Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

< Wikipedia:Arbitration
(Redirected from Wikipedia:RfAR)

Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes
Shortcuts

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:

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5 (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 21 Dec 2024 11 Jan 2025
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal none none 11 December 2024
Motion name Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions 1 December 2024

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

Submitting a request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
  • Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
  • Only arbitrators and clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale ban appeal

Consensus among arbitrators that they will not reinstate the site ban. Crouch, Swale is welcome to consider asking an admin to place a self-requested block, using the WikiBreak Enforcer, or requesting a courtesy vanish. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Special:Diff/817961869
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Special:Diff/817961869


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


Information about amendment request
  • Restore site ban.


Statement by Crouch, Swale

A week from now could you please site ban me either permanently or temporarily. I don't think I should be on here anymore. Please note that this is not an appeal rather the opposeite to reinstate the site ban.

@CaptainEek: We've banned other users like User:Lugnuts who created many new articles but weren't of good quality and User:BrownHairedGirl who has made many contributions but had civility issues. If I want to be banned I don't see why that can't be done. Additionally I'm not asking for any negotiations here such as a promise to remove my restrictions. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Primefac and L235: What would be grounds for a site ban then? If I was to make personal attacks would that be grounds? BHG was banned for personal attacks by adbcom, if I did the same would you do the same for me? You can block me with talk and email revoked and block my IP addresses with blocking logged in users so that I have no chance of contributing again. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: A block is just a block, nothing official and can be removed by any admin while a site ban is formal and official. From what I can remember my IP addresses geolocate to places like Colchester, Danbury and Maldon and I don't think are used by anyone else so could probably easily be blocked as well. Crouch, Swale (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cabayi: That would be global and not a formal ban for example I should still be able to contribute on Commons. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Just Step Sideways: But why not do something silly. Clearly doing the right thing hasn't got me very far. Clearly this project is sickeningly unreasonable. Clearly this project has lots of arbitrary rules that aren't even written and if you violate them or not is often down to chance. This project claims to be the encyclopedia that anyone can edit not the project that wants to exclude many articles from Crouch, Swale or exclude a few hundred units from Crouch, Swale's country. The project appears to have some kind of agenda against my contributions or places in my country. But yes its not just things that have happened to me its also silly things like the ARBECR which targets new users who probably don't have a clue how this project works. So why not just do something silly and get banned clearly this project is cracy so I've probably not got that much to loose anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kenneth Kho

Thank you for over 100K edits to Wikipedia, thank you for your service. However it is best to provide reasons why your editing restrictions can be lifted in part or in full, if that is what you are looking for. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Barkeep49

User:Crouch, Swale why does it need to be a site ban? I respect someone who wants to go out on their own terms, but a site ban is still an ugly ugly way to do it. If you ask me next week I am willing to put an indefinite block on your account without talk page and email access, which is what would also happen with a site ban. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by QoH

+1 to what Barkeep said, I would also be willing to place a self-requested block. charlotte 👸♥ 23:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Just Step Sideways

Crouch, it is highly unlikely that any admin would just randomly decide to undo a self-requested block. It would be logged as such and nobody would have any reason to unblock. Please, don't try and get banned by doing something foolish. If you did it would probably still be a single admin who blocked you anyway. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It has occured to me that if the issue here is trying to break Wikipedia addiction permanently, vanishing is probably a better option for you. It's a voluntary agreement between you and this project that you are going away for good. It's not a sanction, and it provides a clean break. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 21:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Super Goku V

Crouch, Swale, the best way to do this is to get a self-requested block, have talk page access revoked, and then scramble your password. If you are worried about scrambling your password, have Google or some other service create three passwords, mash them together, copy and paste into the change password field, and delete your clipboard history and saved passwords for Wikipedia. That would make it extremely difficult to regain access to the account, especially with email revoked.

As my statement should make clear, amendment should be denied. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:51, 8 December 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.

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale ban appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

Motions

Arbitrator workflow motions

Workflow motions: Arbitrator discussion

  • I am proposing these three motions for discussion, community input, and a vote. Each seeks to improve ArbCom's functioning by providing for the performance of basic administrative responsibilities that sometimes go neglected, which, in my opinion, if successful, would significantly improve ArbCom's overall capacity.
    Motivation: We've known about the need for improvements to our workflow and capacity for some years now – I wrote about some of these suggestions in my 2022 ACE statement. It's a regular occurrence that someone will email in with a request or information and, because of the press of other work and because nobody is responsible for tracking and following up on the thread, we will let the thread drop without even realizing it and without deciding that no action is needed. We can each probably name a number of times this has happened, but one recent public example of adverse consequences from such a blunder was highlighted in the Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area case request, which was partially caused by our failure to address a private request that had been submitted to us months earlier.
    Previous efforts: We've experimented with a number of technological solutions to this problem during my four years on the Committee, including: (a) tracking matters on a Trello board or on a private Phabricator space; (b) tracking threads in Google Groups with tags; (c) requesting the development of custom technical tools; (d) reducing the appeals we hear; and (e) tracking appeals more carefully on arbwiki. Some of these attempts have been moderately successful, or showed promise for a time before stalling, but none of them have fully and fundamentally addressed this dropping-balls issue, which has persisted, and which in my opinion requires a human solution rather than just a technological solution.
    Rationale: The work we need done as framed below (e.g. bumping email threads) isn't fundamentally difficult or sensitive, but it's essential, and it's structurally hard for an active arbitrator to be responsible for doing it. For example, I could never bring myself to bump/nag others to opine on matters that I hadn't done my best to resolve yet myself. But actually doing the research to substantively opine on an old thread (especially as the first arb) can take hours of work, and I'm more likely to forget about it before I have the time to resolve it, and then it'll get lost in the shuffle. So it's best to somewhat decouple the tracking/clerical function from the substantive arb-ing work.
    Other efforts: There is one more technological solution for which there was interest among arbitrators, which was to get a CRM/ticketing system – basically, VRTS but hopefully better. I think this could help and would layer well with any of the other options, but there are some open questions (e.g., which one to get, how to pay for it, whether we can get all arbs to adopt it), and I don't think that that alone would address this problem (see similar attempts discussed above), so I think we should move ahead with one of these three motions now and adopt a ticketing system with whichever of the other motions we end up going with.
    These three motions are the result of substantial internal workshopping, and have been variously discussed (as relevant) with the functionaries, the clerks, and the Wikimedia Foundation (on a call in November). Before that, we held an ideation session on workflow improvements with the Foundation in July and have had informal discussions for a number of years. I deeply appreciate the effort and input that has gone into these motions from the entire committee and from the clerks and functionaries, and hope we can now pass one of them. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • One other thing I forgot to suggest—I'd be glad to write motions 1 or 2 up as a trial if any arb prefers, perhaps for 6-12 months, after which the motion could be automatically repealed unless the committee takes further action by motion to permanently continue the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow motions: Clerk notes

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

Workflow motions: Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of which motions are passing. These notes were last updated by an automatic check at 03:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Motion name Support Oppose Abstain Passing Support needed Notes
Motion 1: Correspondence clerks 2 2 0   4 One support vote contingent on 1.4 passing
Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener" 1 1 1   4
Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant" 0 1 2   5
Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial) 0 2 1   5
Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly 1 1 1   4
Motion 2: WMF staff support 0 3 0   6
Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators 3 0 0   3
Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks 0 2 0   6
Notes


Motion 1: Correspondence clerks

Nine-month trial

The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section for a trial period of nine months from the date of enactment, after which time the section shall be automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to make it permanent or otherwise extend it:

Correspondence clerks

The Arbitration Committee may appoint one or more former elected members of the Arbitration Committee to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee. Correspondence clerks must meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public personal data and sign the Foundation's non-public information confidentiality agreement.

Correspondence clerks shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

The specific responsibilities of correspondence clerks shall include:

  • Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
  • Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
  • Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
  • Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
  • Providing similar routine administrative and clerical assistance to the Arbitration Committee.

The remit of correspondence clerks shall not include:

  • Participating in the substantive consideration or decision of any matters before the Committee; or
  • Taking non-routine actions requiring the exercise of arbitrator discretion.

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks.

All correspondence clerks shall hold concurrent appointments as arbitration clerks and shall be subject to the same requirements concerning conduct and recusal as the arbitration clerk team.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. This is my first choice and falls within ArbCom's community-granted authority to approve and remove access to [...] mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee[1] and to designate individuals for particular tasks or roles and maintain a panel of clerks to assist with the smooth running of its functions.[2]
    Currently, we have arbitration clerks to help with on-wiki work, but most of ArbCom's workload is private (on arbcom-en), and our clerks have no ability to help with that because they can't access any of ArbCom's non-public work. It has always seemed strange to me to have clerks for on-wiki work, but not for the bulk of the work which is off-wiki (and which has always needed more coordination help).
    When consulting the functionaries, I was pleasantly surprised to learn that four functionaries (including three former arbitrators) expressed interest in volunteering for this role. This would be lower-intensity than serving as an arbitrator, but still essential to the functioning of the committee. We already have a number of ex-arbs on the clerks-l mailing list to advise and assist, and this seems like a natural extension of that function. The Stewards have a somewhat similar "Steward clerk" role, although ArbCom correspondence clerks would be a higher-trust position (functionary-level appointments only).
    I see this as the strongest option because the structure is familiar (analogous to our existing clerks, but for off-wiki business), because we have trusted functionaries and former arbs interested who could well discharge these responsibilities, and because I think we would benefit from separating the administrative responsibility from the substantive responsibility. The cons I see are that volunteer correspondence clerks might be less reliable than paid staff and that we'd be adding one or two (ish) people to the arbcom-en list. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Contingent on 1.4 passing. This option was not my first choice, and I'm inclined to try having a coordinating Arb first, if we can get a volunteer/set of volunteers. Given that the new term should infuse the Committee with more life and vigor, we may find a coordinating Arb, or another solution. But I think we should put this in our toolbox for the moment. This doesn't force us to appoint someone, just gives us the ability and outlines the position. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I don't think we should extend access to the mailing list and the private information it contains beyond what is absolutely necessary. I understand the reasoning behind former arbitrators in such a role as they previously had such access, but people emailing the Arbitration Committee should have confidence that private information is kept need to know and that only the current arbitrators evaluating and making decisions based on that private information have ongoing access to it. - Aoidh (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Motion 1: Arbitrator views and discussions

  • I'd be glad changing this to only appoint former arbs, if that would tip anyone's votes. Currently, it's written as "from among the English Wikipedia functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee)" for flexibility if needed, but I imagine we would only really appoint former arbs if available, except under unusual circumstances, because they understand how the mailing list discussions go and have previously been elected to handle the same private info. I am also open to calling it something other than "correspondence clerk"; that just seemed like a descriptive title. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do like the idea of using our Arbs emeritus for this position (and perhaps only Arbs emeritus); it ensures that they have experience in our byzantine process, and at least at some point held community trust. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaptainEek: I have changed the motion to make only former arbs eligible. If anyone preferred broader (all funct) eligibility, I've added an alternative motion 1.1 below, which if any arb does prefer it, they should uncollapse and vote for it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that if we adopt this we should choose a better name. I know Barkeep49 meant this suggestion as a bit of a joke, but I actually think he was on the money when he suggested "scrivener." I like "adjutant" even more, which I believe he also suggested. They capture the sort of whimsical Wikipedia charm evoked by titles like Most Pluperfect Labutnum while still being descriptive, and not easily confused for a traditional clerk. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Whimsy is important -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CaptainEek and Guerillero: Per the above discussion points, I have (a) proposed two alternative names below that were workshopped among some arbs ("scrivener" on the more whimsical side and "coordination assistant" on the less whimsical side; see motions 1.2a and 1.2b), and (b) made this motion a nine-month trial, after which time the section is automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to extend it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Scope and responsibilities
  2. ^ Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy § Procedures and roles

Motion 1.1: expand eligible set to functionaries

If any arbitrator prefers this way, unhat this motion and vote for it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

If motion 1 passes, replace the text The Arbitration Committee may appoint one or more former elected members of the Arbitration Committee to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee. with the text The Arbitration Committee may appoint, from among the English Wikipedia functionary corps (and preferably from among former members of the Arbitration Committee), one or more users to be correspondence clerks for the Arbitration Committee..

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
Abstain


Motion 1.2a: name the role "scrivener"

If motion 1 passes, replace the term "correspondence clerks" wherever it appears with the term "scriveners".

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Nicely whimsical, and not as likely to be confusing as correspondence clerk. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I think correspondence clerk is fine if role is something we're going with, it's less ambiguous as to what it entails than scrivener. - Aoidh (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I think that because it's more archaic and possibly less serious, I disprefer this to either "coordination assistant" or "correspondence clerk", but would ultimately be perfectly happy with it. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.2b: name the role "coordination assistant"

If motion 1 passes, replace the term "correspondence clerks" wherever it appears with the term "coordination assistants".

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
  1. bleh. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I am indifferent between this and "correspondence clerk". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If we're going to use a role like this, either this or correspondence clerk is fine. - Aoidh (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.3: make permanent (not trial)

If motion 1 passes, omit the text for a trial period of nine months from the date of enactment, after which time the section shall be automatically repealed unless the Committee takes action to make it permanent or otherwise extend it.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
  1. I recently experimented with sunset clauses and think that frankly a lot more of what we do should have such time limits that require us to stop and critically evaluate if a thing is working. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If this change is necessary, there should be a review of it after a reasonable trial period to see what does and does not work. - Aoidh (talk) 01:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I have no preference as to whether this is permanent or a trial. I do think that nine months is a good length for the trial if we choose to have one: not too long to lock in a year's committee; not too short to make it unworthwhile. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 1.4: expanding arbcom-en directly

If motion 1 passes, strike the following text:

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

And replace it with the following:

To that end, correspondence clerks shall be added to the arbcom-en mailing list. The Committee shall continue to maintain at least one mailing list accessible only by arbitrators.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Much less trouble to have them on the main list than to split the lists. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Access to private information should be as limited as possible to only what is strictly necessary to perform such a task, and I don't see a allowing full access to the contents of the current list necessary for this. I'd rather not split the list, but between that and giving full access then if we're going to have a correspondence clerk, then it needs to be split. - Aoidh (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. I would not really object to this. C-clerks (or whatever we call them) are former arbs and have previously been on arbcom-en in any event, so it doesn't seem that like a big deal to do this. On the other hand, I would understand if folks prefer the split. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrator discussion

Motion 2: WMF staff support

The Arbitration Committee requests that the Wikimedia Foundation Committee Support Team provide staff support for the routine administration and organization of the Committee's mailing list and non-public work.

The selected staff assistants shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work. Staff assistants shall perform their functions under the direction of the Arbitration Committee and shall not represent the Wikimedia Foundation in the course of their support work with the Arbitration Committee or disclose the Committee's internal deliberations except as directed by the Committee.

The specific responsibilities of the staff assistants shall include, as directed by the Committee:

  • Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
  • Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
  • Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
  • Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
  • Providing similar routine administrative and clerical assistance to the Arbitration Committee.

The remit of staff assistants shall not include:

  • Participating in the substantive consideration or decision of any matters before the Committee; or
  • Taking non-routine actions requiring the exercise of arbitrator discretion.

To that end, upon the selection of staff assistants, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and staff assistants.

The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by staff assistants.

Staff assistants shall be subject to the same requirements concerning conduct and recusal as the arbitration clerk team.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
  1. I appreciate that Kevin put this together, and I think this would be very helpful, maybe even the most helpful, way to ensure that we stayed on top of the ball. But just because it would achieve one goal doesn't make it a good idea. A full version of my rationale is on the ArbList, for other Arbs. The short, WP:BEANS version is that this would destroy the line between us and the Foundation, which undoes much of our utility. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comment on motion 4. - Aoidh (talk) 01:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Might as well make it formal per my opinions elsewhere on the page. Primefac (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Motion 2: Arbitrator views and discussions

  • I am quite open to this idea. A professional staff member assisting the committee might be the most reliable and consistent way to achieve this goal. ArbCom doesn't need the higher-intensity support that the WMF Committee Support Team provides other committees like AffCom and the grant committees, but having somebody to track threads and bump stalled discussions would be quite helpful. I'm going to wait to see if there's any community input on this motion before voting on it, though. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 3: Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee's procedures are amended by adding the following section:

Coordinating arbitrators

The Arbitration Committee shall, from time to time, designate one or more arbitrators to serve as the Committee's coordinating arbitrators.

Coordinating arbitrators shall be responsible for assisting the Committee in the routine administration and organization of its mailing list and non-public work in a similar manner as the existing arbitration clerks assist in the administration of the Committee's on-wiki work.

The specific responsibilities of coordinating arbitrators shall include:

  • Acknowledging the receipt of correspondence and assigning tracking identifiers to pending requests and other matters;
  • Tracking the status of pending matters and providing regular updates and reminders on the status of the Committee's off-wiki work to arbitrators;
  • Reminding members of the Committee to vote or otherwise take action in pending matters;
  • Organizing related correspondence into case files; and
  • Performing similar routine administrative and clerical functions.

A coordinating arbitrator may, but is not required to, state an intention to abstain on some or all matters before the Committee without being listed as an "inactive" arbitrator.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. This is currently my first-choice option; we have unofficially in the past had arbitrators take on specific roles (e.g. tracking unblock requests, responding to emails, etc) and it seemed to work fairly well. Having those rules be more "official" seems like the best way to make sure someone is responsible for these things, without needing to expand the committee or the pool of people with access to private information. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I may still vote for the clerks option, but I think this is probably the minimum of what we need. Will it be suffucient...aye, there's the rub. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Of the motions proposed, this one is the one I'd most support. It doesn't expand the number of people who can view the ArbCom mailing list beyond those on ArbCom, and creates a structure that may improve how the mailing list is handled. - Aoidh (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Abstain

Motion 3: Arbitrator views and discussions

  • I am also open to this idea, though I am worried that it will be insufficient and haven't made up my mind on my vote yet. This idea was floated by a former arbitrator from back when the committee did have a coordinating arbitrator, though that role kind of quietly faded away. The benefits of this approach include that there's no need to bring anyone else onto the list. This motion also allows (but does not require) arbs to take a step back from active arb business to focus on the coordination role, which could help with the bifurcation I mention above. Cons include that this could be the least reliable option; that it's possible no arb is interested, or has the capacity to do this well; and that it's hard to be both a coordinator on top of the existing difficult role of serving as an active arb. I personally think this is better than nothing, but probably prefer one of the other two motions to actually add some capacity.
    Other ideas that have been floated include establishing a subcommittee of arbitrators responsible for these functions. My same concerns would apply there, but if there's interest, I'm glad to draft and propose a motion to do that; any other arb should also feel free to propose such a motion of their own. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was partial to this idea, though it was not my first choice. I proposed that we might make it a rotating position, à la the presidency of the UN security council. Alternatively, a three person subcommittee might also be the way to go, so that the position isn't dependent on one person's activity. I like this solution in general because we already basically had it, with the coordinating arbitrator role. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Motion 4: Grants for correspondence clerks

In the event that "Motion 1: Correspondence clerks" passes, the Arbitration Committee shall request that the Wikimedia Foundation provide grants payable to correspondence clerks in recognition of their assistance to the Committee.

