools of thought claim to have 'debunked' the other, nor is it how Wikipedia adjudicates the truth or falsity of the claims to pseudoscientificity, which has a higher threshold of proof.
    You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. KronosAlight (talk) 21:36, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Regardless of what decision is reached here regarding WP:ASPERSIONs and the like, it would probably be best to take this to WP:FRINGEN. I think theory is obviously fringe, but how to best describe that and what sources to use for it still requires some thought; people at WP:FRINGEN are more likely to be able to answer that question. --Aquillion (talk) 00:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nycarchitecture212

KronosAlight I'm sorry that you've also had a negative interaction with this individual. A few days ago, he attempted the same thing with me. When I messaged him on the article's talk page expressing my concerns, he didn't engage with them at all. He rigidly adheres to one academic narrative regarding biblical scholarship and condescends to anyone with a maximalist interpretation. Personally, I've decided to cease interactions with him. Regrettably, based on my experiences, he appears to be a contentious editor who doesn't engage in discussions and debates in good faith. He frequently reverts edits without delving into the details on talk pages and endeavors to impose his narrow point of view, exploiting Wikipedia policies to suppress discourse and shape articles from a singular perspective rather than incorporating multiple academic viewpoints. While I'm not certain about Wikipedia conventions in such situations or the specific rules he may be violating, it seems implausible that his conduct is permissible. I do think the wording was a little choppy, but your request for him to bring more sourcing is valid and the right way to move the conversation forward.

He also reverted my edits of an anti-Jewish trope about pigs and blood that was poorly sourced and unrelated to the article. The trope of Jews and pigs and blood is best well known in Judensau (German for "Jew-sow") a derogatory and dehumanizing image of Jews that appeared around the 13th century. Its popularity lasted for over 600 years and was revived by the Nazis. Jews, who were typically portrayed as having obscene contact with unclean animals such as pigs or owls or representing a devil, appeared on cathedral or church ceilings, pillars, utensils, etchings, etc.

He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perputrating pseudohistory and was ranting about this again a few days ago which got his post struck. One of the consequences of that is he is subtly pushing a pseudohistory revisionist agenda to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient Israel characters (mythical or not) solely as Yahewists. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. I hope that a level-headed administrator will thoroughly investigate these matters. Such action would send a clear message about the true culture of Wikipedia. - Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not quite; I feel quite confident in my characterization and felt an obligation to weigh in to defend KronosAlight and share my experience. I've never had to contribute to one of these posts before but Tgeorgescu's heavy-handed use of admin resources, approach to sourcing and lack of good faith are genuinely concerning, something I've never encountered before.
    My attempts to engage in discussion on talk pages with this user have been sidestepped, and he has made some objectionable statements in the past, which other users have noted that I should be able to raise.
    I've raised valid concerns, most recently regarding the edit about pig's blood on the Ahab page he insists on, and his disregard for my input on the Abrahamic Religions talk page. If you look at what I wrote, it makes quite a lot of sense. Since you are contemplating a logged warning for speaking up, I'm here to contribute positively in good faith and enjoy myself; I didn’t come here looking for trouble. My area of expertise is uncommon and provides a valuable perspective within the framework of Wikipedia policy and discourse. Articles flourish when multiple views converge, and new information is synthesized through discourse. If you 100% disagree with what I wrote, it would be helpful if you could address my specific concerns, and then offer advice on how to refine my approach if necessary, which requires more work but is far more productive and positive. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 01:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the full quote: The POV of Orthodox Jews upon early Judaism is to a large extent void currency inside the mainstream academia. In mainstream history, it's void. Same as Jehovah's Witnesses dating the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Despite your protestations, it is clear that both these groups promote cult pseudohistory. I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory." tgeorgescu (talk) 22:1233, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

This statement could be considered controversial or offensive, as it directly criticizes the perspectives of certain religious groups, labeling them as promoters of "cult pseudohistory." The use of the term "void currency" suggests that the views of Orthodox Jews on early Judaism are completely disregarded in mainstream academia, which is a broad and potentially misleading generalization. Similarly, equating the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses regarding the fall of Jerusalem with pseudohistory could be seen as dismissive or disrespectful.

The phrase "I do have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" indicates a strong bias against certain interpretations of history, which could be interpreted as antagonistic towards groups associated with those interpretations.