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
Oppose
  1. Wikipedia should remain a volunteer activity. If we cannot find volunteers to do the task, then perhaps it ought not be done in the first place. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We should not have a clerk paid by the WMF handling English Wikipedia matters in this capacity. - Aoidh (talk) 01:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain

Motion 4: Arbitrator views and discussions

Community discussion

Will correspondence clerks be required to sign an NDA? Currently clerks aren't. Regardless of what decision is made this should probably be in the motion. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I thought it was implied by "from among the English Wikipedia functionary corps" – who all sign NDAs as a condition to access functionaries-en and the CUOS tools; see Wikipedia:Functionaries (Functionary access [...] requires that the user sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information.)  – but I've made it explicit now. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that that was there, but I missed it on my first readthrough of the rules (thinking correspondence clerks would be appointed from the clerk team instead). * Pppery * it has begun... 18:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does "coordinating arbitrators" need a (public) procedures change? Izno (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As Primefac mentioned above, it seems reasonable to assume that having something written down "officially" might help make sure that the coordinating arbitrator knows what they are responsible for. In any event, it probably can't hurt. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pain in the ass to get formal procedures changed. There is an internal procedures page: I see 0 reason not to use it if you want to clarify what the role of this arbitrator is. Izno (talk) 19:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On top of that, this doesn't actually change the status quo much if at all. It is almost entirely a role definition for an internal matter, given "we can make an arb a CA, but we don't have to have one" in it's "from time to time" clause. This just looks like noise to anyone reading ARBPRO who isn't on ArbCom: the public doesn't need to know this arb even exists, though they might commonly be the one responding to emails so they might get a sense there is such an arb. Izno (talk) 19:21, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate that some functionaries are open to volunteering for this role, this borders on is a part-time secretarial job and ought to be compensated as such. The correspondence clerks option combined with WMF throwing some grant money towards compensation would be my ideal. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:35, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this suggestion – I've added motion 4 to address this suggestion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the first motion the word "users" in "The Committee shall establish a process to allow users to, in unusual circumstances" is confusing, it should probably be "editors". In the first and second motions, it should probably be explicit whether correspondence clerks/support staff are required, permitted or prohibited to:

  • Share statistical information publicly
  • Share status information (publicly or privately) with correspondents who wish to know the status of their request.
  • Share status information (publicly or privately) about the status of a specific request with someone other than the correspondent.
    For this I'm thinking of scenarios like where e.g. an editor publicly says they emailed the Committee about something a while ago, and one or more other editors asks what is happening with it.

I think my preference would be for 1 or 2, as these seem likely to be the more reliable. Neither option precludes there also being a coordinating arbitrator doing some of the tasks as well. Thryduulf (talk) 18:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions. I've changed "users" to "editors". The way I'm intending these motions to be read, correspondence clerks or staff assistants should only disclose information as directed by the committee. I think the details of which information should be shared upon whose request in routine cases could be decided later by the committee, with the default being "ask ArbCom before disclosing until the committee decides to approve routine disclosures in certain cases", because it's probably hard to know in advance which categories will be important to allow. I'm open to including more detail if you think that's important to include at this stage, though, and I'd welcome hearing why if so. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 19:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I think it worth clarifying certain things in advance before they become an issue to avoid unrealistic or mistaken expectations of the c-clerks by the community. Point 1 doesn't need to be specified in advance, maybe something like "communicating information publicly as directed by the Committee" would be useful to say in terms of expectation management or maybe it's still to specific? I can see both sides of that.
Point 2 I think is worth establishing quickly and while it is on people's minds. Waiting for the committee to make up its mind before knowing whether they can give a full response to a correspondent about this would be unfair to both the correspondent and clerk I think. This doesn't necessarily have to be before adoption, but if not it needs to be very soon afterwards.
Point 3 is similar, but c-clerks and community members knowing exactly what can and cannot be shared, and especially being able to point to something in writing about what cannot be said publicly, has the potential to reduce drama e.g. if there is another situation similar to Billed Mammal's recent case request. Thryduulf (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What justification is there for the WMF to spend a single additional dollar on the workload of a project-specific committee whose workload is now demonstrably smaller than at any time in its history? (Noting here that there is a real dollar-cost to the support already being given by WMF, such as the monthly Arbcom/T&S calls that often result in the WMF accepting requests for certain activities.) And anyone who is being paid by the WMF is responsible to the WMF as the employer, not to English Wikipedia Arbcom.

I think Arbcom is perhaps not telling the community some very basic facts that are leading to their efforts to find someone to take responsibility for its organization, which might include "we have too many members who aren't pulling their weight" or "we have too many members who, for various reasons that don't have to do with Wikipedia, are inactive", or "we have some tasks that nobody really wants to do". There's no indication that any of these solutions would solve these kinds of problems, and I think that all of these issues are factors that are clearly visible to those who follow Arbcom on even an occasional basis. Arbitrators who are inactive for their own reasons aren't going to become more active because someone's organizing their mail. Arbitrators who don't care enough to vote on certain things aren't any more likely to vote if someone is reminding them to vote in a non-public forum; there's no additional peer pressure or public guilt-tripping. And if Arbcom continues to have tasks that nobody really wants to do, divest those tasks. Arbcom has successfully done that with a large number of tasks that were once its responsibility.

I think you can do a much better job of making your case. Risker (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a need to do something as poor communication and extremely slow replies, if replies are made at all, has been an ongoing issue for the committee for some time. However I agree that asking the foundation to pay someone to do it is going too far. The point that if you are paid by the foundation, you work for them and not en.wp or arbcom is a compelling one. There's also a slippery slope argument to be made in that if we're paying these people, shouldn't we pay the committee? If we're paying the committee, shouldn't we pay the arbitration clerks....and so on. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fully share Risker's concern about a paid WMF staffer who, no matter how well-intentioned, will be answerable to the WMF and not ARBCOM. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 2023-2024 committee is much more middle aged and has less university students and retirees, who oftentimes have more free time, than the 2016-2017 committee. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the issue of there often being some Committee members who, for whatever reason, are not "pulling their weight", is at the core of the problem to be addressed here. Because this happens "behind the scenes", the community has no way to hold anyone accountable in elections, and because of human nature and the understandable desire to maintain a collegial atmosphere within the Committee, I don't really expect any members to call out a colleague in public. I suppose there could even be a question of what happens if whoever might be filling the role proposed here nudges a member to act, but the member just disregards that. It's difficult to see how to make it enforceable. I don't have any real solutions, but this strikes me as central to the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is largely correct. I was reluctant on the committee to even note this committee's inactivity problem (worst of any 15-member arbcom ever), even though it was based on a metric that is public, when I was still on the committee. And it gets further complicated by the fact that some people not visibly active in public more than pull their weight behind the scenes - the testimonials Maxim received when running for re-election being a prime example. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
During my first term it was Roger Davies. He was barely a presence on-wiki but he kept the whole committee on point and up-to-date about what was pending. Trypto is right that it isn't enforceable, it is more a matter of applying pressure to either do the job or move oneself to the inactive list.
I also think the committee can and should be more proactive about declaring other arbs inactive even when they are otherwise present on-wiki or on the mailing list" That would probably require a procedures change, but I think it would make sense. If there is a case request, proposed decision, or other matter that requires a vote before the committee and an arb doesn't comment on it for ten days or more, they clearly don't have the time and/or inclination to do so and should be declared inactive on that matter so that their lack of action does not further delay the matter. It would be nice if they would just do so themselves, or just vote "abstain" on everything, which only takes a few minutes, but it seems it has not been happening in practice. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Roger was a pensioner which kinda proves my point -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roger may have been a pensioner at the end of his time on the committee (7 years), but he certainly wasn't at the beginning of his term. He was co-ordinating arbitrator for a lot of that time, and did a good job without a single bit of extra software. The problem with that software is that people have to already be actively engaged to even contemplate using it. My sense is that the real issue here is the lack of engagement (whether periodic or chronic) on the part of many of the arbitrators. People who are inactive on Arbcom tasks aren't going to be active on any tasks, including reading emails asking them to do things or special software sending alerts. Simply put, if people aren't going to put Arbcom as their primary Wikipedia activity for the next two years, keeping in mind other life events that will likely take them away, they should not run in the first place. Yes, unexpected things happen. But I think a lot of the inactivity we've seen in the last few years involved some predictable absences that the arbs knew about when they were candidates. (Examples I've seen myself: Oh, I have a big exam to write that needs months of study; oh, I have a major life event that will require a lot of planning; oh, I'm graduating and will have to find a job.) No, I don't expect people to reveal this kind of information about themselves; yes, I do expect them to refrain from volunteering for roles that they can reasonably foresee they will have difficulty fulfilling. Risker (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I might as well ask a hard question. Is there a way to make public enough information for the community to be able to evaluate ArbCom candidates for (re)election, in terms of behind-the-scenes inactivity? If individual Arbs were to make public comments, that would do it, but it would also potentially be very contentious and could reduce effectiveness instead of improving it. Could ArbCom initiate a new process of posting onsite information about the processing of tasks, without revealing private information (such as: "Ban appeal 1", "Ban appeal 2", instead of "Ban appeal by [name]"), and list those members who voted (perhaps without listing which way they voted)? Maybe do that monthly, and include all tasks that had not yet gotten a quorum. Yes, I know that's difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I question an answer to the problem of "we're having trouble finding enough people to do the secretarial work we have already" being "let's create substantially more secretarial work" even accepting the premise that people would then get voted off if they didn't pull their weight. While I think that premise is correct, what this system would also encourage - even more than it already exists - is an incentive to just go along with whatever the first person (or the person who has clearly done the most homework) says. And that defeats the purpose of having a committee made up of individual thinkers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I'll admit that, even from the outside, I sometimes see members who appear to wait to see which way the wind is blowing before voting on proposed decisions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's something that's hard to know or verify, even for the other arbs. The arbs only know what the other arbs tell them, and I've never seen anyone admit to that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the timing for this is wrong. The committee is about to have between 6 and 9 new members (depending on whether Guerillero, Eek, and Primefac get re-elected). In addition it seems likely that some number of former arbs are about to rejoin the committee. This committee - basically the committee with the worst amount of active membership of any 15 member committee ever - seems like precisely the wrong one to be making large changes to ongoing workflows in December. Izno's idea of an easier to try and easier to change/abandon internal procedure for the coordinating arb feels like something appropriate to try now. The rest feel like it should be the prerogative of the new committee to decide among (or perhaps do a different change altogether). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin can correct me if I'm wrong, but I assumed he was doing this now because he will not be on the committee a month from now.
That being said it could be deliberately held over, or conversely, possibly fall victim to the inactivity you mention and still be here for the new committee to decide. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since WP:ACE2024 elections are currently taking place it makes sense to have the incoming arbitrators weigh in on changes like this. They are the ones that will be affected by any of these motions passing rather than the outgoing arbitrators. - Aoidh (talk) 00:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I assumed that's why he was doing it also. I am also assuming he's doing it to try and set up the future committees for success. That doesn't change my point about why this is the wrong time and why a different way of trying the coordinator role (if it has support) would be better. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "timing is wrong": I think you both would agree that these are a long time coming – we have been working on these and related ideas for years (I ran on a related idea in 2022). I do think there's never quite a good time. Very plausibly, the first half of the year is out because the new arbs will need that time to learn how the processes work and think about what kinds of things should be changed vs. kept the same. And then it might be another few months as the new ArbCom experiments with less-consequential changes like the ones laid about at the top: technological solutions, trying new ways of tracking stuff, etc., before being confident in the need for something like set out above. And then things get busy for other reasons; there will be weeks or even occasionally months when the whole committee is overtaken by some urgent situation. I've experienced a broadly similar dynamic a few times now; this is all to say that there's just not much time or space in the agenda for this kind of stuff in a one-year cycle, which would be a shame because I do think this is important to take on.
I do think that it should be the aspiration of every year's committee to leave the succeeding committee some improvements in the functioning of the committee based on lessons learned that year, so it would be nice to leave the next committee with this. That said, if arbitrators do feel that we should hold this over to the new committee, I'm not really in a position to object – as JSS says, this is my last year on the committee, so it's not like this will benefit me. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:30, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's entirely possible for the new committee to have a sense of what it wants workload wise by February-April and so it's wrong to just rule out the first half of the year. By the end of the first six months of the year that you and I started (and which JSS was a sitting member on) we'd made a number of changes to how things were done. Off the top of my head I can name the structure of cases and doing quarterly reports of private appeals as two but there were others. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what I'll leave you with overall. What you may see as a downside – these proposals being voted on relatively late in the year – I see as a significant possible upside. Members of this committee are able to draw on at least eleven months' experience as arbitrators in deciding what is working well and what might warrant change – experience which is important in determining what kinds of processes and systems lead to effective and ineffective outcomes. That experience is important: Although I have served on ArbCom for four years and before that served as an ArbCom clerk for almost six years, I still learn more every year about what makes this committee click.
If what really concerns you is locking in the new committee to a particular path, as I wrote above, I'm very open to structuring this as a trial run that will end of its own accord unless the committee takes action to make it permanent. This would ensure that the new committee retains full control over whether to continue, discontinue, or adapt these changes. But in my book, it does not make sense to wait. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a 3-term former arb and a 3-term current ombuds commissioner, I've had experience of about a dozen Wikimedia committee "new intakes". I am quite convinced that these proposals are correctly timed. Process changes are better put in place prior to new appointees joining, so that they are not joining at a moment of upheaval. Doing them late in the day is not objectionable and momentum often comes at the end of term. If the changes end up not working (doubtful), the new committee would just vote to tweak the process or go back. I simply do not understand the benefit of deferring proposals into a new year, adding more work to the next year's committee. That surely affects the enthusiasm and goodwill of new members. As for the point that the '24 committee is understaffed and prone to indecision: argumentum ad hominem. If Kevin's proposals work, they work. If anything, it might be more difficult to agree administrative reforms when the committee is back at full staff. arcticocean ■ 15:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If these pass now you will have new members join at a moment of upheaval as anything proposed here will still be in its infancy when the new members join (even if we pretend the new members are joining Jan 1 rather than much sooner given that results are in and new members tend to be added to the list once the right boxes are checked). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right. And it's important to be realistic: any proposal would be under implementation for several months, so say from December through February. Would that be so bad? Any change will disrupt, in the sense that a few people need to spend time implementing it and everyone else needs to learn the new process. But waiting until later in the year causes even more disruption: members have to first learn an 'old' process and then learn the changes you're making to it… New member enthusiasm is also a keen force that could help to push through the changes. arcticocean ■ 16:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think new member enthusiasm is part of why I think this lame duck hobbled committee is the wrong one to do it. I have high hopes for next year's group and think they would be in a better place to come up with the right solution for them. And as I noted to Kevin above this isn't hypothetical - the year we both started as arbs we made a lot of process and procedure changes in the first six months. It was a great thing to funnel that new arb energy into because I was bought into what we were doing rather than trying to make something work that I had no say in and that the existing members had no experience with. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While I think a solution such as adopting ZenDesk is something that could face objections, personally I think the idea of having someone track a list of work items for a committee is a pretty standard way of working (including pushing for timely resolution, something that really needs a person, not just a program). From an outsider's perspective, it's something I'd expect. It doesn't matter to non-arbitrators who does the tracking, so the committee should feel free to change that decision internally as often as it feels is effective. I'd rather there be a coordinating arbitrator in place in the interim until another solution is implemented, than have no one tracking work items in the meantime. isaacl (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to double check that I'm reading motion 1 correctly, it would still be possible to email the original list (for arbitrators only) if, for example, you were raising a concern about something the correspondence clerks should not be privy to (ie: misuse of tools by a functionary), correct? Granted, I think motion 3 is probably the simpler option here, but in the event motion 1 passes, is the understanding I wrote out accurate? EggRoll97 (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@EggRoll97 Yes, but probably only after an additional step. The penultimate paragraph of motions 1 and 2 says The Committee shall establish a process to allow editors to, in unusual circumstances following a showing of good cause, directly email a mailing list accessible only by arbitrators and not by correspondence clerks [staff assistants]. No details are given about what this process would be, but one possibility would I guess be something like contacting an individual arbitrator outlining clearly why you think the c-clerks should not be privy to whatever it is. If they agree they'll tell you how to submit your evidence (maybe they'll add your email address to a temporary whitelist). Thryduulf (talk) 03:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience working on committees and for non-profits, typically management is much more open to offering money for software solutions that they are told can resolve a problem than agreeing to pay additional compensation for new personnel. Are you sure there isn't some tracking solution that could resolve some of these problems? Liz Read! Talk! 07:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In our tentative discussions with WMF, it sounded like it would be much more plausible to get a 0.1-0.2 FTE of staffer time than it would to get us 15 ZenDesk licenses, which was also somewhat surprising to me. That wasn't a firm response – if we went back and said we really need this, I'm guessing it'd be plausible. And we've never asked about compensating c-clerks – that was an idea that came from Voorts's comment above, and I proposed it for discussion, not because I necessarily support it but because I think it's worth discussion, and I certainly don't think it's integral to the c-clerk proposal. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, offering compensation for on-wiki tasks would be breaking new ground for the project. I do wonder though about the possibility of securing former arbitrators for these correspondent clerks' positions. It sounds like all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results. I don't know if we'd have many interested and eligible parties. How many clerks would you think would be necessary? One? Or 3 or 4? Liz Read! Talk! 21:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, these are great questions. Responses to your points:
  • On volunteers: As I wrote above, four functionaries (including three former arbs) expressed initial-stage interest when this was floated when I consulted functionaries – which is great and was a bit unexpected, and which is why I wrote it up this way. Arbitrators will know that my initial plan from previous months/years did not involve limiting this to functionaries, to have a broader pool of applicants. But since we do have several interested functs, and they are already trusted to hold NDA'd private information (especially the former arbs who have previously been elected to access to this very list), I thought this would be a good way to make this a more uncontroversial proposal.
  • How many to appoint? I imagine one or two if it was up to me. One would be ideal (I think it's like 30 minutes of work per day ish, max), but two for redundancy might make a lot of sense. I don't think it's all of the work of an arbitrator (or more) without any ability to influence the results – because the c-clerk would be responsible for tracking matters, not actually attempting to resolve them, that's a lot less work than serving as an arb. It does require more consistency than most arbs have to put in, though.
  • On compensating: Yeah, I'm not sure I'll end up supporting the idea, but I don't think it's unprecedented in the sense that you're thinking. Correspondence clerks aren't editing; none of the tasks listed in the motion require on-wiki edits. And there are plenty of WMF grants that have gone to off-wiki work for the benefit of projects; the first example I could think of was m:Grants:Programs/Wikimedia Community Fund/Rapid Fund/UTRS User Experience Development (ID: 22215192) but I know there are many.
Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am quite confused, I often read arbs saying most of ArbCom work is behind-the-scenes work. But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work? If so, the solution here is that more arbs should simply pull their weight, which Motion 3 helps. I don't think WMF would pay someone to work 30 minutes a day either. Kenneth Kho (talk) 07:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But is all this behind-the-scenes work essentially just a one-person 30-minute-a-day work?. No, the actual work takes a lot more time and effort because each arb has to read, understand and form opinions on many different things, and the committee needs to discuss most of those things, which will often re-reading and re-evaluating based on the points raised. Then in many cases there needs to be a vote. What the "one-person, 30 minutes a day" is referring to is just the meta of what tasks are open, what the current status of it is, who needs to opine on it, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I realized I misunderstood it. I see that this is a relatively lightweight proposal, perhaps it could work but it probably won't help much either.
@L235 I have been thinking of splitting ArbCom into Public ArbCom and Private ArbCom. I see Public ArbCom as being able to function without the tools as @Worm That Turned advocated, focused more on complex dispute resolution. I see Private ArbCom as high-trust roles with NDAs, privy to WMF and overseeing Public ArbCom. Both ArbComs are elected separately as 15-members bodies, and both will be left with about half the current authority and responsibility. Kenneth Kho (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thryduulf is right; I think Kevin meant that the tracking itself might be a 30 minute a day activity. But it has to happen consistently, and with a high catch rate. It also has to happen on top of our usual Arb work, which for me already averages a good ten hours a week, but can be more than twenty hours in the busy times. And I, like the other arbs, already have a full time job and a life outside Wikipedia. I don't like the idea of splitting ArbCom in twain, nor do I think it could be achieved. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, having someone managing the work could really help smooth things out. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My first thought is that cleanly splitting arbcom would be very difficult. For example what happens if there is an open public case and two-thirds of the way through the evidence phase someone discovers and wishes to submit private evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the split won't be entirely clean. I'm thinking Public ArbCom would narrowly remand part of the case to Private ArbCom if it finds that the private evidence is likely to materially affect the outcome. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How will public know whether the private evidence will materially affect the outcome without seeing the private evidence? Secondly, how will private arbcom determine whether it materially affects the outcome without reviewing all the public evidence and thus duplicating public arbcom's work (and thus also negating the workload benefits of the split)? What happens if public and private arbcom come to different conclusions about the same public evidence? Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You raised good points that I did not address. I think that a way to do this would be to follow how Oversighters have the authority to override Admins that they use sparingly. Private ArbCom could have the right to receive any private evidence regarding an ongoing case on Public ArbCom, and Private ArbCom will have discretions to override Public ArbCom remedies without explanation other than something like "per private evidence". Private ArbCom would need to familiarize themselves with the case a bit, but this is mitigated by the fact that they only concerned with the narrow parts. Private ArbCom could have the authority to take the whole Public ArbCom case private if it deems that private evidence affect many parties. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
12 candidates for 9 open seats is sufficient. But it hardly suggests we have so many people that we could support 30 people (even presuming some additional people would run under the split). Further, what happens behind the scenes already strains the trust of the community. But at least the community can see the public actions as a reminder of "well this person hasn't lost it completely while on ArbCom". I think it would be much harder to sustain trust under this split. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly like the size of 12-member committee, too many proverbial cooks spoil the proverbial broth. I did think about the trust aspect, as the community has been holding ArbCom under scrutiny, but at the same time I consider that the community has been collegial with Bureaucrats, Checkusers, Oversighters. Private ArbCom would be far less visible, with Public ArbCom likely taking the heat for contentious decisions. Kenneth Kho (talk) 11:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with L235 regarding whether this is all the work and none of the authority: it does not come with all the responsibility that being an Arb comes with either. This role does not need to respond to material questions or concerns about arbitration matters and does not need to read and weigh the voluminous case work to come to a final decision. The c-clerk will need to keep up on emails and will probably need to have an idea of what's going on in public matters, but that was definitely not the bulk of the (stressful?) work of an arbitrator. Izno (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz well that's what I thought. I figured that ZenDesk was the winningest solution, until the Foundation made it seem like ZenDesk licenses were printed on gold bars. We did do some back of the envelope calculations, and it is decidedly expensive. Still...I have a hard time believing those ZenDesk licenses really cost more than all that staff time. I think we'll have to do some more convincing of the Foundation on that front, or implement a different solution. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I touched upon the idea of using former arbitrators to do administrative tasks on the arbitration committee talk page, and am also pleasantly surprised to hear there is some interest. I think this approach may be the most expeditious way to put something in place at least for the interim. (On a side note, I urge people not to let the term "c-clerk" catch on. It sounds like stuttering, or someone not good enough to be an A-level clerk. More importantly, it would be quite an obscure jargon term.) isaacl (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To that end, upon the first appointment of correspondence clerks, the current arbcom-en mailing list shall be renamed to arbcom-en-internal, which shall continue to be accessible only by arbitrators, and a new arbcom-en email list shall be established. The subscribers to the new arbcom-en list shall be the arbitrators and correspondence clerks.