While the speaker may intend to express a commitment to historical accuracy, the language used can be seen as targeting specific religious groups, which might be perceived as anti-Jewish or anti-religious sentiment. It’s important to critique specific historical claims or methodologies without broadly dismissing or demeaning the perspectives of entire communities. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) Moved to correct section. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serpahimblade, I reached out in good faith to get your take on my specific concerns about those articles. Do you mind taking a look and weighing in on each one? To reiterate, he changes articles to describe ancient Jews solely as Yahewists and to erase any mention of Judaism from articles about ancient Jewish figures including the Ahab and in the Abrahamic Religions articles. It's important to note that while some Yahewists may be Jewish, not all Yahewists are Jewish. Therefore, it's inappropriate to categorize these ancient characters from the Torah (mythical or not) as Yahewists. Also, the pig blood thing was upsetting and another user said it was poorly sourced too. I was really surprised when he reverted these edits. I attempted to update it but he reverted my changes and circumvents the responsibility of having good faith discussions. Nycarchitecture212 (talk) 03:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by BilledMammal

Bishonen, I would read that comment as saying that Orthodox Judaism is a cult; it’s not quite the same thing as saying Judaism is, but given that Orthodox Judaism is the largest branch of Judaism I don’t think it’s a "blatantly misleading aspersion" 04:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree; in contentious topic areas editors need to be careful and precise in what they say. BilledMammal (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning KronosAlight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I might otherwise see this as a content dispute, but I'm quite concerned by the type of attitude displayed even at this very request: You and I both know a number of other scientific papers exist which claim to have debunked the hypothesis. Just take 5 minutes to go find them and cite them and fix the article. I won't argue with you if you do that. If you know about more sources for the claim, and think it needs more, you ought to be adding them, not removing the claim even though you apparently know it's verified. That's textbook tendentious editing, and if that's how this KronosAlight intends to handle situations like this, I rather wonder if they should be editing in this area (or indeed, any area) at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As to Nycarchitecture212, you seem to have rather grossly mischaracterized the statements you are supposedly quoting. That's not appropriate either. I think there needs to be at least logged warnings issued here, if not more, but would like some additional input if anyone has any. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:54, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that there should be at least a logged warning. The editing is so pointy that I wouldn't object to a topic ban, though I lean slightly towards a logged warning in this case as there hasn't been a pattern of this behavior presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nycarchitecture212, as to how to "refine your approach", as you stated, you might start by not characterizing someone's statement that they "have an ax to grind against pseudohistory, especially against fundamentalist pseudohistory" as "[having] an ax to grind with Jews". Either you are implying that Jews in general are engaged in fundamentalist pseudohistory, or you are totally mischaracterizing the statement to make it look inflammatory and unacceptable when it was not. Whichever one of those it is, that's completely inappropriate. And if you can't recognize it as such, I have my doubts as to whether you should continue editing in this topic area at all. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose I can, given that, see how you got there without it being as bad, but let's not see something like that again. As to resolution, I would go forward with the logged warning, and hope that will suffice to settle things down. If not and we're back here again, we can decide what more to do at that point. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm afraid I mind. AE does not resolve content disputes or make binding decisions about what an article should or should not say. If there remains disagreement over that, and that can't be resolved via discussion, additional forms of dispute resolution might be necessary to involve other editors. But that decision is not for me, or anyone here, to make. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will proceed with the closure proposed by Bishonen. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • KronosAlight says here and now that they don't support the theory under discussion, I presume the myth of the Great Flood, or possibly the specific "Black Sea deluge hypothesis". That has not prevented them from sealioning it within an inch of its life, under cover of "simply enforcing NPOV", both on Talk:Flood myth and indeed above on this page. I suggest an indefinite page ban from Flood myth and its talkpage. At least that.
As for Nycarchitecture212's lengthy posts above, it's disgraceful to summarize what Tgeorgescu says here as "He has a self-described ax to grind with Jews that he describes as a cult perpetrating pseudohistory", as Seraphim has noted. Tgeorgescu describes Jews as a cult? No he doesn't. A logged warning for this blatantly misleading aspersion would certainly be appropriate. Bishonen | tålk 19:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]
@BilledMammal: maybe so. But Nycarchitecture212 needs to be a lot more careful in talking about these sensitive subjects. Bishonen | tålk 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Zilch-nada

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Zilch-nada

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
JayBeeEll (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Zilch-nada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Gender and sexuality#Contentious topic designation
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 17 January 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Basically this user wants to use talk-pages as a debating society, in sensitive topic-areas. Their corrosive behavior is not limited to contentious topics (see e.g. this early edit summary) but their editing is heavily focused on contentious areas. I think that it would be good if they were firmly directed away from contentious topics, and battleground editing more generally. --JBL (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added three additional diffs of inappropriate behavior on a different page (Talk:Gender-critical feminism) in the topic area. Also, it is worth observing that the contentious edit (13 March) on Gender (whose reversion led to some of the discussions mentioned above) came after this earlier discussion (9–10 February) in which two editors objected and none supported the proposed edit. --JBL (talk) 17:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarifying about diff 9: after a third party politely requested they retract the personal attack, they declined to do so. (They have, eventually, struck the attack, but only after this discussion was opened.) --JBL (talk) 17:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[26]

Discussion concerning Zilch-nada

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Zilch-nada

(I am requesting to exceed the 500 word limit.)

As I responded to Sandebeouf on my talk page, I apologised for my edit on Sarah Jeong, blindly not seeing the editing notice (I was not aware that the article itself was so contentious.) Furthermore, the notion of BLUDGEONING is a very difficult one to make. "Typically, this means making the same argument over and over, to different people". I have never even done this. In fact, if you see the talk pages across Reverse racism, Sarah Jeong, and Gender - contentious areas which editors accuse me of misconduct -, I have employed different arguments depending on the shifting of consensus. For instance, at Gender I proposed that the "man"/"woman" dichotomy was unclear, and then first suggested to replace to "male"/"female" (which was reliably sourced). Following that being not particularly accepted, I proposed changing the definition to relate to "man"/"woman"/boy/girl as it corresponded with the particular source (the WHO) that had been particularly cited. As for the talk page on Sarah Jeong, I likewise said that a particular statement was out of context. My first idea was to lengthen to statement to employ quotations of tweet(s) which I thought were strangely absent, then, as that clearly didn't seem popular, I suggested shortening the statement as I felt that the current wording of three lines was very awkward not to include quotations.

I don't treat talk pages as debating societies. But that does not mean there is no room for debate. If I make a couple of comments that are individually responded to by different people, I'll continue to respond to them; I never opened up any separate, unrelated discussion upon any discussion I was in. I was only responding to fellow talk page editors.

Furthermore, what is quite vague is the notion "Bludgeoning discussions in the face of clear consensus". There was no clear consensus on the article talk page for Sarah Jeong; the 2018 standing was established from no consenus in 2018: Likewise, even though it clearly seemed that multiple editors in the past few days have formed what seems to be a new consensus in opposition to quotation of tweets, I, as mentioned aboved, opined the shortening of the contentious statement, for the same reason as my original; the statement was awkward, and lacking context. Sandebeouf accuses me of misconduct on Reverse racism, when I was solely pointing out the flaws of the current wording, considering the flaws of the sources - not ignoring them. User:Crescent77 was also a user challenging the main opinion in that discussion. The article talk page on Gender does not have such a clear cut consensus in recent discussion (of course I understand that the current wording is consensus, requiring consensus to be changed), unlike the claims, because I was in conversation with only two people; User:Beccaynr and User:-sche. As there was no consensus among a mere three people, I have considered opening up an RfC, for the main purpose of widening the discussion. I am well aware of that route and acknowledge that it is regularly more suitable than so-called "holding the stick".