Something I raised in the functionary discussion was that this doesn't make sense to me. What is the basis for this split here? Izno (talk) 00:08, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it was so that the clerks would only see the incoming email and not be privy to the entire commitee's comments on the matter. While all functionaries and arbs sign the same NDA, operating on a need to know basis is not at all uncommon in groups that deal with sensitive information. When I worked for the census we had to clear our debriefing room of literally everything because it was being used the next day by higher-ups from Washington who were visiting. They outranked all of us by several orders of mgnitude, but they had no reason to be looking at the non-anonymized personal data we had lying all over the place.
Conversely it would spare the clerks from having their inboxes flooded by every single arb comment, which as you know can be quite voluminous. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And it would also prevent them from seeing information related to themselves or something they should actively recuse on. Thryduulf (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This suggested rationale doesn't hold water: someone with an issue with a c-clerk or where they may need to recuse should just follow the normal process for an issue with an arb: to whit, kicking off arbcom-b for a private discussion. Izno (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of material from before they were appointed, e.g. if there was a discussion involving the actions of user:Example in November and they become a c-clerk in December, they shouldn't be able to see the discussion even if the only comments were that the allegations against them are obviously ludicrous. I appreciate I didn't make this clear though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Making arbcom-en a "firewall" from the arb deliberations would inhibit the c-clerk from performing the duties listed in the motion. I cannot see how it would be workable for them to remind arbs to do the thing the electorate voluntold them to do if the c-clerk cannot see whether they have done those things (e.g. coming to a conclusion on an appeal), and would add to the overhead of introducing this secretarial position (email comes in, c-clerk forwards to -internal, arbs discussion on -internal, come to conclusion, send an email back to -en, which the c-clerk then actions back to the user on arbcom-en). This suggested rationale also does not hold water to me. Izno (talk) 01:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies – if this was the interpretation, that's bad drafting on my part. The sole intention is that the new correspondence clerks won't see the past arbcom-en archives, which were emails sent to the committee on the understanding that only arbitrators would see those emails. C clerks will see everything that's newly sent on arbcom-en, including all deliberations held on arbcom-en, with the exception of anything that is so sensitive that the committee feels the need to restrict discussion to arbitrators (this should be fairly uncommon but covers the recusal concern above in a similar way as discussions about arbs who recuse sometimes get moved to arbcom-en-b). The C clerks will need to be able to see deliberations to be able to track pending matters and ensure that balls aren't being dropped, which could not happen unless they had access to the discussions – this is a reasonable "need to know" because they are fulfilling a function that is hard to combine with serving as an active arbitrator. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:54, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I clearly totally misread your intent there. I.... don't think I like the idea that unelected clerks can see everything the committee is doing. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I oppose splitting arbcom-en a second time -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 10:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding 1.4, I think arbcom-en and -c are good ones for a c-clerk to have access to. -b probably doesn't need access ever, as it's used exclusively for work with recusals attached to it, which should be small enough for ArbCom to manage itself in the addition of a c-clerk. (This comment in private elicited the slight rework L235 made to the motion.) Izno (talk) 06:08, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does this mean – when was the first time? arcticocean ■ 15:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Arcticocean: In 2018, arbcom-l became arbcom-en and the archives are in two different places. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appointing one of the sitting arbitrators as "Coordinating Arbitrator" (motion 3) would be my recommended first choice of solution. We had a Coordinating Arbitrator—a carefully chosen title, as opposed to something like "Chair"—for a few years some time ago. It worked well, although it was not a panacea, and I frankly don't recollect why the coordinator role was dropped at some point. If there is a concern about over-reliance or over-burden on any one person, the role could rotate periodically (although I would suggest a six-month term to avoid too much time being spent on the mechanics of selecting someone and transitioning from one coordinator to the next). At any given time there should be at least one person on a 15-member Committee with the time and the skill-set to do the necessary record-keeping and nudging in addition to arbitrating, and this solution would avoid the complications associated with bringing another person onto the mailing list. I think there would be little community appetite for involving a WMF staff member (even one who is or was also an active Wikipedian) in the Committee's business; and if we are going to set the precedent of paying someone to handle tasks formerly handled by volunteers, with all due respect to the importance of ArbCom this is not where I would start. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:32, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments. Regarding little community appetite – that is precisely why we are inviting community input here on this page, as one way to assess how the community feels about the various options. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also like the idea of an arb or two taking on this role more than another layer of clerks. I'm sure former arbs would be great at it but the committee needs to handle its own internal business. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 03:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is ideal for the arbitration committee to track its own work items and prompt its members for timely action, and may have written this some time ago on-wiki. However... years have passed now, and the arbitration committee elections aren't well-suited to selecting arbitrators with the requisite skill set (even if recruitment efforts were made, the community can only go by the assurance of the candidate regarding the skills they possess and the time they have available). So I think it's worth looking at the option of keeping an arbitrator involved in an emeritus position if they have shown the aptitude and availability to help with administration. This could be an interim approach, until another solution is in place (maybe there can be more targeted recruiting of specific editors who, by their ongoing Wikipedia work, have demonstrated availability and tracking ability). isaacl (talk) 18:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 and 4 don't seem like very good ideas to me. For 2, I think we need to maintain a firm distinction between community and WMF entities, and not do anything that even looks like blending them together. For 4, every time you involve money in something, you multiply your potential problems by a factor of at least ten (and why should that person get paid, when other people who contribute just as much time doing other things don't, and when, for that matter, even the arbs themselves don't?). For 1, I could see that being a good idea, to take some clerical/"grunt work" load off of ArbCom and give them more time for, well, actually arbitrating, and functionaries will all already have signed the NDA. I don't have any problem with 3, but don't see why ArbCom can't just do it if they want to; all the arbs already have access to the information in question so it's not like someone is being approved to see it who can't already. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CaptainEek: Following up on your comments on motion 1, depending on which aspect of the proposed job one wanted to emphasize, you could also consider "amanuensis," "registrar," or "receptionist." (The best on-wiki title in my opinion, though we now are used to it so the irony is lost, will always be "bureaucrat"; I wonder who first came up with that one.) Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:49, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or "cat-herder". --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following parliamentary tradition, perhaps "whip". (Less whimsically: "recording secretary".) isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad:, if memory serves @Keegan: knows who came up with it, and as I recall the story was that they wanted to come up with the most boring, unappealing name they could so not too many people would be applying for it all the time. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 05:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So, just to usher in a topic-specific discussion because it has been alluded to many times without specifics being given, what was the unofficial position of ArbCom coordinator like? Who held this role? How did it function? Were other arbitrators happy with it? Was the Coordinator given time off from other arbitrator responsibilities? I assume this happened when an arbitrator just assumed the role but did it have a more formal origin? Did it end because no one wanted to pick up the responsibility? Questions, questions. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot speak for anything but my term. I performed this role for about 1.5 years of the 2 I was on the committee. To borrow an email I sent not long before I stepped off that touches on the topics in this whole set of motions (yes, this discussion isn't new):
  • Daily, ~20 minutes: went into the list software and tagged the day's incoming new email chains with a label (think "upe", "duplicate", etc).
  • Daily, ~10 minutes: took care of any filtered emails on the list (spam and not-spam).
  • Monthly, 1-2 hours: trawled the specific categories of tags since the beginning of the month to add to an arbwiki page for tracking for "needs to get done". Did the inverse also (removed stuff from tracking that seemed either Done or Stale).
  • Monthly, 15 minutes to prep: sent an email with a direct list of the open appeals and a reminder about the "needs doing" stuff (and a few months I highlighted a topic or two that were easy wins). This built off the daily work in a way that would be a long time if it were all done monthly instead of daily.
I was also an appeals focused admin, which had further overhead here that I would probably put in the responsibility of this kind of arb. Other types of arbs probably had similar things they would have wanted to do this direction but I saw very little of such. Daily for this effort, probably another 15 minutes or so:
  • I copy-pasted appeal metadata from new appeals email to arbwiki
  • Started countdown timers for appeals appearing to be at consensus
  • Sent "easy" boilerplate emails e.g. "we got this appeal, we may be in touch" or "no way Jose you already appealed a month ago"
  • Sent results for the easy appeals post-countdown timer and filled in relevant metadata (easy appeals here usually translated to "declined" since this was the quick-n-easy daily work frame, not the long-or-hard daily work frame)
(End extract from referenced email.) This second set is now probably a much-much lighter workload with the shedding of most CU appeals this year (which was 70% of the appeals by count during my term), and I can't say how much of this second group would be in the set of duties depending on which motion is decided above (or if even none of the motions are favored by the committee - you can see I've advocated for privately documenting the efforts of coordinating arbs rather than publicly documenting them regarding 3, and it wouldn't take much to get me to advocate against 2 and 4, I just know others can come to the right-ish conclusion on those two already; I'm pretty neutral on 1).
Based on the feedback I got as I was going out the door, it was appreciated. I did see some feedback that this version of the role was insufficiently personal to each arb. The tradeoff for doing something more personalized to each other arb is either time or software (i.e. money). I did sometimes occasionally call out when other members had not yet chimed in on discussions. That was ad hoc and mostly focused on onwiki matters (case votes particularly), but occasionally I had to name names when doing appeals work because the arbs getting to the appeal first were split. In general the rest of the committee didn't name names (which touches on some discussion above). I think some arbs appreciated seeing their name in an email when they were needed.
I was provided no formal relief from other matters. But as I discussed with one arb during one of the stressful cases of the term, I did provide relief informally for the duration of that case to that person for the stuff I was interested in, so I assume that either I in fact had no relief from other matters, or that I had relief but didn't know it (and just didn't ask for anyone else to do it - since I like to think I had it well enough in hand). :-) The committee is a team effort and not everyone on the team has the same skills, desire, or time to see to all other matters. (The probing above about arbs being insufficiently active is a worthwhile probe, to be certain.) To go further though, I definitely volunteered to do this work. Was it necessary work? I think so. I do not know what would have happened if I had not been doing it. (We managed to hit only one public snag related to timeliness during my term, which I count as a win; opinions may differ.)
There is no formal origin to the role that I know of. Someone else with longer committee-memory would have to answer whether all/recent committees have had this type, and who they were, and why if not.
I don't know how much of what I did lines up with what L235 had in mind proposing these motions. I do not think the work I did covers everything listed in the motions laid out. (I don't particularly need clarification on the point - it's a matter that will fall out in post-motion discussion.) Izno (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original announcement of the Coordinating Arbitrator position was here. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Archive zero: I love it! --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, that announcement also repeated the announcement at the top of the archive page that a departing arbitrator continued to assist the committee by co-ordinating the mailing list: acknowledging incoming emails and responding to senders with questions about them, and tracking issues to ensure they are resolved. So both a co-ordinator (plus a deputy!) and an arbitrator emeritus. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
former arbitrator will continue to coordinate the ArbCom mailing list. was probably a statement along the lines of "knows how to deal with Mailman". And I think you're getting that role mixed up with the actual person doing the work management: the Arbitration Committee has decided to appoint one of its sitting arbitrators to act as coordinator (emphasis mine). Izno (talk) 23:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I have no personal knowledge of what ended up happening. I just listed the responsibilities as described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 0 § Improving ArbCom co-ordination. I'm not sure what I'm getting mixed up; all I said is that a co-ordinator and deputy were appointed, and that a former arbitrator was said to be co-ordinating the mailing list. It's certainly possible the split of duties changed from the first post in the archive. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see that now. Izno (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree with Izno regarding the coordinating arbitrator role. There's no problem letting the community that the role exists, but I don't think it's necessary for the role's responsibilities to be part of the public-facing guarantees being made to the community. If the role needs to expand, shrink, split into multiple roles, or otherwise change, the committee should feel free to just do it as needed. The committee has the flexibility to organize itself as it best sees fit. isaacl (talk) 23:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the right approach. It doesn't need to be advertised who is coordinating activity on the mailing list, it just needs to get done. If it takes two people, fine, if they do it for six months and say they want out of the role, ask somebody else to do it. And so on. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 23:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance, I don't think it's necessary to codify whether or not the coordinating arbitrator role is permanent. Just put a task on the schedule to review how the role is working out in nine months, and then modify the procedure accordingly as desired. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One exception: the first bullet point regarding responding to communications and assigning a tracking identifier does involve the committee's interactions with the community. I feel, though, that for flexibility these guarantees can be made without codifying who does them, from the community's point of view. (It's fine of course to make them part of the coordinating arbitrator's tasks.) isaacl (talk) 23:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Izno, this actually sounds like a helluva lot of work, maybe not minute-wise but mental, keeping track of everything so requests don't fall through the cracks. I think anyone assuming this role should get a break from, say, drafting ARBCOM cases if nothing else. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a lot of work, but it wasn't the bulk of the work, even for the work that I was doing. There was a lot more steps to being the appeal-focused admin above. Izno (talk) 04:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made me laugh, Liz. That sounds like my normal start-of-day routine, to be accompanied by a cup of tea and, perhaps, a small breakfast. I'd expect most arbitrators to be reading the mail on a daily basis, unless they are inactive for some reason; the difference here is the tagging/flagging of messages and clearing the filters, which probably adds about 10-12 minutes. I'll simply say that any arb who isn't prepared to spend 30-45 minutes/day reading emails probably shouldn't be an arb. That's certainly a key part of the role. Risker (talk) 04:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. In my thoughts to potential candidates I said an hour a day for emails but that included far more appeals than the committee gets now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind reading emails, the bulk of my private ArbCom time was spent on processing them: doing checks, reporting results, and otherwise responding to other work. You can get away with just reading internal emails, but it's going to surprise your fellow arbs if you don't pipe up with some rational thought when you see the committee thinking about something personally objectionable and the first time they hear about it is when motions have been posted and are waiting for votes. Izno (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now, I check my email account about once a week. I guess that will change if I'm elected to the committee. It would have helped to hear all of these details before the election. Liz Read! Talk! 08:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My hour included time to respond to emails, though I also note you're not going particularly deep on anything with that time (at least when ArbCom had more appeals). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