Otherwise, I do apologise for any usage of belittling language towards other editors; much of my edit summaries early into this account were admittedly immature (this is my first account), and I aim much more now for civility. As per the list of accusations; I agree that no.2, no.3, and the recent no. 5 and no.6 were unjustified. The no.5 and no.6 I apologised for recently in my talk page. As for the other accusations, I don't know how you could construe "Stop it with the patronizing" as dismissive, other than it being against dismissiveness, and no.7 (I genuinely have no idea how what I said here was in any way uncivil). Regardless, I sincerely apologise for the two main things I am accused of: Dismissiveness and debative attitude. I understand the solutions for the first and the second respectively; for dismissiveness, to listen to and respect people who I myself find dismissive, and for debative attitude, consider "dropping the stick", or potentially opening the discussions to wider realms such as RfCs. --Zilch-nada (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Response to Sangdebeouf's first comment; as above, I was not the only dissenter in that discussion.
  • Response to Sangdebeouf's third comment; I responded to a statement which outright ignored what I was arguing for. I responded to the statement, ""reverse racism"...not a description of reality", because it was frankly an outright strawman, as I clearly never suggested the concept mirror reality whatsoever. Perhaps "strawman" is a better word than "polemic"; either way, I was responding to bad-faith arguments.
Zilch-nada (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Aquilion: how do they speak for themselves if my logic employed also followed that of abundantly sourced reliable media?
Zilch-nada (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me specify; what I said was my opinion, and indeed not a relevant one. But upon merely using "scare quotes" I was pushed to elaborate upon a notion of illegitimacy. I agree that that was irrelevant for the talk, but it was an opinion that was asked for. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to Beccaynr: I demanded a response from no one. I have considered opening up the talk on gender; that is why I have ceased editing it; it's clear it's getting nowhere.
Zilch-nada (talk) 05:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JBL, I also genuinely do not see how no. 9 and no. 12 were uncivil at all. No. 9 was in fact an apology, and I have since struck out my statement in the talk page that I apologised for in no. 9. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sangdeboeuf

I also advised Zilch-nada that CTOP applies to biographies of living persons at 22:55, 14 March 2024. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See also Zilch-nada's WP:BLUDGEONING of discussions in the archives of Talk:Reverse racism, which is within the American politics topic area. They are often the sole voice pushing for a contentious change to the article, e.g. Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9#Reverted edit, where they display a lack of WP:CIVILITY as well as a failure to WP:LISTEN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For an example of the incivility I'm talking about, see their reply to NightHeron's brief explanation of the existing consensus on how to describe the topic of reverse racism, which Zilch-nada calls "disruptive polemic". If anyone is guilty of disruption in that thread it's Zilch-nada with their multiple WP:TEXTWALLs arguing points that have had already been discussed multiple times. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC) edited 01:25, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Beccaynr

On 15 March 2024, I wrote notes on Zilch-nada's usertalk [27], [28], about Zilch-nada's conduct in the Talk:Gender discussion Zilch-nada opened on 9 February 2024 (permalink), after some review of Zilch-nada's usertalk history, including a 16 December 2023 note [29] about WP:BLUDGEON from HTGS, described as "just as something to keep in mind; something to think about", and an 11 September 2023 note from Dlthewave [30] that includes discussion of "excessively long comments" and refers to Zilch-nada's participation at Talk:Gender-critical feminism and Talk:Reverse racism.

Zilch-nada continued to restate their point/question on 18 March 2024 in the section I had opened at their usertalk [31]. From my view, three editors, including myself, have explained our perspectives about the current lead to Zilch-nada during the discussion at Talk:Gender, links to past discussions were offered [32], and no one is obligated to answer to Zilch-nada's satisfaction.

I have since skimmed Zilch-nada's participation in discussion at Talk:Isla Bryson case (permalink), which HTGS had referred to. I have some concerns about the potential for future disruptive conduct from Zilch-nada, including because of what seems like some WP:IDHT responses to constructive feedback offered about participation in the GENSEX topic area. Beccaynr (talk) 01:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a discussion opened by HTGS on 15 December 2023 at WT:MOS/Biography#Talking about a person’s “former” gender related to the Isla Bryson case article, where Zilch-nada made a personalized comment directed at participants [33]. Beccaynr (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the discussions linked above at Talk:Isla Bryson case and WT:MOS are likely better appreciated if read in full, but some diffs from Zilch-nada at Talk:Isla Bryson case include 00:41, 15 December 2023 Was Isla Bryson previously a man? I cannot believe I am not exaggerating when I say this is Orwellian avoidance of the question. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Answer the question.; 01:00, 15 December 2023; 01:04, 15 December 2023; 01:10, 15 December 2023. Another example of referring to participants as "you people" is at 05:02, 15 December 2023.

Zilch-nada has indicated an interest in the gender article lead, and the second diff in my statement here has three diffs of some of my experience discussing the lead with Zilch-nada. I previously participated in discussions about the lead, and from my view, collaboration and consensus were possible because ultimately, the discussions were not a battleground. Beccaynr (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Some relevant bits from an exchange I had with Zilch-nada from the MOS discussion mentioned above, regarding the Isla Bryson case:

  • [34]: "prior to her transition": yes, when "she" was a man. Jesus Christ.