Arbitration enforcement archives
1234567891011121314151617181920
2122232425262728293031323334353637383940
4142434445464748495051525354555657585960
6162636465666768697071727374757677787980
81828384858687888990919293949596979899100
101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120
121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140
141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160
161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198199200
201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216217218219220
221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240
241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260
261262263264265266267268269270271272273274275276277278279280
281282283284285286287288289290291292293294295296297298299300
301302303304305306307308309310311312313314315316317318319320
321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340
341342343344345

Rasteem

Rasteem is topic banned from the subject of India and Pakistan, broadly construed, until both six months have elapsed and they have made 500 edits after being notified of this sanction. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Rasteem

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
NXcrypto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Rasteem (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:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 07:15, 21 September 2024 - Introduces close paraphrased content into an article [1]
  2. 04:14, 30 October 2024 - Moves a page against the naming convention.
  3. 02:59, 1 November 2024 - Edit wars over the same page move with another user while calling it vandalism .
  4. 13:52, 9 November 2024 - Does not understand that he is edit warring in spite of being warned about it and doing exactly that.
  5. 13:58, 9 November 2024 - Labels edit warring warning he received from me as "retaliatory" when I never interacted with him before this encounter.
  6. 14:21, 9 November 2024 - Calling a general sanctions alert on caste topics as a "retaliatory warning".
  7. 00:51, 10 November 2024 - Accuses another editor of POV pushing when no one other than him was making a pseudohistorical claim that Zafar Khan of Muzaffarid dynasty was a Jat contravening the academic discussion on the same.
  8. 03:00, 10 November 2024 - Claims that he only made a single revert when he has made 3 in 24 hours. [2][3][4]
  9. 01:32, 10 November 2024 -Misidentifying an academic Priyanka Khanna with a fashion designer to remove sourced content [5]
  10. 11:28 10 November 2024 - Removes good faith talkpage message about above and a general note regarding using minor edits while calling them retaliatory.
  11. 01:49, 15 November 2024 - Does not understand WP:BRD, immediately restores his content after being reverted and then asks others to follow BRD.
  12. 17:31, 15 November 2024 - Tells others to follow WP:BRD while edit warring to restore his own edits that were reverted, the irony is lost on him.
  13. 01:13, 18 November 2024 - Tries to poison the well against me based on a made up on the spot rule ("2RR") when I simply gave my feedback which was requested by an Admin before granting their WP:PERM/RB request.
  14. 02:00, 25 November 2024 - Abuses warning templates on a new user's talkpage and then reverts the user when they clear their page. Also review this revision history of their page to see the severity of abuse of warning templates and WP:BITEY behaviour.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
[6]
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • 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 Date by Username (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on Date (see the system log linked to above).
  • Gave an alert about contentious topics in the area of conflict to another editor, on Date
  • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on Date.
  • Successfully appealed all their own sanctions relating to the area of conflict, on Date.
  • Placed a {{Contentious topics/aware}} template for the area of conflict on their own talk page.
  • Otherwise made edits indicating an awareness of the contentious topic.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Rasteem is repeatedly failing to meet the standards of acceptable behavior, biting new users, and assuming hostility and bad faith on the part of established editors. His editing in this topic area has been tendentious.Despite being alerted sanctions on caste and WP:ARBIPA, he continues to take part in this behavior and displays WP:CIR issues. There may also be a language barrier given his poorly written or incomprehensible responses. To prevent further disruption in this highly contentious area, I believe a topic ban is the minimum necessary measure here.Nxcrypto Message 10:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to unpack in the wall of text posted by Rasteem.

  • 6th - This is entirely misleading [7]. You did not address how my warning was retaliatory, in fact you are basically still saying that my first ever interaction with you was still somehow retaliatory, this explains it better than I can do
  • 7th -It was not a copy edit, you used a poor cited source(that doesn't have an author) for pushing his caste as Jat, the source in question & quotation in question was added by you in the first place[8].Wikipedia is not a place for boosting a certain caste.
  • 8th - You say that you understand what 3RR is but you are still claiming that making 3 reverts in 24 hours violates it which is not correct.
  • 10th - If you are allowed to remove your messages after you read them, why did you restore your warnings on a newcomer's talkpage, if they have removed it themselves?
  • 13th - Bringing up the conduct of other users in order to make their comments less valid when your own edits are under scrutiny is classic Poison the well fallacy. Your continued attempt to defend that hostile stance there is concerning
  • 14th - You were simply told to leave warnings, not abuse them, abuse is when you give warnings that are not appropriate. I can see that you have given that user multiple final level warnings for vandalism when they clearly did not vandalise, see WP:NOTVANDAL and you are not supposed to issue a warning that is meant to be final again and again, for example you reverted this addition of hyperlinks by a new user @HistorianAlferedo: and issued them a final warning for vandalism,[9] when no one would ever regard that edit as vandalism. You reverted this sourced and well explained edit by the same user and gave them a final warning for vandalism[10][11] Similar thing here [12] [13]. You also restored your warnings after they had cleared them despite being aware of the fact that when a user clears their talkpage it is assumed they have read it. The fact that you do not understand that you were abusing the warnings and are now deflecting the blame saying admins told you to do that is very concerning. Nxcrypto Message 02:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested[14]


Discussion concerning Rasteem

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 Rasteem

Answers  

1. This was my first sourced article. I wasn't aware of close paraphrasing. After this note,[15] I didn't repeat this mistake. 

2. & 3. I moved Hoysala Kingdom > Hoysala kingdom twice. I thought the word "Kingdom" was not part of the full name. After this notice,[16] I didn't repeat such mistakes.

5. On Political marriages in India there was a content dispute among different editors.[17] I had talked to the editor who reverted my edits, explained to him why I considered his GC note as retaliatory. [18]

6. About General notice of GSCASTE. I gave an explanation to the editor who gave me this notice and explained to him why I considered his warning a retaliatory (see answer#5 & diif #[4]).

7. Addition in Zafar Khan's paragraph as Jat ruler was a copyedit per the cited source.[1] I wasn't trying to promote a specific POV.

8. On 9 November, I accidentally committed a 3RR violation. At the time, 'I was unaware that the 3RR was not only about making 3 reverts using Twinkle. Please accept my apology considering it my first mistake. 'when I said I didn't conduct an edit war, I said it in the sense that I made only 2 reverts using the Twinkle'.

9. There are multiple authors named Priyanka Khanna. I thought journal written by this author[19] but actually was written by this.[20] 

10. As I'm allowed to remove own talk page messages after reading it. For explainations about retaliatory warning (see answers #5)

11. & 12. On 14 November after this revert, I didn't make further reverts on this page.[21] And left a notice on Talk:page[22] regarding recent revert and removal of content.

13. I gave a reply to Crypto's comment.[23] I gave there my explanation; it wasn't in the intention of Poison in the well. 

14. I was advised by admin that you have to leave an edit warning for every revert you made without checking edits of a user. I asked him, Will it be Back Bitting?[24] If I give many warnings for each revert I made or just after their 1st or 2nd vandalism. He said that's incorrect, & it is necessary to leave an edit warning for each revert.[25]

  1. ^ Indian History. Allied Publishers. 1988. pp. B_131. ISBN 978-81-8424-568-4.

Further answers 

6. You didn't ask me for the clarification so I didn't get a chance to clarify. In this conversation I discussed how many warnings I considered retaliatory and for what reasons.[26]

7. Your provided diff is an older one when I added 3 paragraphs with four sources.[27] Later I removed the word 'Jat'[28] from this paragraph, then I thought someone would object why I removed this word then I copyedited.[29]  

8. I think I understand the 3RR rule.

13. My clarification on the rollback request was just to reply to Crypto's comment.

14. I just gave a warning notice for each revert I made (See some disruptive edits).[30][31][32][33][34]

  • I reverted this edit[35] per WP:CASTECRUFT.
  • This edit removed the word 'Yaduvanshi rulers' & added random 2-3 links.[36]
  • This edit removed the content 'Chaudhary family & Lohar clan of Rajputs'.[37]

Users are allowed to blank their talk pages, so restoration of the old revision was not required. It was in the sense user learn nothing from their past disruptions & I was compelled to report user at WP:AIV.

Femke, Thank you for clarifying the 3RR rule for me. I'll step back from making mistakes & I'll make sure I understand the policies before discussing them. I will focus on the content rather than the person in future. I admit it was not a good practice leaving warning even after 3-4 warnings. Yes, I did report this user at AIV.[38]
Seraphimblade, ScottishFinnishRadish, I had a content dispute with two editors, and with one of them, I've talked and settled the dispute. The person who reported me here, I didn't get a chance to talk to him; that's my bad luck. Please don't topic ban me, as I've already slowed down editing in contentious areas. I've tried hard to refrain from repeating such first-time mistakes. I assure you I will not repeat these mistakes again. I've already accepted my mistakes, also shown by my behavior; I've always refrained from repeating it. ®asteem Talk 17:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note for Admin:

My first & last interactions with NXcrypto was limited to Political marriages in India there we had a content dispute. On my rollback request, he was asked for his opinion: "He claimed Rasteem is on the verge of the topic ban." Later, he filed this report instead of resolving the content dispute on article's talk page. This report seems like a coordinated attempt to get rid of edit disputes from Arbitration Enforcement. I'll request the admin please also consider this and check my contributions that is largely for reverting vandalism at RC patrol.[39]

Above in my answers I acknowledge and apologize for the mistakes I made, all of which were first-time errors those I didn't repeat. (just noting that this is a comment by User:Rasteem. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC))[reply]

Seraphimblade I respect your decision & appreciate your involvement in this report. I've seen your closing comment.[40] I kindly request you consider reducing the six-month period of topic ban, if possible, since most of the mistakes I made were first-time errors. If not possible, you can please ban me without the condition of an unban appeal after the time period of my fixed ban.? I asked for it because I've read the comment of admin:Valereee that the appeal is very hard[41] even though I'm not fully aware of the policies of WP:ARE. ®asteem Talk 05:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by LukeEmily

Looking at their edit history, I think Rasteem is doing a good job across wikipedia. I have had very brief interactions with @Rasteem:. Came across this page when I was posting a message on their talkpage and was surprised to find this complaint. I do not see any POV pushing for any caste by Rasteem. Most of the above items seem to be unintentional innocent mistakes - made by many senior editors - and I will go through each of them one by one. For example, Priyanka Khanna misidentification might just be because google showed up the incorrect search results. They are also polite, for example - [ https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Rajput&diff=prev&oldid=1256533002 ] here they even apologised to @Adamantine123: although it was not necessary. I don't think any ban is necessary.LukeEmily (talk) 22:45, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Rasteem

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Definitely seeing some caste shenanigans and edit warring, although the edit warring is fairly widespread. Interested in seeing the response. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rasteem: your response is now over 2,000 words. Per the instructions, can you please summarize this within 500 words and 20 diffs or ask for a (small!) extension to the word limit and summarize it to the new word limit. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rasteem, you're again over the word limit. I'll grant you a 200-word extension for your "Further answers", so please condense this significantly. Also, please avoid "shouting" via excessive bolding and colouring.
    On the merits: in general, Rasteem is not the only to resort to disruptive behavior: there is too little discussion. In particular, Rasteem, you really need to WP:focus on content, rather than on the person. For edit warring, I expect an editor of your tenure to know that (a) you don't need to break the 3RR red line for something to count as edit warring. Experienced editors usually use BRD, meaning they only do 1 revert. (b) violating 3RR means at least 4 reverts, not 3. Move warring in particular is really not done (and WP:RM/TR is not the place for contentious moves. A normal WP:RM is). In terms of warning a new user, 4 final warnings does not make any sense, please ensure you report to AIV instead. The advice to leave a warning on each revert does not apply after 4 warnings. It's a good sign you admit when you're wrong in some cases, but you need to step back and ensure you understand policies before talking about them.
    Given the willingness to learn, I wonder if a WP:1RR restriction and a warning for WP:civility might suffice. I'm not against a topic ban either. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Rasteem: you're still well over the 700 word count (>1300). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is more a case of trying to go too far, too fast than any malicious intent, but in a highly contentious area, that can be every bit as disruptive, Regardless, once you know other editors are objecting to what you're doing, it's time to slow down and talk to them, not just carry right on. I think I would favor a topic ban at this time, but with the expectation that if Rasteem shows constructive editing and discussion in other areas for a good period of time, it is likely that such a topic ban could be lifted by a future appeal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think a time and edit topic ban would fit here, or just a standard topic ban that has to be appealed? I find that the time and edit topic bans are a bit lighter-weight without letting people just sit them out. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the time-plus-edits topic ban is an interesting idea. If you've found them to work well, I don't have any objection to that. I think it's normally six months with 500 edits? Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's generally how I do them. Saves the effort of an appeal if there has been no issues brought up during the tban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do prefer the user need not appeal, and in particular when they believe they're making a sincere attempt to learn. Appeals are hard. Valereee (talk) 17:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hard for the appellant, and it's not exactly as if we're overflowing with administrators here, so it's a benefit all around. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is acceptable to me too. They seem keen to learn, and doing that outside of a contentious topic area for a while would be useful for them. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears that the consensus is for a topic ban from the India-Pakistan area for 6 months and 500 edits outside the topic area, whichever comes later. Unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by InedibleHulk

The American politics topic ban on InedibleHulk is lifted., while the GENSEX topic ban remains in place. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, 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
InedibleHulk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sanction being appealed
WP:CT/AP. (Original 1-year site ban, appeal converting this into t-bans)
Administrator imposing the sanction
Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
Here.

Statement by InedibleHulk

I was originally banned on July 13, 2023, for mostly GENSEX reasons. Since then, I've avoided both contentious topics and barely bothered anyone in other fields. The elections now over, what I perceive to be the problem others foresaw me causing is moot, and I'd like to be able to clean up uncontroversial articles like (but not strictly limited to) Mike Sherstad and Joseph Serra. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand Femke's question. Problems (namely using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case) led to my block; repeated assurance that I would stop eventually led to my unblock. I think the "avoid American politics" part came up because mass murder and gender disputes were hot-button issues at the time; some wanted me banned from gun control instead. It may have had something to do with things I said in previous elections about how Trump was preferable to Clinton or how Harris should have beat Biden. I didn't really have much to feel or say about Trump vs Harris, even if I could have, and that much hasn't changed. I was only as interested as I was in Trump's prior campaigns because he was a pro wrestling personality; now that he's more fully transitioned into a regular politician, I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this doesn't address the circumstances of the ban/block and explain why this editing restriction is no longer necessary, I don't know what will. The elections are over and I've lost interest in the only politicians I've bickered about here. If there's something else this restriction was meant to stop that I haven't addressed, please, be specific. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And while this appeal seeks an AP2 unban alone, I think GoodDay is right that I might prove myself an improved GENSEX editor now as well, if given that chance. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, this is still entirely an AP2 appeal. I wouldn't mind a GENSEX unban, as "gravy", and have certainly learned my DEADNAME lesson long ago. But discussing both at once would get confusing and I run into far more AP2 pages "randomly", so that leads. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ScottishFinnishRadish, my issue with your issue is that I wasn't topic-banned (from AP2) for any particular issue, so I can't say what I'll do to avoid whatever it is except to say I'll let politics regulars handle him, his opponents and whatever resultant subtopics and drama.

Femke, I agree that my summaries are often misunderstood. They have been for almost 19 years and, as always, when confusion arises, I try to explain. In this latest case, Read it again? was a question intended as a suggestion, not a demand, and not a dumb suggestion either (since Seraphimblade seemed to see what Liz didn't from reading the same part). Also, I'm IH, not EH.

Aquillion, last year, I vowed to back away from that case altogether and would rather say as little as possible about it still. Generally speaking, though, I don't use the word "believed" to imply just belief. Beliefs are at the root of all we say, think and know. I could have used either of those verbs instead, in hindsight, but they all have their own plausibly troubling connotations if one focuses on what's not written. They (just) thought (but didn't know), (merely) knew (but didn't say) or (only) said (but didn't believe). I'm far from always a perfect communicator, but that was me on my best behaviour. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TiggerJay, consider the shouting and unduly harsh talk over. I'm not sure what these "other things" you allude to are, but I can guess swearing is one thing, questions (rhetorical or not) are another and the rest is probably reasonable and doable. I'll try to fall more in line with ESL, by simply and succinctly saying what I did, but won't follow the given examples precisely, on account of the roboticness. InedibleHulk (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, yes, I had an iffy feeling about that one shortly after I hit "Publish changes". Then it was confirmed a bad feeling on my talk page. Now you're the third one here to reinforce that sentiment, after I'd already agreed to save words like those for self-deprecation (which will likely stop now, too). Like all edit summaries, it's become unchangeable, but still forgivable. I'm sorry. InedibleHulk (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I would tend to agree that this is pretty short on detail. I would like to see the response to Femke's question before making further comment. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:57, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the more complete statement more addresses what happened, and in the original scenario, the AP2 issue was a more tangential one, so I don't have a particular opposition to lifting that. If this request has now been modified to also be an appeal to the GENSEX topic ban, that was much more directly on point when the original incident occurred, and I don't support lifting that at this time. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
InedibleHulk, I think the edit below ([42]) might kind of illustrate the problems with your approach. I realize it's certainly not related to either of politics or GENSEX, but that edit isn't so bad as to be a flagrant lie, and it doesn't even seem all that implausible to me. At most, it's unreferenced. Do you see how using the edit summary of "LIAR!" comes across as needlessly aggressive? You could still remove it with a summary of "I don't think this is accurate" or "This would need a citation" instead, and that would be far less confrontational. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:03, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by InedibleHulk

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 GoodDay

Lift the t-bans - IMHO, any editor deserves a chance to prove themselves & there's only one way for that to happen. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Describing what happened here as using female pronouns for a mass murderer most believed was a man and for too heavily arguing my case is downplaying the diffs; but beyond that it's hard to miss the fact that InedibleHulk is still, even in an appeal, carefully wording their statements to avoid referring to Hale as a man and is in fact presenting that as just a belief. While this isn't a GENSEX appeal, it's pretty glaring to see that sort of wording even in an appeal (where one would expect someone to be on their best behavior). --Aquillion (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Tiggerjay

While InedibleHulk has generally been contributing positively, making useful edits in non-TBAN areas, his edit summaries are concerning, sometimes falling under WP:ESDONTS and can appear as uncivil, even when doing otherwise mundane. Such as using the edit summary of "LIAR!" when removing an edit. Left unaddressed, this can easily spiral out of control again when these same edit summaries are applied to contentious articles. Even in his own defense above, he cites this on his talk page, and in it, clearly illustrates that he finds his edit summaries otherwise acceptable and that his summaries are simply a shout into the darkness instead of intended as a personal attack. I choose to AGF that he does not intend to be uncivil, however, before lifting any TBAN in any contentious topics, I would like to see his edit summaries conform more to WP:ESL and completely avoid the "shouting" or other things which, regardless of intention by Hulk, which can and have been broadly understood to be uncivil. TiggerJay (talk) 16:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by InedibleHulk

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This appeal is very light on details. What problems were there that led to the unblock conditions and how do you plan to avoid them in the future? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm on two minds. On the one hand, AP2 is a wide topic ban and the GENSEX ban may sufficient to prevent behaviour like last time. On the other hand, I do find EH'sIH's use of edit summaries not that conducive to editing in contentious topics. For instance [43] (which said LIAR!), but also at this AE [44] "Read it again", after Liz indicates she still found the appeal to short on information. Most often, the edit summaries are simply cryptic. I'd like some more assurances for EHIH to improve communication via edit summaries. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With the commitment around edit summaries, I'm now happy to give IH another try in AP2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:22, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Femke. InedibleHulk, usually when an editor is appealing a topic ban or block, they make a formal request/argument that addresses the circumstances of the ban/block and why this editing restriction is no longer necessary. I don't really see that here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue I see with this appeal is that the argument is "the issue is moot, so I'm fine," rather than "I won't do this again, even if a similar issue arises." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to give this editor a chance to demonstrate they can edit constructively without having to stay miles away from the topic. Topic bans are something we should be using only when really needed. It's been a year. Let's see if it's still needed. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IH irks me sometimes (often his edit summaries, mentioned above by others), but I have no concerns about removing the AP topic ban and giving him a chance. I'd be slightly more concerned about the GENSEX topic ban, but (a) he's not asking for that to be lifted, and (b) I'll acknowledge that this might be a knee-jerk instinctive concern. But sure, let's at least lift the AP topic ban. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by IdanST

Appeal declined. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: Per the rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals, 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
IdanST (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sanction being appealed
3 month block for topic ban violation
Administrator imposing the sanction
ScottishFinnishRadish (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
I'm aware. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by IdanST

I'm indefinitely topic-banned from the Arab–Israeli conflict for creating the Rapid Response Unit (Israel) (a translation of its Origin[he]) when I had approximately 460 edits with no WP:ECR permission.
I was subsequently blocked for 3 months due to my edit here, as ScottishFinnishRadish claimed it was a violation of my TBAN. My edit involved correcting the nationality of Yoav Gallant and Benjamin Netanyahu to indicate they are Israeli nationals, not Palestinian nationals. My intentions and the edit itself were not related to the conflict but rather focused on accurately representing their nationality.
It appears that my edit was reverted 3 hours later (here) by TRCRF22 because the table in question is not about personnels and their nationality but rather about personnels and the countries that the ICC's investigations concerned. This proves a misunderstanding on my part regarding the table's purpose, as I would not have edited in this area if I'd understood it correctly.
Approximately 10 hours after the revert, I was blocked for 3 months. IdanST (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ScottishFinnishRadish

They were previously blocked twice for ECR violations, with two failed appeals, then topic banned for ECR violations, permission gaming, and NPOV issues. This block was made after violating that topic ban. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by IdanST

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 (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by IdanST

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • You regret editing against your topic ban because you made an error in the edit. This gives me little confidence you would abide by the topic ban if you see future errors. I'm not seeing sufficient reason to grant the appeal. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this illustrates very well why a topic ban means to not edit in the restricted area at all. If IdanST thinks that making an error is the problem, then I would decline this appeal. Don't edit anything that even seems close to the line. Go edit articles about chemical compounds, or Spanish literature, or medieval architecture, or any of the myriad of other subjects that aren't about Israel and Palestine. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • IdanST, you cannot go anywhere near the topic, including not to make edits you think are correcting errors. You cannot discuss the topic anywhere, including leaving barnstars. When you are topic banned, you need to go edit somewhere else completely. From your user talk and your failed appeals, it seems clear you don't understand what a topic ban means. We tried to give you an opportunity to learn how to edit outside of a contentious topic, which is a terrible place to learn, and you didn't take advantage of that opportunity. I can't support an appeal right now. Valereee (talk) 20:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mk8mlyb

Mk8mlyb is topic banned indefinitely from the subject of the Arab-Israeli conflict, broadly construed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Mk8mlyb

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Mk8mlyb (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:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 16:19, 5 December 2024 Mk8mlyb remove material from article with edit summary "Source contains antisemitism"
  2. 15:21, 6 December 2024 M.Bitton leaves them a CTOP notice
  3. 14:53, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material from the article again with edit summary "Stop using sources that are antisemitic. The statement is false."
  4. 15:08, 6 December 2024 I revert them and leave a message in my edit summary to refer to Talk:Zionism/Archive 24#Revert as it pertains to a section of the article they are removing.
  5. 15:15, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb removes the same material again with edit summary "This is garbage. If we have to discuss whether to remove something that's obviously antisemitic, then something's wrong."
  6. 15:34, 6 December 2024 I left a message on their talk advising them that they had violated active arbitration remedies in regards to compulsory BRD on the article and request they take more care (it turns out that they'd violated 1RR and enforced BRD twice)
  7. 16:42, 6 December 2024 Mk8mlyb leaves a comment on my talk "I'm sorry, but if you're going to use that as an excuse to justify not doing anything about what is obvious antisemitism, then something's wrong with you. Many of those sources are antisemitic propaganda, if not all of them."
  8. 17:10, 6 December 2024 comments at Talk:Zionism "No, it's not. Israel is not engaging in ethnic cleansing. That is pro-Hamas antisemitic propaganda used to distract from the truth."
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 15:21, 6 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I tried to be helpful and request that they take more care in the future and obviously this editor is not here to be a net positive. Of note, one of the sections of text that they were removing has the script <!-- The following text is the result of consensus on the talk page. Changes to the text have been challenged and any further edits to the sentence should be discussed on the talk page and consensus obtained to change.--> just before it.TarnishedPathtalk 12:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update, since the filling of this report Mk8mlyb has made the following comments on his and Selfstudier's talk:
05:00, 7 December 2024, 05:10, 7 December 2024 and 06:07, 7 December 2024. All three comments throw around accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPathtalk 01:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following on from M.Bitton's statement below, this topic area already has enough heat in it without having editors wading in and weaponising accusations of antisemitism. TarnishedPathtalk 04:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
23:30, 6 December 2024


Discussion concerning Mk8mlyb

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 Mk8mlyb

OK, so I got here after a brief discussion, and so I'd like to ask again: what did I do wrong? I'm trying to remove what is clearly antisemitic content and propaganda. I'm just trying to tell the truth. Zionism is not about clearing the land of Palestinian Arabs, at least not the mainstream type. And the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre. I read the article I was given and it explains that Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased because of the variety among its users and to promote critical thinking. It seems that using an antisemite who justified a terrorist attack as a credible source, especially over sources that debunk his claims, goes against that. If you're willing to defend antisemitic content that violates the site's neutral point of view for the sake of procedure, that says more about you than me. And even if it didn't, presenting a neutral point of view does not mean ignoring basic facts and showing a false balance between facts and lies. I want an explanation for this. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:50, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What? I didn't say that. I basically said that my edit was in line with the site's guidelines. The fact that you won't even explain what I did wrong and write me off as a bad guy is just dumb. If you have a good explanation for this that doesn't involve antisemitism, I'd be happy to hear it. I am here to be a net positive, it's just that people don't like what I think that involves. Mk8mlyb (talk) 03:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are Wikipedia's standards on what is antisemitic? Because whatever they are, the result has been a swarm of anti-Israel bias. Article after article slams Israel, from accusing it of human rights abuses such as denying water and food, ethnic cleansing, war crimes, to outright genocide, to even comparing it to Nazi Germany, none of which are closely true. Losing a war is not genocide, and it's Hamas that started the war when they invaded Israel and killed hundreds of innocent Jewish people. Israel has repeatendly sent food and aid to Gaza and the West Bank to help the Palestinians, and it's Hamas that has repeatedly stolen the aid for its own selfish gains. Israel consistently put their own soldiers in danger to protect the Palestinians from their attacks on schools and mosques where Hamas hides its rockets and missiles. Look, I don't mind showing the suffering of the Palestinians and criticizing the Israeli government. Israel is not perfect. But to act like there are fine people on both sides of Israel and Hamas is a false balance. This is not American politics, where both the Democrats and Republicans are to blame for the situation. It's not both sides, and Israel is in the right to defend itself against genocidal terrorists. If Wikipedia is to truly maintain its credibility and commitment to facts and a neutral point of view, it needs to fix the articles to show these facts. But we're not. And that's the problem. You're probably wondering why I'm bringing this up here when I should have brought it up on the talk page, and I guess you'd be right. I probably could have handled this a little better. But my point still stands. Mk8mlyb (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I guess I can see the issue. But I have to say, if the rules allow such bias to permeate through the articles of the Arab-Israeli conflict, then the rules have to be changed. And I am not acting on media misinformation or social media. I did some research on my own. Also, it's not just about one sentence or source. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:45, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? You haven't even fully explained what the problem is. I'm not here to cause trouble. If you give me a chance I'll back off and let it be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I get it. I was wrong to edit the sentence against consensus and without checking the rules. I'm not doubling down. But I do have a source proving that the writer in question defended the October 7 massacre:[1] Mk8mlyb (talk) 08:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I understand the content policies just fine and I'm not trying to double down. I just don't think they're being followed. There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 19:34, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Yeah, I guess so. Though I'm not sure how that's related to policy. I probably took things a little too far. I'm sorry. I will go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without justification. Mk8mlyb (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, come on. I said I was sorry for ignoring the CTOP notice and taking things too far. I promise to go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without proper reason. Can we just call it a day? There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Is anyone listening to me? I said I was sorry for ignoring the CTOP notice and taking things too far. After thinking about my actions, I understand what I did wrong. I promise to go through the proper procedures next time I want to edit a contentious topic, and I will not call people antisemites without proper reason. Can we please just call it a day? I'm willing to play ball. There's no need for a ban. Mk8mlyb (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly does specific mean? I've acknowledged exactly where I went wrong and and have pledged not to repeat those things. I admit that I should have heeded the CTOP notice and not accused people of being antisemites without proper reason. I also admit that I should have brought up the issue on the talk page and sought a consensus rather than rush in headfirst, and that I should have made sure my sources followed the guidelines. What do I have to say to be more specific? I don't get it. If you give me a chance, I'll back off and let it be. Mk8mlyb (talk) 06:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.meforum.org/campus-watch/ex-plo-spokesman-rashid-khalidi-explains-away-oct

Statement by M.Bitton

The above comment by Mk8mlyb says it all. Not only do they not recognize the issues with their editing, but they are insisting that they are right and everyone else is wrong (or pro antisemitism, to be precise). A topic ban will probably prevent them from digging themself into a bigger hole. M.Bitton (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean.hoyland

Is it just me struggling to connect the words to the actions? There are 14 sources cited. What is the specific meaning of the statement "the sources I removed are from a guy who has demonstrated antisemitism and justified the October 7 massacre"? Why is the editor at that specific article out of 6,920,655 articles editing that specific sentence in such a seemingly bizarre way detached from policy? Have their actions been caused by external factors like misinformation in the media, social media commentary etc.? If they have an elevated susceptibility to misinformation, they should probably not be editing an encyclopedia, let alone articles in a contentious topic area. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, Mk8mlyb, let's assume for the sake of argument that all statements after 'Because whatever they are...' are the case. It still doesn't explain or justify your actions, actions that resulted in this AE report, removal of a statement with 14 sources. Wikipedia claims to be a rules-based system. It looks like your actions, regardless of any larger scale patterns that may or may not exist in Wikipedia's coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict, are inconsistent with the rules. That seems to be the issue. Can you see it? Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Zero0000

This editor shows no sign of acknowledging fault or of understanding what editing within the rules requires. This (false) BLP violation would justify action all by itself. Besides that, it's about time that administrators cracked down on casual accusations of antisemitism, which are becoming more and more common. Zerotalk 04:44, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place for source discussion, but for the record Khalidi has been quoted many times calling the Hamas attack a war crime. Here, for example. Zerotalk 11:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Mk8mlyb

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'd like to see if Mk8mlyb recognizes the issues with their editing and will commit to not doing that anymore so we can leave this with a logged warning, or if we'll end up at a topic ban. I looks like all of their problematic editing in the topic has happened just in the past day so I'm willing to go with a just a warning if some understanding is displayed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think at this point a topic ban is called for because they're still substituting their own POV for sources (see Femke's diff). I also don't think this is something that a time and edit limited tban will address, so I'd say indeed so they have to explain the issues and how they would avoid them before being allowed back in the topic. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mk8mlyb, it appears that what you consider to be "antisemitic" might not be in line with Wikipedia's standards that of reliable sources. Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not believe that a warning is sufficient here. Mk8mlyb has, I think, been presented here with the problems with their editing, and instead of taking that on board has just doubled down. I think all a warning does is see us right back here, probably sooner rather than later. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:56, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As it seems there is a clear consensus here for an indefinite topic ban from ARBPIA, unless any uninvolved admin objects within the next day or so, I will close as such. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree with Vanamonde; I've seen what you've said, but it's a bit of "too little, too late". I'm not convinced that your participation in one of the most hotly contentious areas of Wikipedia is a good idea at this time. Certainly this is a case where "indefinite need not mean permanent"; if you edit constructively in other areas for a few months and come back with an appeal, I think you'll find us very willing to consider lifting the ban. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mk8mlyb is doubling down, which makes it difficult to avoid imposing a topic ban. They are fairly new, so may be able to demonstrate they can learn from feedback outside of the topic area and appeal in due course. To answer their questions: Antisemitism has no place on Wikipedia, but well-sourced content critisizing the current government of Israel is not antisemitism. If there are sources that are of insufficient quality, please do bring this up on talk when challenged, but don't WP:edit war over it: the topic area is sufficiently contentious as is. A more serious issue is the unsourced claim that some writer defended the October 7 massacre per WP:BLPREMOVE. You should never add contentious material about a living person without a source anywhere on Wikipedia. Just to note they also edit in line with their own interpretation rather than sources in different topic areas [45]. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Examining their edits I'd also support a topic ban. I'm very concerned about the link above on a different topic which violates WP:NOR.Doug Weller talk 16:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issues here are pretty profound. I'd support a tban; maybe 6 months/500 instead of indef? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mk8mlyb, FWIW: an opinion piece in Campus Watch is not proof of anything. It may echo what you believe to be true, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for 'proving that the writer in question defended the October 7 massacre'. That's the kind of policy you should start learning somewhere other than a highly contentious topic. Valereee (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Mk8mlyb, so you understand that the meforum.org post you used just a few hours ago to prove Khalidi defended Oct 7 was not proving that? Valereee (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I won't object if others think it needs to be indef. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I saw the request I was hopeful that a warning would be sufficient here, but given that Mk8mlyb has doubled down and has shown no inclination to understand the relevant content policies, a TBAN is called for. I would strongly prefer that it not be time-limited; for a relatively new user, I could see a convincing appeal being made in 3 months, and I could also see the issues never being addressed. Indefinite, appealable in 3 months, would be my preference. Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:09, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mk8mlyb, I have seen your latest responses, and probably others have too: but they are not specific enough to convince me that you can constructively edit a topic this contentious at the moment. If you wish to edit in this area, show us that you can edit within the guidelines elsewhere, and we would likely grant an appeal. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Mk8mlyb, this discussion will close when it closes, maybe tomorrow or the day after or after a few days. You can't just say you're sorry and have this over with. We're trying to determine how to address a serious problem with your editing. You have very strong opinions about politics in this area and I'm not sure you can adhere to NPOV in your editing. Liz Read! Talk! 07:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entropyandvodka

No action. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Entropyandvodka

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Safrolic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Entropyandvodka (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:ARBPIA, WP:GAMING
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Between Oct 6 and 7th, 2023, this user made over 500 edits changing short descriptions. example,contribs log during the time period A majority of the edits were on Oct 6th, about 325 by my very rough count. They stopped their edit chain a few minutes after getting EC on the 6th, then did a couple hundred more on the 7th. Granted at 16h00, final edit of the day at 16h03 They had never made this kind of edit before, and they've only made a few edits of this type ever since, all on one P-I article this spring. They now have over 1,400 edits. Since then they have focused almost entirely on the PIA space, but have dedicated some time to the invasion of Ukraine. In the Russian invasion space, they've concerned themselves with making sure that a pro-Russian narrative is represented. [46][47] They appear in Billedmammal (talk · contribs)'s ARBPIA statistics broadsheet, which shows their edits as being 100% in PIA for the remainder of 2023 and 75% PIA for 2024. I sought input from SFR before making this report, because I see deeper implications from a gaming run for PIA on Oct 6th 2023.