When I objected to their use of scare-quotes around "she" for a trans woman, they said these things:

  • [35] Weird accusation. The article uses "she"; that's fine. But I'm not respecting a rapist in talk - I have mostly used the term "they" -, nor am I even remotely suggesting to misgender the average trans person. Nonsense.

When I explained to them that BLPTALK applies even to people who have done terrible things:

  • [36] Not all "transitions" deserve equal respect - a view clearly espoused by the police, the prisons, politicians like Sturgeon, etc. etc.; that's how I'll refer to this "person" in talk. Is me putting scare quotes around "person" insulting all "persons"? Give it a break.

I think these speak for themselves. --Aquillion (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zilch-nada

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I haven't gone through every one of the diffs yet, but so far it's a mixed bag. Some of them I'm struggling to see the incivility in. Others, particularly those shown by Aquillion, are clearly inappropriate. I should be able to finish reading through everything tomorrow, I'm just commenting now because I noticed this hasn't received any admin attention yet. The WordsmithTalk to me 05:16, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After looking into this deeper, there does appear to be a civility and WP:IDHT problem here. I do see that Zilch-nada has apologized for the poor language and immaturity. I'm on the fence about what should be done about it. Leaning slightly towards a logged warning for now, with the understanding that if we end up back here a topic ban is very likely. I'm open to arguments either way. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by andrew.robbins

Appeal accepted. As such, the extended-confirmed protection issued by Courcelles at Talk:Elissa Slotkin is revoked, and the previous semi-protection is restored. As that semi-protection was not a CTOP action, it can be appealed through ordinary means in line with the protection policy. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:02, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear and substantial consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
andrew.robbins (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)andrew.robbins (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
Talk:Elissa Slotkin Extended Confirmed Protection for one year. There does not appear to be a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. There is no discussion with regard to this sanction on Talk:Elissa Slotkin until after its implementation (and even then, only by a third user). There is an active allegation of WP:Meatpuppetry at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article but ECP-lock is not a requested remedy.
Administrator imposing the sanction
Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
Diff of notification

Statement by andrew.robbins

This page was already semi-protected due to events in July of 2023. Per WP:ATPROT, "Talk pages are not usually protected, and are semi-protected only for a limited duration in the most severe cases of disruption." Extended-confirmed protection of talk pages is so rare that is not even mentioned in the policy. If the disruption in question was the meatpuppetry allegation (which, granted, it may not have been. I can't read Courcelles mind.), ECP-locking is not at all proportionate. If the allegation is confirmed, the discussion can simply be removed after-the-fact. Even if found to be entirely inauthentic, the discussion was never uncivil or disruptive. The time-frame of this sanction of one year is also utterly disproportionate. The page is already semi-protected and had no pattern of repeated violations that would justify an ECP lock of that length. I am requesting that this sanction be reverted and the prior semi-protected status be restored. andrew.robbins (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am beginning to realize that much of this hinges on the proceedings over on the noticeboard. It may make sense to simply hold off on this appeal until that investigation is conducted given both the prevalence of unconfirmed assertions in the statements below and that a finding of innocence would mean that there is no valid protection from meatpuppets concern in the first place. andrew.robbins (talk) 21:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly disagree with the notion that discussions have been neither uncivil nor disruptive. There were numerous instances of personal attacks leveled by Thespeedoflight and his socks, at the minimum. And while it might be unusual to ECP a talk page, it is also, as noted below, highly unusual for there to be this level of off-wiki coordination. I was hesitant in the past to disclose off-wiki accounts, but yeah, it’s @ProgFlipPAWI. Just scroll through his tl and see how the replies to his tweets line up exactly with the actions happening here; this isn’t speculation, users here have already admitted to being socks. Cpotisch (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please take the sockpuppet/meatpuppet speculation to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Meatpuppetry/Slotkin article. This is not the place for that.
Admins, can you strike? andrew.robbins (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dcpoliticaljunkie: With all due respect, I think that the talk page got significantly more hostile after it was ECP'd, not more productive.