I have not interacted with this user, beyond notifying them of this report.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
  • Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 8 May 2024 by SeraphimBlade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 13 Oct 2023 (see the system log linked to above).
  • Participated in process about the area of conflict (such as a request or appeal at AE, AN or an Arbitration Committee process page), on 8 May 2024 (same incident as the warning).


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Re: Liz's comment, I was unsure whether this was stale given that their further edits would put them over EC by now, though likely not without counting the PIA-related edits. This was why I asked SFR on his talk page first, who advised me that there likely wasn't a stale period for permission gaming. I haven't tried to assess recent content or conduct beyond a brief look at the Russia/Ukraine related edits. Safrolic (talk) 21:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Entropyandvodka

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 Entropyandvodka

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Entropyandvodka

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Tattipedia

Tattipedia blocked 1 week by ScottishFinnishRadish for ECR violations. Seraphimblade Talk to me 10:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 Tattipedia

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TarnishedPath (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Tattipedia (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:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17:17, 7 December 2024 Comments in an RFC in violation of WP:ARBECR.
  2. 18:04, 7 December 2024 Remsense leaves Tattipedia a CTOP notice for PIA.
  3. 19:14, 7 December 2024 Tattipedia replies back to the CTOP notice "ohh thank you".
  4. 21:20, 7 December 2024 Tattipedia again comments in the same RFC as previous in violation of WP:ARBECR.
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 18:04, 7 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Tattipedia has engaged in a RFC which is subject to WP:ARBECR after being advised that they can't and acknowledging it. Notably when @Theleekycauldron reverted their last violation of ARBECR at Special:Diff/1261677047 they noted that "ARBECR and probably a large language model". TarnishedPathtalk 11:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish, it happens. TarnishedPathtalk 15:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

22:25, 7 December 2024

Discussion concerning Tattipedia

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 Tattipedia

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Tattipedia

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

xDanielx

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 xDanielx

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
xDanielx (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:ARBPIA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

Material was originally added to the infobox on 17 October and

Removed by reported editor on 4 Dec, 5 Dec 7 Dec and 8 December with the last revert coming despite an explicit warning.


If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

PIA5 notice

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Experienced ex admin who should know better.

@Fiveby: It's out of scope for the PIA case as reported editor is not a named party. Both AE and Arbcom prefer not to deal with content issues. Selfstudier (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fiveby: I did not add the content nor have I edit warred over it. Obviously there are 3 editors who don't share your view while I have not as yet made up my mind, there is an ongoing RSN discussion now, and I will communicate my thoughts on the content there or possibly in an RFC if it ends up as that.Selfstudier (talk) 16:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

here


Discussion concerning xDanielX

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 xDanielX

I don't think the "explicit warning" by Selfstudier (Last time, RFC or RSN else AE) was appropriate; it seems like the sort of intimidation that WP:BATTLEGROUND prohibits. The idea of adjusting my editing based on intimidation by a highly involved non-admin didn't feel right.

Under the conventional view that removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert, I made two reverts here, with a lot of discussion in between (here, here, here, and this older discussion). My second revert was undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert, by a user who didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them asking for an explanation.

I normally revert very selectively - looking at my past 500 edits, there are only five reverts (at least obvious ones), with only these two being controversial. If I was a bit aggressive here, it was because the material violated our policies in a particularly blatant and severe manner.

The estimate in question falls under WP:SCHOLARSHIP since it's based on a novel methodology, and it fails that standard due to a lack of vetting by the relevant scholarly community (public health). The closest we have is this paper by an anthropologist, which includes the estimate but doesn't discuss whether the methodology is valid. The paper also appears to have no citations, and the group that published it doesn't appear to have any real scholarly vetting process.

The claim is also a highly WP:EXTRAORDINARY one. Health officials reported 38 starvations (as of Sep 16), which is quite different from the 62,413 (as of Sep 30) estimate. To me pushing to include such an extraordinary claim in wikivoice, with sources that clearly fall short of our relevant policies, indicates either POV pushing or a competence issue. — xDanielx T/C\R 18:31, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Responses to M.Bitton

@M.Bitton: removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring, and in practice are generally not understood as reverts, even if they appear to meet the literal definition. Some recent discussions on this were here and here.

I believe you misread the (confusing) history a bit; I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1. A related edit by Bogazicili had the effect of moving some footnote content, including a second instance of the 62,413 figure which I had initially missed, into the infobox. I hadn't understood this as an objection to my removal, since the edit summary conveyed a different purpose.

It didn't occur to me that you might not have seen my ping. I'll strike that remark, but I still feel that reverting an extensively discussed change with only there is no valid reason to remove this leaves something to be desired. I see that you've now joined the discussion, but still without substantive engagement; merely stating that you're unconvinced doesn't help to move the discussion forward. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: okay I missed that footnote change, but I think the point stands that neither change clearly conveyed an objection to the idea of removing the estimate from the infobox. If there was such an objection, I would have expected it to be noted in an summary or the discussion thread. And please assume good faith. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M.Bitton: there is no valid reason to remove this isn't really an explanation. I still have no idea what you disagree with and why. Is your position that the Watson paper is vetted scholarship, or that WP:SCHOLARSHIP doesn't apply, or something else? While this isn't the place, it would be good if you could explain your position in one of the relevant discussions. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I would argue that EW enforcement should account for factors like scale, engagement in discussions, timing, policy support, consensus, and broader patterns of user behavior.

  • Scale: I thought I had made two reverts. Maybe there's an argument that it was really three, but I wasn't aware of it.
  • Engagement: I discussed very substantively (here, here), and tried to get more input.
  • Timing: I thought the discussion seemed to have settled. Noone appeared to be continuing to defend the content in a substantive manner, so I felt more justified in removing it. The latest points like this didn't receive a response (besides Still disagree).
  • Consensus: the local consensus appeared to be leaning toward at least requiring attribution (as we do in the body which I didn't remove). There's also just a very clear global consensus against including unvetted WP:SCHOLARSHIP (no peer review, citations, etc) in wikivoice.
  • Patterns of behavior: these were my only controversial reverts in recent memory (at least looking at 500 edits).

If I could rewind, I would at least give it extra time to make sure that the discussion had settled, and maybe leave it to someone else to enact the result. However, I think if this were to be considered actionable edit warring, then nearly all active editors in the topic area would be guilty of it. Even in this same dispute, a different user just made their second revert, with less engagement and so on. I would argue that the single revert with no explanation might actually be the most problematic EW here, although I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW (there have been some inconclusive discussions on that). — xDanielx T/C\R 17:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ealdgyth: understood, though I think you mean EW broadly rather than 1RR? — xDanielx T/C\R 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm receiving the message that the factors I mentioned aren't good enough, but would still appreciate input on what acceptable participation in an edit war could look like. Maybe the answer is that there is none, but that would seem to depart from convention as I understood it, and possibly lead to a lot more formal RfCs. — xDanielx T/C\R 19:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: understood, but I think a strict/literal reading of EW would capture a lot of activity that's accepted in practice. It seems like in the absence of brightline violations, more subtle distinctions are drawn between acceptable and unacceptable forms of EW. I thought that I was on the right side of this distinction, per my remarks above, but maybe my understanding of it was off base. I can understand a warning here, but it would be more effective with more specific guidance on what to avoid. — xDanielx T/C\R 22:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: it looks I'm already past 500 words, is it okay to continue? Very briefly, I was trying to get at the idea that there seem to be certain informal customs limiting when EW should be enforced, going beyond the formal WP:3RRNO exceptions. If the policy were to be enforced to the letter, there would seem to be a vast number of violations; this same dispute contained at least a second ([48] [49]) and possibly a third. — xDanielx T/C\R 04:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by M.Bitton

removing old content generally doesn't constitute a revert old content means stable content (you know what that means).

I made two reverts this is factually incorrect. You made 3 reverts (excluding the first content removal):

  1. Removal of stable content.
  2. 1st revert, after Stephan rostie restored it.
  3. 2nd revert, after Cdjp1 restored it.
  4. 3rd revert, after I restored it.

undoing what seemed like a reflexive tag-team revert casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets.

didn't join the discussion even after I pinged them this is extremely disingenuous as it implies that I was editing something else while ignoring your notification, when in fact, you pinged me long after I logged out and I haven't edited anything since (the editing history and the diffs don't lie). Furthermore, I already made it clear in the edit summary that I disagree with your reasoning (which consists of made-up rules and demands to satisfy you with answers).

The bottom line is that xDanielx is edit warring against multiple editors who disagree with them for various reasons. M.Bitton (talk) 02:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@XDanielx:
removals of old material are not the spirit of edit warring we all know what edit warring is, so please don't make-up another rule.
I don't see any restoration by Cdjp1 maybe that's because you only see what you want to see. Here is is. Like I said, diffs don't lie.
It didn't occur to me that's because you assumed bad faith. You made that clear with your aspersions casting that I highlighted above.
For the last time, I don't need to convince you. M.Bitton (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Note: Instead of simply striking their aspersions, they doubled down on their bad faith assumption (see their edit summary); and to add insult to injury, they reversed the roles and asked me to "assume good faith" (see their comment above). M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the single revert with no explanation xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with and that they'd rather edit war than take it to RSN or start a RfC"). Anyway, they can also argue all they want, but what they cannot do is justify what they did (edit warring, casting aspersions and assuming bad faith). M.Bitton (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe there's a consensus on whether single reverts are technically considered EW I hope not, because that would mean that you violated that rule three times. One thing is certain though, the 3 reverts that you made are considered EW. M.Bitton (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XDanielx: quote the complete edit summary or don't bother quoting any of it. I didn't invite myself to this board to discuss content. All I'm interested in is your edit warring, your bad faith assumption and the fact that you doubled down on it after casting aspersions. M.Bitton (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: Done. What about their aspersions casting and assumption of bad faith? M.Bitton (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: only when the person is not responding (i.e., they are editing something else and ignoring the other editor). I know that they struck the comment, but not without doubling down on the bad faith assumption (see above note). I covered all of this and more in my previous comments. M.Bitton (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by fiveby

I'm surprised that Selfstudier is making this report. If you're unable here to look at the article content and sources then this should go straight to the arbcom case as evidence. fiveby(zero) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Selfstudier:, this is blatantly bad content. Like UFO level blatantly bad. It seems to me WP:PROFRINGE editors in some topic areas get told right off to go edit somewhere else, often harshly, quickly warned by admins, and finally sanctioned without a great deal of fuss about the thing. It seems no big deal when admins in those topic areas have some basic knowledge and apply a few research skills to start warning, topic banning, or blocking editors over content when they are otherwise following policies. @Valereee:, seems like an awfully high burden to impose on everyone here, especially when the RfC process seems to be a big part of the problem in the topic area. I could easily put the shoe on the other foot here, find some trivial bits of content: infobox, lead phrasing, or titles, complain on talk pages and then start a few RfC's. If i were to do that it seems best for WP that Selfstudier report me here for wasting everyone's time and admins here should be able to forcefully let me know that i'm just being a jerk. See ya back here when i've some idle time for the devil's work. fiveby(zero) 16:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3 editors who don't share your view... bad actors, not because they do not share my view but because they don't share Wikipedia's. Just like all those non-EC editors flooding Talk:Zionism with edit requests and EC editors who've gamed the system to get there. Bad policies. Now there are two good actors and reasonable looking editors here, and more with good work and ideas targets at arbcom. I'd say better to join the edit war and remove that nonsense rather than wasting time with this. fiveby(zero) 17:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: i think there are such reasonable editors in the topic area who can work things out and are trying to work things out on talk pages with WP:BESTSOURCES, and good work on the real article content in the bodies. Why are they ending up here and at arbcom? I think it's due to the bad policies and the bad actors gaming them. Wastes time and frustrates everyone. fiveby(zero) 18:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning xDanielX

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Daniel, your excuse for edit-warring seems to be that the claim is extraordinary. I totally see your point on this being an extraordinary claim; to me it seems highly dubious that 62,000 people could have died of starvation over the course of a year and it wouldn't be ongoing international front page news rather than speculation/estimation in obscure sources, with multiple mainstream RS only reporting starvation deaths in the dozens. But edit-warring isn't the answer. The answer is an RfC with notification to projects and noticeboards. It would even be fair to suggest the content be removed as dubious until the RfC closes; there's no particular urgency for WP to include such a dubious number in an infobox, which as you pointed out is similar to providing that info in Wikivoice. Valereee (talk) 12:11, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fiveby, sure, it would be better if editors at an article would just be able to work it out by saying to themselves, "Hm...yeah, that doesn't really make sense. 62,000+ people dead of starvation? And no one's talking about it except some obscure unpublished research and a letter to POTUS, and both of those estimates are based on a single unproven theory? Maybe we should rethink". But it seems like the editors at the article talk who want to keep this dubious content in the infobox have dug in their heels on defending the poor sourcing and are in the majority. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @XDanielx, the exceptions to edit warring are detailed at WP:3RRNO. It's best to claim an exception in the edit summary. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @XDanielx, I feel like WP:3RRNO is specific guidance on what to avoid. What are you not understanding? What revert did you think would covered under the exemptions? Valereee (talk) 00:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, looking at the diffs here, it seems like xDanielx removes the content once, it's reverted, removes a second time. Then someone else bundles the list into a footnote and a second person re-adds the content, which xDanielx doesn't recognize as a readdition and thinks that they forgot to remove the same content somewhere else, gets reverted, reverts back. If it were actually the situation that there were two instances of the same content, it'd merit maybe a reminder because it's generally not good practice to arm-wrestle in the revision history to get edits through. Given that and the fact that they weren't being careful, I'd say either a warning or reminder is best. As for the content dispute, both positions are reasonable enough that neither one would be sanctionable on its own as POV-pushing, so it's out of scope for this thread. @M.Bitton: maybe that's because you only see what you want to see is inappropriate for a civil discussion. Please strike that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @M.Bitton: Seems like they struck the "reflexive tag-team revert" comment. As for the pinging, it's pretty reasonable to bring up that someone isn't responding when you try and engage with them, I'm not sure I see the same assumption of bad faith. Open to your thoughts on it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Valereee above, the argument of an extraordinary claim is a reasonable one, but that isn't one of the very few exceptions we allow for edit-warring. I'm also not impressed by the dismissal of SelfStudier's warning as a threat. That said, there is engagement on the talk page, and no bright-line violation, so I would stop at a logged warning about edit-warring. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel, there is no 1RR exemption for being right. You need to learn that the revert-button isn't a good first (or any) option in this topic area. Yes, it's frustrating to have to expend effort to discuss things but that's what system we have here at wikipedia. I'm okay with a logged warning, but I do want Daniel to understand that contentious topics such as this demand the best behavior. That's how you stay out of trouble, and yes, the filing against M.Bitton, while perhaps merited, certainly gave off a distinct impression of a retaliatory filing - too much of that sort of thing gets editors topic banned or worse. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorChkmt84

Indeffed and then unblocked by me, reblocked by Seraphimblade, all as standard admin actions. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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 DoctorChkmt84

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
DoctorChkmt84 (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 and WP:ARBCAM, indef per WP:NOTHERE.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. [50] 8 December 2024 WP:CB
  2. [51] 8 December 2024 WP:CB
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 [52] 8 December 2024 (see the system log linked to above).
Additional comments by editor filing complaint
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
  • [53] 8 December 2024

Discussion concerning DoctorChkmt84

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 DoctorChkmt84

Statement by (username)

Result concerning DoctorChkmt84

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Raladic

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 Raladic

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Void if removed (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 22:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Raladic (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
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 27/08/2024 SYNTH of a percentage to push a POV not present in the source
  2. 27/08/2024 Admitted this was to advance a particular POV
  3. 22/11/2024 Undoing consensus wording to hide negative connotations, with incorrect edit summary, and POV editorializing/SYNTH.
  4. 23/11/2024 POV / Misrepresenting a source (the source is SECONDARY for the relevant claim)
  5. 23/11/2024 Revert with misleading summary, describing a fair summary of sources as SYNTH
  6. 23/11/2024 POV / misrepresenting a source while trying to prevent its use (not published by SEGM)
  7. 23/11/2024 Continuing to misrespresent the source with 20 co-authors (only 2 are SEGM/Genspect affiliates), and citing a defamatory SPS to cast aspersions on a BMJ journalist source
  8. 23/11/2024 Dismissing a source as fringe, then:
  9. 23/11/2024 editing another article to add "fringe" to the lede to try to prove this point
  10. 07/12/2024 Unsourced POV addition of contentious labels to a WP:BLP, and an edit comment that misrepresented the state of talk
  11. 09/12/2024 After an AfD started by Raladic ended in keep but rename, unilaterally rewriting longstanding consensus content to strongly push a new POV, with a misleading edit comment.
  12. 09/12/2024 Ignored requests to discuss and continued POV pushing.
  13. 09/12/2024 After POV rewriting, immediately proposing it for deletion again.
  14. 09/12/2024 Edit warring
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 12/07/2024
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After I was brought to AE earlier this year with no action, and the related action against Colin, there was a rough consensus among uninvolved administrators that there may need to be other AE requests to handle other problems raised. I have had no wish to engage in tit-for-tat reporting, but Raladic's conduct has, if anything, got worse in the months since. Raladic has a very strong POV on trans issues and pushes it constantly, exhibiting WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, bludgeoning, stonewalling and tendentious editing.

Some of these recent diffs revolve around a 3-month long dispute that began in August with Raladic reverting sourced content. Since then, despite the emergence of additional sources, Raladic has engaged in POV pushing, battleground behaviour, editing nonconstructively, and stonewalling, which is all evident in talk, culminating in Raladic bringing every opposing editor to ANI.

Raladic has a general habit of ignoring requests to follow BRD, and instead re-reverting prior to discussion, and then stonewalling any subsequent discussion.

What I've covered here is only some recent behaviour. I can provide numerous other examples if requested.

Full timeline of the last two diffs, for clarity (times in GMT):
18:54 Raladic's AfD request closes as keep/rename
19:10 wholesale rewrite with POV changes to longstanding content, misleading edit reason. Content removal continues.
20:26 Revert my restoration of prior consensus, with no discussion.
20:41 Revert another editor's attempt to restore prior content.
21:08 Having cut much of the article, opens a new AfD
22:25 Reverts a third editors's attempt to restore prior content. Void if removed (talk) 08:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
  1. here


Discussion concerning Raladic

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 Raladic

  • 1 & 2: which resulted in consensus change that I made as noted in the talk page.
  • 3-8: Maintaining WP:NPOV (as I explained to them), which results in the now stable version at the article. Note that the editors including VIR have repeatedly ignored the fact ([54], [55], [56]) that an investigative report is a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source. Other editors also had to explain to VIR and some other editors that refining articles is very common practice.
  • 9: VIR then yet again followed me to an article I referenced where I noticed that text from the body was not in the lead and moved it up, which is now at the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine stable article. (But did require yet another endless thread of editors explaining started by VIR).
  • 10: Literally sourced in the article. However it did prompt me to analyze the article and notice that it failed the notability criteria, so I started an AfD, which resulted in a move on the legal case as the closing admin was swayed by the prior puffery in the article.
  • 11-14: Rewrote the article post move, removing WP:FLUFF that was tangential to the court case to bring the article up to standard for legal cases, focusing on the case, not celebrity endorsements and the likes. For some reason, this apparently needed explanation. After that it became pretty quickly clear that I was correct in my initial assessment that the legal case is a run-off-the-mill case that very likely fails WP:EVENTCRIT as routine news, so I separately nominated the legal case as directed by the closing admin in the discussion I had with them at their talk page, which I felt would be the best course of action, though arguably could also have been a DRV. With regards to the changes I reverted after I made the necessary re-write of the article post-AfD, I immediately engaged the talk thread after reverting VIR, as supported by @Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist who re-iterated the removal of puffery and the obvious necessity that a article in different scope looks different to the prior article. I made two more reversions of editors who tried to reinstate the counter to guidelines content (mainly lead-follows-body puffery), so I made 3 reversions and of course could have waited for YFNS or another user to revert them instead, but in any case, I stopped short of the brightline.

All in all, as Shakespeare said, looks like Much ado about nothing up there. You'll note that in many of the talk threads related to these "reports" by @VIR, many editors have shared my sentiment and as the final edits at articles have shown, my sentiment also appears to typically on the right track. I am one of many highly active editors in the WP:LGBTQ+ space, and have made thousands of fact-based edits in the space and collaborated with many editors productively, so frankly this AE report appears to be little more than retaliation by someone with an apparent WP:COI (as was pointed out by several other editors in the past including in the previous AE of VIR, for the admins handling this case in case they are not aware, let me know if you need more details), so I think this report may be in WP:BOOMERANG territory, especially the ludicrous accusation that Colin's case in any way referenced me, it didn't. Raladic (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Extraordinary Writ - Preemptively requesting word extension (250 extra for now?) to respond to any followups (currently at 482 above). Raladic (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YFNS - I was referencing the main part of the edit, which was the known for founding the anti-trans LGB alliance, as was sourced in the article ([57]). Fair enough on the Short-desc and category being more contentious, but the ref does say that she self-identifies as gender-critical, which we have synonymous as anti-trans/trans exclusionary. I had never been to this article before 12/2 (when I noticed its lack of notability, hence AfD nomination), so when I read it more, I found it surprising that her only presumed claim to notability as founder of the organization as cited was missing from the first sentence. That's what I meant with, the source was there, because it was. Raladic (talk) 02:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the extra evidence presented by YFNS for a BOOMERANG for VIR, I'd like to add that VIR has really not taken the feedback since their AE on board and has since then continued with endless discussions that typically end up nowhere, continuing the WP:TENDENTIOUS nature of their WP:MWOT arguing in this space. Raladic (talk) 03:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Void if removed - Btw, in your additional comments by editor filing complaint, which is in a request that is obviously about me as is clear from the title, you referred to me exclusively by my username, 7 times. I do have pronouns, please use them. Raladic (talk) 04:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vanamonde93 - the fringe medical source can be accessed through the wikilibrary and has an entire section of the paper dedicated to it, looks like YFNS below already elaborated on it. As for the anti-trans advocacy of LGB Alliance, it's in the court documents, as well as [58] which I already elaborated on above. Raladic (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist

I would like to suggest a boomerang. VIR's diffs are mostly links to their own WP:PROFRINGE behavior:

  • 1 & 2 : WP:CALC is part of the policy WP:OR. Raladic had every right to add it and seek consensus.
  • 3 - 5 : There was no consensus for the version VIR preferred. I will plainly state that I intensely dislike WPATH - but I don't let my personal feeling get in the way of RS and FRINGE
  • 6-7 : This is clearly splitting hairs. Multiple SEGM members were authors of that paper. More affiliates and frequent collaborators on top. To list some choice names Stella O'Malley, Patrick Hunter, and Kenneth J Zucker were authors. Famous for, in order, 1) founding SEGM, Genspect, and Therapy First 2) banning trans healthcare in Florida for all ages while being part of SEGM, and 3) creating the living in your own skin model
  • 8: SEGM is clearly WP:FRINGE, VIR has been arguing with anyone and everywhere for years that it is not. At his last case, he was warned to take the advice of admins to stop repeating arguments.[59]
  • 9 : Medical researchers did explicitly describe SEGM as a "fringe medical organization", one of the kinder terms RS use (the SPLC calls it the hub of the modern anti-LGBT pseudoscience network)
  • 10 : @Raladic: I suggest you double check/clarify. The sources in the article at the time of your edit described LGBA as an anti-trans group, but the body didn't.
  • 11-14: Consensus was that Bailey wasn't independently notable but may be through the case. Rewriting a BLP to an article on a legal case obviously requires a rewrite - VIR went to talk to argue about just one line, glossing over the rest of the puffery removed.

I'll note that since VIR's last time at AE where told to drop arguments he's:

  • Restarted arguments at Conversion therapy about gender exploratory therapy almost immediately after the case.[60][61]
  • Argued at gender dysphoria in children trying to replace systematic medical reviews with the Cass Report and arguing that transgender children shouldn't be mentioned in the lead.[62]
  • Argued WPATH's (the world's largest/oldest health body for trans people) members have a COI with SEGM while trying to downplay their unequivocally false statements about conversion therapy[63]
  • At least 200 edits arguing SEGM doesn't actually push conversion therapy on talk and multiple noticeboards..[64]
  • Restarted arguments at ROGD trying to sanitize it in the lead.[65]

Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic thanks for clarifying! Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Colin The WP:SPLC doesn't just consider SEGM a hate group, but the "hub of anti-LGBT pseudoscience". WP:FRINGE applies.
@Vanamonde93 The article repeatedly refers to "fringe medical associations", has a section called "fringe medical associations" where they state Several international associations including the Society for Evidence-based Gender Medicine (SEGM, 2023) and Genspect, 2023a, Genspect, 2023b have formed in reaction to GAC. According to a Yale School of Medicine report, both groups have spread “biased and unscientific content” about GAC and that SEGM is “without apparent ties to mainstream scientific or professional organizations”, and has a supplemental table of "fringe medical organizations" that lists SEGM.[66] The other ref supporting the statement is a CBC investigation citing multiple researchers and discussing SEGM's pseudoscience and calling them a "fringe group".[67] Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A final note to the admins: One "side" here is a small group of editors citing founders SEGM, known for anti-trans misinformation and support of gender exploratory therapy, and conversion therapists like Zucker. Pushing positions contrary to the overwhelming majority of major medical orgs, literature in the field, and human rights bodies globally. Please, just bear that in mind and don't ignore WP:FRINGE. A good editor resigned because it wasn't dealt with. Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sean Waltz O'Connell

I have experienced ongoing issues with Raladic’s behavior, including edit warring and stonewalling, for over three months in the article about WPATH. Initially, Raladic reverted my edit, which was supported by two highly reliable sources—The Economist and The New York Times—with a misleading edit summary claiming there was a consensus not to include the information.

[68]

The Economist reported that WPATH leaders interfered with the systematic reviews they commissioned from Johns Hopkins University. Additionally, both The Economist and The New York Times reported that WPATH removed minimum age requirements for treatment of children under pressure from a health official.

I raised the issue on the talk page, asking where this supposed consensus was reached.

[69]

Raladic kept insisting that the topic had been discussed and argued that the information about WPATH should be placed in another article, not the WPATH article itself: [70]

I pointed out that a consensus could not have been reached on information that only became available after prior discussions on the talk page were concluded. This indicated that Raladic’s claims were unfounded. Subsequently, Raladic shifted their argument, stating that criticism of WPATH should not be included due to WP:NOTNEWS, and asserting that a smear campaign against WPATH existed in mainstream media.

[71]

I brought the issue to WP:NPOVN.

[72]

There, Raladic argued that the story reported by The New York Times in June 2024 about Dr. Levine advocating for removing age limits was already addressed in the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People (hereafter "SOC") article by referring to The New York Times' 2022 report. However, this was not possible since the June 2024 information did not exist in 2022, and Dr. Levine was not mentioned in the SOC article at the time of Raladic's posting.

[73]

I sought advice from Firefangledfeathers on how to handle this.

[74]

Raladic strongly opposed including the removal of age limits in the WPATH article, insisting it belonged in the SOC article. When I added The New York Times report to the Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People article, Raladic reverted it: [75]

I initiated another lengthy discussion on the talk page:

[76]

With Firefangledfeathers mediating, the information was finally included. However, The Economist's report was omitted because Raladic argued it was the sole source for the claim about WPATH suppressing the Johns Hopkins reviews. Later, The BMJ, a peer-reviewed journal, corroborated The Economist's findings. After discussion, multiple users (at least six) agreed on a compromise wording that I introduced to the article. Raladic, however, twice reverted the consensus version ([77], [78]), replacing it with their own version that lacked consensus and relied on primary sources, disregarding reporting by The Economist and The BMJ.

As evident, Raladic has consistently engaged in stonewalling and edit warring on WPATH and related articles, obstructing the inclusion of critical reporting by reliable sources such as The New York Times, The Economist, The BMJ, and The Hill. Despite consensus among other editors, Raladic continues to revert others’ edits, ignoring the reliability of sources and the opinions of fellow contributors. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another issue worth noting (previously overlooked in the above due to the lengthy discourse that's been going on in the aforementioned WPATH article), is that Raladic, along with others, made claims that challenge the reliability of sources. For example, during the WP:NPOVN discussion, it was argued that every Economist article should be classified as an opinion piece. This issue was then brought to WP:RSP, [79] where the community rejected this assertion. Currently, Raladic argues that every investigative report qualifies as a primary source, even though Wikipedia's guidelines do not support such a classification. [80] Furthermore, this user has perpetuated a possible BLP violation, claiming that a journalist from The BMJ has a "vested interest" without providing reliable evidence to substantiate this accusation. These claims seem aimed at rejecting The BMJ's peer-reviewed report that addressed WPATH's suppression of evidence contrary to its policies. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Colin

I'm concerned to see the comment below about a logged warning for edit warring on both sides. That needs evidence of a pattern of behaviour, not one example plucked. If a single unwise revert was the standard, might as well give everyone a logged warning.

The issue here is largely down to Wikipedia's mechanism for working out what is a reliable source. Void has swiftly learned the rules and finds sources that meet WP:MEDRS and WP:V. Raladic has not. Raladic's working definition of a "reliable source" is "anything I can use to discredit sources that say inconvenient things" and "is not a reliable source" amounts to nothing more than "says things I disagree with". This is the very definition of an WP:ACTIVIST: "flexible approach to policy interpretation, depending on whether or not it aligns with the activist's". So we get blogs and random PDFs used to discredit systematic reviews in the highest tier of medical journals. We get endless "guilt by association" with the bogeyman of SEGM used repeatedly. As VIR notes, a paper written by over 20 international academics, published in the SAGE journal "Human Systems" is misleadingly described as "published by SEGM" in an attempt to discredit. This edit, claims a paper written by two authors represents the consensus views of "medical researchers". That's pretty typical. Those two people agree with Raladic therefore it's a reliable and authoritative source. This approach to source is not unique to Raladic (see Talk:Cass Review#See Also where User:WhatamIdoing complains about "editors post non-existent, made-up rules" wrt SEGM). But the fact that there are other editors with similar issues should not stop us dealing with this one.

Both WP:FRINGE and "anti-trans" is pushed on talk and in articles to describe anyone who's model of trans healthcare is not aligned with Raladic's, even if that model or the research is supported by leading journals and several nation's healthcare experts. This is not an approach compatible with editing a contentious topic, which requires editors to write about views and people they disagree with at a level above a Twitter attack piece, and to permit nuance and an appreciation that "its complicated". The BLP violations are particularly concerning. As editors at J. K. Rowling (e.g. User:SandyGeorgia) know, we can't go around randomly inserting "anti-trans" into such articles. This edit that VIR lists, sums up this activist approach that is WP:NOTHERE.

If this was writing about global warming or vaccine safety or the efficacy of a cancer treatment, an editor taking this approach to sourcing, to discrediting sources simply for believing the Wrong Thing would have been removed long ago. I don't think Raladic's approach is compatible with editing this contentious topic. -- Colin°Talk 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wrt Vanamonde93's "I have yet to see evidence in this discussion of that occurring" well it's in the links and on this very page. Maybe you just have to think about it a bit more. Have you got an explanation for this edit. It is clearly misleading as I explained. That SEGM is supposedly "an anti-trans hate group" is unsourced, but also doesn't change whether the article written by 20 international academics (who as VIR says, almost all have no link to that group) is reliable or not. It simply isn't one of our sourcing tests any more than "Drives a Tesla therefore is as evil as Musk" forms any part of our assessments. WP:FRINGE is about extreme ideas, not about organisations (who have many beliefs), nor about papers that are published in Archives of Disease in Childhood or the BMJ or reports that are accepted by the healthcare experts of England and Scotland. SLPC has its qualities and limitations but it is no more qualified to discredit a systematic review in the BMJ than Guide Dogs for the Blind.

The repeated "anti-trans" claims are no more worthy of Wikipedia's time than to suggest that because NICE determine some anti-cancer drug lacks evidence of efficacy and has evidence of harm, that NICE is a pro-cancer organisation. It really is that level of argumentation we are dealing with here. You asked for sourcing of "anti-trans" but that's not how it works. You don't start with a claim you want to make and go find a source to back it up. That way would end up with our lead saying "Elon Musk is the worlds richest man-baby", something eminently sourcable to people who don't like him. And proving a negative is hard, because people don't go around writing "Elon Musk is not the world's richest man-baby". What do sources that are attempting neutrality say? What do sources that aren't fighting legal battles against bigoted politicians say? Wikipedia is not an activist blog and we do not assess our sources according to the prejudices and hatred of social media and the blogsphere. Sourcing in a contentious topic is hard, and it needs editors who are prepared to put their prejudices and hatred aside. That is not in evidence here. -- Colin°Talk 21:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Evathedutch

I agree with Colin's concern the most based on what I've seen on the WPATH and SEGM pages. For example with respect to the "fringe medical organization" claim here It made me think about the label "fringe" within a contentious topic. I find that people go around saying "they're fringe" when they disagree more than people go around saying "they're not fringe" when they agree. So what is reasonable counter evidence that an org is not fringe? We have to go back to what the WP:FRINGE bar is for fringe. WP says "In Wikipedia parlance, the term fringe theory is used in a broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field." The fact that SCOTUS heard a case related to youth gender medicine, and the Economist quoted a SEGM representative in their coverage of it, is very strong evidence to me that SEGM doesn't meet the WP:FRINGE bar for fringe. https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/12/02/a-big-transgender-rights-case-heads-to-americas-supreme-court

Most concerning was when Raladic overpowered a WPATH edit after very strong sources were presented and several editors came to a reasonable consensus. Raladic says consensus doesn't matter in very selective ways, consistent with WP:ACTIVIST.
PS I will bring the above to the respective talk pages as well. Evathedutch (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clerking note: I've moved the above into its own section, in line with how AE is formatted. The above was originally posted as an inline reply to Colin's 10 December statement; see Special:Diff/1262314526. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by WhatamIdoing

I was pinged and have glanced over this. Vanamonde93, I believe the answer to your question is that Wikipedia editors in this area do not operate via the Wikipedia:Amnesia test, but instead begin with certain ground truths in mind, so that the reliability of a source can be determined by comparing the source's POV against the ground truth. So, e.g., we know that "Organization X" is anti-trans, so sources that say they're anti-trans/pseudoscientific/bad can be tentatively assumed to be reliable until proven otherwise, and sources that say they're researchers/pro-science/pro-children/good can be assumed to be unreliable.

This sounds worse than it really is; in fact, we all do this. It's much faster and more efficient to say "Hmm, supports an obvious conspiracy theory – yeah, we can just dump this one" than to do a full evaluation of every source. But when the real world has strong divisions, we often end up with some editors whose ground truth is that the subject is "X" in other conflict with other editors whose ground truth is that the subject is "not-X", and there is no opportunity for compromise. They will never agree on which sources are reliable, because a source's reliability is determined by the source's POV, and there can only be one Right™ POV. Consider, e.g,. whether the Liancourt Rocks belong to Korea or to Japan. The reliable sources are the ones that agree with my POV, and the unreliable sources are the ones that agree with your POV. In this subject area, one of the ground truths held by one side is that WPATH's current recommendations represent a pro-trans and pro-science position. This is not entirely unreasonable, except that we then extend it to say that any person or organization that disagrees in any way is both anti-trans and pseudoscientific by definition.