Also, the allegations of meat-puppetry are just that. Allegations. Acting as if they're confirmed when they are very much an open question is WP:ASPERSIONS and I'd greatly appreciate you cutting it out. andrew.robbins (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Drmies: The reason that I fell back on "just remove it later" is that Dcpoliticaljunkie did just that with the SPI referenced by wordsmith on a fairly large thread at Special:Diff/1212594724/1213401146 and nobody raised an issue with it. andrew.robbins (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: @Dcpoliticaljunkie's last comment. I'm curious what you mean by "This problem would go beyond manageable if non-ECP editor participation were to restart." There is no problem there aside from OrcaLord vehemently disagreeing with your position. The proper solution to that is to take it to dispute resolution if you can't handle it.
I am going to be completely honest, I don't think this is about false consensus. I think this is about dissent. andrew.robbins (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by Courcelles

  • I see the SPI is already linked. Given the off-wiki issues, I contend this was a reasonable use of CTOP authority to ensure the proper functioning of the project. ECP for a talk page is a rather unusual action, but active attempts to recruit meat puppets is also unusual. Being at the intersection of AP2 and NEWBLPBAN makes the article and the talk page flash point for this type of disruption. Courcelles (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dcpoliticaljunkie

I believe this enforcement action is warranted and hope it will allow for more collaborative editing of this article. For whatever reason, a cabal of Twitter users have chosen to turn this article into a battleground driven by their dislike of the subject as flagged by Cpotisch and admin Muboshgu here. One of the ringleaders of this group of Twitter users (@progflippawi, believed to be the puppetmaster Thespeedoflightneverchanges recently admitted to actively spamming other anti-Slotkin Twitter users to find "experienced Wikipedia editors" to help add negative information to Slotkin's article. This comes after their numerous attempts to sockpuppet have been detected and banned. Simultaneously with the sockmaster's recruitment, a series of editors with sparse editing histories swarmed the talk page to argue for one of the sockmaster's pet inclusions which was previously removed by Drmies. Following the ECP, OrcaLord (part of the anti-Slotkin Twitter cabal who was blocked from the page for edit warring by ScottishFinnishRadish and separately previously warned for original research on the page is the only one of the group who is ECP to argue for the dubious inclusion: while not ideal, it is much more manageable than the swarm following blocked editor Thespeedoflightneverchanges's Twitter recruitment. The enforcement has helped. My report on the administrator's noticeboard has more details about the meatpuppetry concerns on this article in addition to the sockpuppet issue. Need to get back to work so will leave it at that. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 18:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Red-tailed hawk and @Seraphimblade: I understand your concern about ECP of a talk page, however, I'd love to hear what your alternate solution to protect the page from off-wiki coordination and false consensus would be? @Drmies previously semiprotected the page which has helped in stopping the direct sockpuppetry. If the page is not ECP protected, I'm unclear what the mechanism for dealing with off-wiki canvassed editors swarming and tag teaming the talk page. I hope the informed discretion of admins involved in the page wouldn't be overturned by others without full understanding of the situation.
Even now, with ECP protection, I think the ongoing discussion on this section underscores the difficulty and patience required for other editors on this page. This problem would go beyond manageable if non-ECP editor participation were to restart. Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk) 13:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Statement by Drmies

Protecting a talk page is more common than some may thing, particularly in cases of continued vandalism or nationalist editing, for instance, and ArbCom is given the authority to do those kinds of things also even if they exceed what might be the ordinary reach of the ordinary administrator. andrew.robbins argues "well you can remove stuff later", but that (willfully or not) skips over the very fact that talk page disruption, esp. by people who act as meatpuppets would, is quickly highly disruptive, and the more posts there are, with responses and responses to responses, the harder it is to just remove a thread as a forum post. This semi-protection was entirely within the administrator's discretion, and even more so given the post-1992 status. Drmies (talk) 19:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by andrew.robbins

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Aquillion

Also see this open GENSEX clarification / amendment request, where the issue of ECP / ECR as it relates to WP:CTOPs is being discussed; it's still open, but at least some arbs are weighing in with the position that admins already have the authority to apply indefinite ECR to specific pages in CTOPs. --Aquillion (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear (and I apologize if my replying like this is improper) my position is not that Courcelles did not have the authority to do this. My position is that this was a disproportionate and unnecessary exercise of said authority. andrew.robbins (talk) 16:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Swatjester

As a general principle, I think that any standard restriction able to be authorized on a contentious topic is, by definition, proportionate and necessary. If it were not, the Committee would not have authorized administrators to have such wide discretion in imposing said restrictions unilaterally. It would be self-defeating to the purpose of the CTOPS procedure to require a continuum of escalation in protection beyond what the imposing administrator thinks is appropriate. And I think in the case where an article falls under two separate CT areas and one of those is BLP, there should be an additional presumption in favor of preventing disruption, even if that comes at the cost of non-EC editors being able to contribute. SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 19:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cpotisch

I am not involved in this matter, although I was part of past disputes on the article. My viewpoint here is that discussions on the talk page absolutely have been uncivil and disruptive, and that the well-established influence of sock/meatpuppets has resulted in the deterioration of the quality of the talk page discussion. While it might be unusual to ECP a talk page, it is also, as noted below, highly unusual for there to be this level of off-wiki coordination. I was hesitant in the past to disclose off-wiki accounts, but yeah, it’s @ProgFlipPAWI, and scrolling through his timeline will show quite clearly what the issue is here. I’m bringing this up not to target users but to make clear that we are dealing with a highly-unusual situation that requires potentially-unusual remedies. A talk page spammed to swing outcomes will result in editorial decisions difficult to identify and reverse. Cpotisch (talk) 23:51, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OrcaLord

I support the User:Seraphimblade here, ECP a talk page for a whole year just over an unconfirmed sockpuppet accusation is overdue and drastic, it should be removed once the accusation is closed. Even if there is any confirmed sockpuppet, any effect of sockpuppetry can be cleaned up by just deleting the sections started by socks and the replies from socks, while the current ECP status prevents lots of potential goodwill editors from providing any contribution to that page which will lower its quality. Also, the page itself is ECPed and we should generally trust their ability to decide what should be added based on Wikipedia policy and sufficient information, ECP the talk page will only limit the information they can get.

Statement by (username)

Result of the appeal by andrew.robbins

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not weighing in on the appropriateness/proportionality of the 30/500 protection just yet, but I do want to note that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Thespeedoflightneverchanges is relevant here for additional context. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:11, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems like the use of ECP was valid and within Courcelles's authority under the Contentious Topics designations. I'd be open to arguments for reducing the duration, but I don't think there's likely to be a consensus for removing it entirely. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    After taking another look, I think it would be reasonable to downgrade to semi-protection and reduce the duration, somewhere between 1 week and 1 month. If we see significant disruption by autoconfirmed accounts, we can always upgrade it again. The WordsmithTalk to me 21:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courcelles, while of course use of ECP is within discretion here, what was the reason for using ECP rather than semiprotection? Shutting out editors from even a talk page is a drastic action, and ECP shuts out substantially more, so I think that does deserve more consideration than a rubber stamp. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OrcaLord and Cpotisch, I have removed your incorrectly placed comments. Threaded discussion is not allowed at AE. If you would like to make statements, please make them in a section of your own, as instructed above. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think I agree with Red-tailed hawk. I do not see sufficient justification for ECP here. I'm open to hearing from the protecting administrator, and perhaps I would change my mind with that, but otherwise I would at least reduce this to semiprotection. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm just plainly not seeing the justification for placing ECP on the article talk page on 18 March and keeping it for a year. I plainly do not see disruption in the talk page history that warrants ECP; within the past month one autoconfirmed sockpuppet posted a single comment on 7 March, but that does not justify protecting the whole article's talk page (something that ought truly be a last resort) for a whole year. As for the potential of future disruption, as WP:ECP notes, Extended confirmed protection should not be used as a preemptive measure against disruption that has not yet occurred.
    Administrators have authority to make unilateral CTOP actions, but they still have to be justified to survive appeal. A single edit by an autoconfirmed sockpuppet account on 7 March does not warrant the imposition of a 1-year extended-confirmed protection beginning on 18 March. I believe that this action should be overturned and converted into nothing more stringent than some temporary sort of semi-protection. As such, I would accept the appeal. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 00:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also find it hard to see this as "reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption", basically per Red-tailed hawk. I support accepting the appeal and restoring the previous non-CTOP semi-protection, which no one here seems to be objecting to, without prejudice against returning to ECP if there's additional disruption in the future. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OrcaLord

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning OrcaLord

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Dcpoliticaljunkie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:20, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
OrcaLord (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log


Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Talk:Elissa_Slotkin#Labor_Positions_and_the_2023_UAW_strike Further explanation below: This is the editor's first engagement on this article following a 3-month block for disruptive editing. The discussion shows continuing intent to insert an opinion which multiple experienced editors point out is attempting to not supported by mainstream reliable sources (only supported by Jacobin and Twitter user noted below) and refusal to drop the insistence to include their spin of living person's comments.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. July 2023 Warning re: original research on same article from Binksternet
  2. November 2023 90 day ban from article for disruptive editing from ScottishFinnishRadish
  3. 3 separate protections of page for disruptive editing in last 6 months
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on Nov 18 2023 by ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on November 2020 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Editor was previously blocked from editing this page for disruptive editing and edit warring as linked above. In their first return to the article, the editor has argued strenuously for inclusion of original research that violates biography of living persons policy refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK in conjunction with suspected meatpuppetry organized on Twitter by repeated sockpuppet Thespeedoflightneverchanges. Has also discussed how to wikilawyering regarding this page on Twitter: "Sometimes there are small things in it that you can use to make your point/negate their point" which is more combative/warfare than collaboration to improve encyclopedia.

Editor's contributions outside of this article are positive from what I can tell, however, they've previously been noted to be part of a group of "anti-Slotkin Twitter editors" who admin Muboshgu has noted are looking to influence the article with POV-pushing.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[37]

Discussion concerning OrcaLord

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by OrcaLord

WP:DROPTHESTICK is obviously not applicable here. This is an active discussion with no achieved consensus yet. Dcpoliticaljunkie has been a consistent aggressor on both the Elissa Slotkin talk page and in many other areas, often making destructive edits to the Elissa Slotkin page without consensus, as well as accusing anyone who disagrees with him of meatpuppetry. The fact that Dcpoliticaljunkie is bringing up my previous ban on the page for edit warring is just further evidence that this request is an attempt to silence my position on the talk page, as I have already committed to no longer editing the Elissa Slotkin article after the ban, instead solely focusing on the talk page. Regarding the mention of my tweet, Dcpoliticaljunkie is clearly misinterpreting what I meant. What I meant is that it is important to take all parts of a rule into account when determining how to deal with a situation. My goal in talking on the Elissa Slotkin talk page has always been to ensure what is best for the quality of the article, and I have never acted in bad faith on the talk page. If you look at my account history, I have consistently made positive edits to Wikipedia, including the addition of thousands of detailed maps to Wikipedia. Considering my history, it should be very clear that I have always intended to make a positive difference throughout Wikipedia, including on the Elissa Slotkin talk page.

Statement by andrew.robbins

If anyone needs to drop the stick here, its you, DCPJ. The suspected meatpuppetry you linked was archived without a ruling. Using it as evidence of violations is, ironically, bludgeoning.

Mapping out viewpoints to sources is not OR. Arguing for the inclusion of a quote in the absence of consensus isn't POV pushing.

DCPJ has been reporting any user that disagrees with their positions on that talk page. This has been going for over a week now and needs to stop.

Statement by XeCyranium

I'm just commenting here because I was pinged. I can't say whether or not Orcalord has broken rules on the talk page, only that they certainly haven't been arguing in good faith from a desire to improve the article. Their statements on the talk page are so obviously slanted towards trying to tarnish, however slightly, the reputation of the article subject regardless of what sources say that it's become a waste of time to keep engaging with them. Luckily nobody who wasn't an obvious meatpuppet with 13 total edits agreed with their POV-pushing, so I'm not sure how much damage they're doing. XeCyranium (talk) 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning OrcaLord

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm not seeing any edit warring, and this appears to primarily be a content dispute between two editors. I see someone recently suggested on the talk page that an RfC be used, and I think that, not AE, is the way to bring resolution to such a dispute. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An RfC seems reasonable. There also appears to be a disupte as to the reliability of a particular source, so a WP:RSN thread might also be worthwhile. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm truly struggling to see how any edits made within the past month or so could plausibly be edit warring, though I do think that previous sanctions related to the same material are worth noting should the topic be a root cause of behavioral disruption from one user. Merely that an editor has moved from edit warring to bludgeoning a talk page discussion would not render a warning or prior block for edit warring wholly irrelevant.
    On that note, regarding bludgeoning, the ArbCom has noted that [e]ditors should avoid repeating the same point or making so many comments that they dominate the discussion. Have individual editors been repeating the same point over and over in talk page discussions to such an extent that they have been dominating the discussion by sheer volume of comments? If so, an organized list of diffs showing this pattern of behavior would be very helpful in evaluating what's going on here. It's a bit hard to follow as-is, though I can try to go through the discussion diff-by-diff on my own if need be. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]