The community is not set up to manage this kind of conflict well. In the past, we have reduced these conflict either by suppressing the POV whose editors are least suited to playing our games (see, e.g., WP:GAMERGATE) or by developing a durable supermajority against the minority POV (as we did, e.g., in WP:ARBSCI). I don't think we should take either of these approaches in this subject area, but we don't have many other tools left. But AE admins can rejoice: solving this problem is outside your remit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simonm223, about "its particular field", I suspect that part of the problem is that it's a multidisciplinary subject. Queer studies may have a different view than sociology. Specialists in gender-care medicine may have a different view than specialists in evidence-based medicine. Ethicists may have a different view than political scientists. Which one of the fields has the True™ answer about what's mainstream and what's fringe in the trans movement? Maybe there is more than one mainstream view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Simonm223

@Vanamonde93: regarding the description of the LGB alliance as anti-trans there are quite a few sources presently in LGB Alliance that support the description

  1. The Times Cites founder Simon Fanshawe on the founding of LGB Alliance "He and 21 other signatories were concerned support for transgender policies, such as allowing primary school children to change their gender identity too quickly, are harming gay people and undermining women’s rights."
  2. BBC Reports on the LGB Alliance opposing bans on Conversion Therapy "The letter was coordinated by the LGB Alliance, which describes itself as promoting the rights of lesbians, bisexuals and gay men. It expressed concern that "the current push to ban conversion therapy... is being used as political cover to promote an affirmation-only approach to gender identity"."
  3. The Guardian describes one of the founders of the LGB alliance, apparently in an attempt to defend themselves against anti-trans claims saying, "The organisation LGB Alliance was founded to “prevent the dissemination of the lie of gender identity”" And, let's be honest, calling Gender identity a lie is WP:SKYBLUE anti-Trans rhetoric.
  4. Pink News says of the LGB Alliance's attempt to stall or prevent gender recognition laws, "The LGB Alliance has been warned by the UK’s advertising watchdog over “potentially misleading” claims in two paid-for newspaper adverts in Scotland. The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) said it received a number of complaints about the newspaper advert, called ‘Press Pause on the Gender Recognition Bill’. The ASA said the anti-trans group’s advert was “potentially misleading” because “the legislation it refers to is still under consultation”."
  5. In Journal of Gender Studies, K. Guyan says "LGB Alliance (2019) (a UK trans-exclusionary LGB organization) argued the NRS proposal 'would suggest that other sexual orientations exist beyond attraction to the opposite sex, same sex or both sexes' (p. 2) and requested that the census not include the term 'Other sexual orientation' as a response option"
  6. In Policy Studies Journal, Turnbull-Dugarte and McMillan say "The case of the LGB Alliance charity is of note. The trans-exclusionary position of the organization engendered significant debate among the LGBT+ community in Scotland."
  7. In Metaphilosophy, Monique says "some trans‐exclusionary LGB movements have begun to form around TERF ideology (for example, the LGB Alliance in the United Kingdom and the Red LGB movement in Spain)"
  8. In International Journal of Sociology, McLean says "Furthermore, the LGB Alliance has argued that ‘attempts to compel women to believe that male genitals can be female is a form of sexual assault, an attack on the rights of lesbians and a threat to their very existence’" This statement is housed in a section of the essay called "Anti-trans tropes".

So, basically, what we have here is an organization founded to exclude trans people (it's literally in the name) that advocates against gender identification laws and against conversion therapy bans and that regularly issues statements that make it clear the organization's focus is anti-trans activities. It's actually been very frustrating trying to navigate two editors with a long history of behaviour that looks a lot like tag-teaming [81] consistently pov pushing that this organization and its founders are not anti-trans despite this broad preponderance of evidence including several WP:BESTSOURCES such as the International Journal of Sociology. I think the frustration felt at such antics should, at the very least, buy Raladic some grace. Or possibly even result in a boomerang. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Evathedutch I suspect one of the good admins observing this page is going to instruct you to refactor you comment so that it doesn't appear to be part of Colin's. Might want to get a head start on that. Notwithstanding that I think you're missing an important part of WP:FRINGE's definition: "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". Neither the Supreme Court of the United States, nor the Economist is appropriate as a basis to adjudicate whether a medical organization is fringe. That would fall to WP:MEDRS compliant sources ideally but, at the very least, would come from reliable sources in medicine, psychology and sociology to make such an adjudication. Simonm223 (talk) 19:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of issues with "fringe" for which it shouldn't be based on testimonial adjudication alone
1) People can and do say "fringe" more easily than people who say "not fringe", so a pure source on source only scale is tilted to begin with
2) What people mean when they say fringe may not meet the bar for what wikipedia means for WP:FRINGE That's way we should take other indications for evidence
Also landscapes of contentious topics can change so we should give less weight to dated sources.
Of course SCOTUS is not there to adjudicate if SEGM is fringe, but the Economist tacitly adjudicate SEGM as "not fringe" by including their point of view where its particular field is central to the SCOTUS case. I am not sure it falls under WP:MEDRS. But if even if I take it in that direction, I would make the same #1/#2 case but the evidence would be that they commissioned a systematic review (SR) of evidence with McMaster University which is known as the birthplace of evidence-based medicine. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39252149/ Again, McMaster is not going to say "SEGM is not fringe", and its unreasonable to expect that, but the action of the SR demonstrates that. If you look on the WP:MEDRS page it shows how SRs are at the top of the pyramid. Now, if we go full WP:MEDRS direction, that many sources on that article have to be reevaluated (I don't think sociology counts as medical). This brings me back to supporting Colins point about Raladic engaging in WP:ACTIVIST behavior by invoking WP policy selectively when it suits ones objective. Evathedutch (talk) 21:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sweet6970is of course correct I should have notified them and I apologize for the oversight. I'm rather sick today and it appears I missed a rather important process there. Again, apologies for the mistake. Simonm223 (talk) 22:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DanielRigal

Sure, that second AfD was a bit overkeen but it is hard not to see this report as an attempt to take an opponent off the field. The suggestion of a boomerang is not unreasonable but I'd rather that Raladic chill out a little bit and Void chill out a big bit and a half so that nobody needs to get sanctioned. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoodDay

I think it best, if both parties took a 3-month break from the contentious topic-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (LunaHasArrived)

I wanted to point out that over the last couple of months Raledic has made a huge effort to Wikipedia (going back 2000 contribs on her page takes you to Nov 5th) including the effort of moving the LGBT pages to LGBTQ+ following consensus. I would like to suggest that any sanction take into account how it would effect her area of editing where she contributes massively. LunaHasArrived (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (Sweet6970)

I see that I have been accused here, above, by Simonm223 of tag-teaming, though without being notified of this. This is probably the discussion which Simonm223 is referring to:[82] WP:TAGTEAM includes It is often difficult to tell the difference between tag teaming and consensus-based editing. Consequently, some editors that are failing to gain consensus for their preferred changes will inappropriately accuse every editor that opposes them of being part of a "tag team". The recent complaint brought by Raladic at ANI may be relevant background here. [83] Yes, I often agree with Void if removed – that’s because he is usually right. (Or to put it another way, he often agrees with me because I am usually right.)

I have come into contact with Raladic in various gensex articles. We often disagree. But Raladic’s behaviour over the Allison Bailey article is more than a content dispute – it is disruptive (and rather odd) behaviour. As VIR has mentioned, there was a disagreement about whether Bailey should be in the category of ‘Anti-transgender activist’; she is not described in that way by reliable sources, so this goes against WP:CAT. I initiated a discussion on this.[84] Raladic did not take part in the discussion, but unilaterally changed the wording, without providing any source [85]. At the same time, she proposed the article for deletion. So there is a contradiction here: Bailey is ‘known’ for founding LGB Alliance, but at the same time she is not notable enough for an article. The deletion discussion was closed as keep and rename to the case name. [86] She (Raladic) then immediately opened a new proposal to delete the new/renamed article, despite the clear ‘verdict’ to keep and rename the article to the legal case. This is disruptive and a waste of editors’ time. The impression I get is that Raladic is so opposed to Allison Bailey that if she is not described as an anti-transgender activist, then she (Raladic) wants Wikipedia not to mention her at all. This is not sensible, neutral, editing. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by (username)

Result concerning Raladic

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Raladic, how much of an extension are you looking for? Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think very much of this is actionable: the disagreements about whether things are FRINGE, secondary, NPOV, etc. are fundamentally content disputes, and what VIR describes as misrepresentation or misleading comments looks more like reasonable disagreements or ambiguities to me. I do think everyone here could be a bit more careful with the revert button, particularly when it comes to reïnstating bold changes without discussion. That's true of Raladic (change, revert, adding it back without discussion; change, revert, adding it back while discussion is ongoing), but it's also true of VIR (change, revert, adding it back without discussion). While WP:BRD is not policy, it does reflect best practice in this area; once your addition has been contested by revert, it's time for discussion then, not for trying to gain the advantage with another revert. Besides that informal note, I'm not seeing a need for any action here at this time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:57, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd be more inclined to go with a logged warning for edit warring on both sides, and if it keeps up after that maybe step up to enforced BRD for those editors. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be on board with a logged warning for Raladic: there seems to be more of a pattern of edit warring (e.g., also at Cass Review, where I've just imposed the BRD requirement), and Vanamonde's comments below are also relevant. I don't think I've seen enough evidence to justify a logged warning for VIR at this time (the one edit I mentioned doesn't really establish very much); if people want to make an affirmative case for sanctioning him, it might be easier to do that in a separate report. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Void if removed, should be sorted. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues that most of this isn't actionable - whether a source is fringe or not is something the editor body needs to reach a consensus on, and talk page discussions are the way to do that. There are a few diffs above that are potentially concerning, but I cannot see the sources in question. I would like to hear from Raladic about what evidence supports the "anti-trans advocacy" claim here, and the "fringe medical organization" claim here (I cannot access the sources: I would like to see a quote, to determine whether sources are being misrepresented). Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • WhatamIdoing is obviously correct in saying that many users are not setting aside their preconceived POVs in this topic, but that in and of itself is not sanctionable. Ignoring our content and behavioral policies when it is convenient to a given POV, on the other hand, is sanctionable. A lot of the evidence presented above is still not what I would consider actionable. In a topic as polarized as this one, arguments over the reliability of sources are inevitable. I agree with Colin above that discounting a source solely for its POV isn't appropriate, but I have yet to see evidence in this discussion of that occurring.
    That said, I do see several instances of Raladic pushing the envelope. This edit in particular bothers me: it is very obviously an attempt to discredit the letter in a manner that no source is doing. That edit is partially mitigated by Raladic's own subsequent modification, but it is part of a tendency to use the strongest possible language for one set of parties in this conflict. This is also evident in the other examples I asked for evidence on above: the sources evidently support language in the same general direction as what Raladic added, but they have chosen to use the most strident language possible, which is the opposite of the approach this topic calls for. I would log a warning for battleground conduct, including edit-warring, for Raladic specifically, though I can see a case for logging an edit-warring warning for VIR as well. Vanamonde93 (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Colin: To keep this brief: I am well aware that being sourceable isn't sufficient for inclusion, but the insertion of content that misrepresents a source, or is simply unsourced, is clear-cut sanctionable misconduct, whereas the insertion of content that is UNDUE is much harder to judge and often out of scope for AE. If you want me to elaborate on that general principle, please ask on my talk page. As to the diff you cite, what I'm seeing are assertions and counter-assertions as to the authors' reliability and impartiality, but if you want us to judge the claim that Raladic is actively making stuff up to discredit the authors, we will need more detail. Editors are allowed to challenge the reliability of sources, provided they have a factual basis for doing so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I keep intending to take a look at this since I know there's been a lot of activity. And now I do so and find that Void if removed (789), Raladic (864 but who I give a break to as the person being reported), Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist (617), Sean Waltz O'Connell (688), Colin (825), amd Simonm223 (987) (or exactly half the non-uninvolved admin commenting) have exceeded the 500 word limit (or in Raladic's case the extension to 750). That horse is clearly out of the barn but I note it for anyone moving forward in this discussion. Please don't wait on me to close this. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

M.Bitton

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 M.Bitton

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
XDanielx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 07:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
M.Bitton (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:ARBPIA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it

I'll limit this to WP:CIVIL related issues for now, since they're easiest to evaluate with minimal context.

  1. 2024-12-09 xDanielx being disingenuous again (what they mean by "no explanation" is "no explanation that they agree with")
  2. 2024-12-08 casting aspersions to justify your disruptive editing is about as low as it gets ... this is extremely disingenuous ... made-up rules and demands to satisfy you
  3. 2024-12-08 please don't make-up another rule ... maybe that's because you only see what you want to see (partly struck per admin request)
  4. 2024-12-01, 2024-12-01 Wikipedia is not a collection of every piece of alleged garbage
  5. 2024-11-18 When someone keeps misrepresenting the sources (again and again), then I will rightly assume disingenuousness
  6. 2024-11-18 I'm starting to question your motives
  7. 2024-11-18 Please refrain from repeating your lies (edited to You're being extremely disingenuous. You misrepresented the sources (clearly to push a POV)
  8. 2024-11-15 I don't take lessons from those who misrepresent the sources and edit war over WP:OR
  9. 2024-11-15 please don't attribute your nonsense to me (this is totally unacceptable)
  10. 2024-11-15 Bobfrombrockley is busy adding whatever garbage they can find
  11. 2024-11-15 you've been very busy adding whatever garbage you could find to the article
  12. 2024-11-15 Do you expect me to explain to you what "freedom of expression" is?
  13. 2024-11-14 I'm done wasting my time with this nonsense ... Your self-serving opinion is irrelevant
  14. 2024-11-12 offensive humor
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

I'm not aware of CTOP sanctions. The block log seems to show four blocks, but they're not that recent and I'm not sure how relevant they are.

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Another 15 diffs were (rightfully) removed by an admin for exceeding the diff limit as well as falling outside PIA scope; just mentioning for transparency. They might be relevant on a different forum but admittedly not here. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:37, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I planned to file something after the "garbage" comments (about BobFromBrockley) on Talk:Al-Manar. I reconsidered after being surprised by M.Bitton's diplomatic compromise there. Admittedly M.Bitton's comments in the thread above prompted me to reconsider again, but that wasn't about the fact that I might receive a warning there (irrespective of M.Bitton's participation); it was just about me personally being on the receiving end of some personal attacks. I don't really follow why me being emotionally affected by the conduct would affect the legitimacy of the report. Most of the incivility was directed at other users, and letting this conduct continue wouldn't seem fair to them. — xDanielx T/C\R 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

2024-12-09

Discussion concerning M.Bitton

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 M.Bitton

Not content with edit warring, assuming bad faith and casting aspersions (see #xDanielx), they now decided to go even lower and file a retaliatory report. M.Bitton (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanamonde93 and Ealdgyth: I just want to draw your attention to their aspersions casting tag-team revert (their edit summary, while striking it, leaves no doubt about they believe) and the fact that they falsely accused me: of ignoring their ping (when I was logged out) and reverting without an explanation (when, in fact, I did provide one). M.Bitton (talk) 18:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ealdgyth: I agree and will make sure that doesn't happen in the future, regardless of what's coming the other way. I should know better than let myself take the bait, but lesson learnt nonetheless. M.Bitton (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: sure. M.Bitton (talk) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning M.Bitton

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This is shamelessly and obviously a retaliatory filing, and I'm leaning towards a one- or two-way interaction ban to stop the back-and-forth sniping. But I'd still draw uninvolved admins' attention to this thread and ask what their thoughts are. That seems like pretty battleground-y behavior to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I see it as a bit retaliatory, but we do need to stop this sniping, especially at AE and other such venues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, a logged warning sounds like enough to me, given their responses so far. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is retaliatory, and at the same time, M. Bitton's language is not acceptable. Bad behavior should be addressed at an administrator noticeboard, or in a civil post to a user talk page, not with what SFR accurately describes as sniping. I would log a warning for casting aspersions. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with SFR and Vanamonde93 that the language used does not help the topic area at all. I don't know if M.Bitton's had a long history of logged warnings before (I'm a bit busy trying to get the farm ready for an artic clipper coming in) but I'm fine with a logged warning. But the filer should be aware that they need to also try to avoid retaliatory-filing look in the future... Ealdgyth (talk) 17:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not happy about Daniel's behavior (but will try to find time to look at it in the earlier filing to avoid getting this one off track) but, M.Bitton, your comments are not just sub-par, but not at all what editors should be directing at others. An acknowledgment of that and working to avoid that in the future is something you need to seriously consider if you're not going to end up sanctioned in the future. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think a logged warning should be adequate here, particularly given the limited sanctions history and the commitment to do better in the future. Personally I'm not bothered by the timing of this report in light of xDanielx's explanation, although it's wise to avoid even the appearance of retaliation when you're at AE. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that this is retaliatory, but that doesn't moot the issue. M.Bitton does tend to approach editing in a battleground-y way, and their language often escalates rather than de-escalates. I'd very much like you to start using de-escalating language, M.Bitton. Can you discuss that? Valereee (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have not read this but will note that xDanielx is at their word limit. Daniel if you want to post anything else please get an extension first from an uninvolved administrator. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freestyler Scientist

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 Freestyler Scientist

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
KoA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Freestyler Scientist (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/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. Dec 8 Initial large-scale change, advised of 1RR shortly after this.[87]
  2. Dec 10 Restoration of content, slow edit warring
  3. Dec 10 2nd restoration on same day. Came to my talk page to claim this only counted as one (has been given guidance on 1RR 4 times as of now, hence coming here).[88]


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 Dec. 8 (see the system log linked to above).


Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is a new account and WP:SPA, so I'm already getting a bit of WP:DUCK red flag with this account mentioning policy and the walls of text in a tendentious manner on the talk page, but I don't have additional suggestions for a WP:SPI right now.

The main issue here is the obviously 1RR violation by this account and ignoring the warnings not to restore the large-scale changes they made. One revert today would have still been slow edit warring in violation of 1RR, but two is clearly crossing the line. The article itself is somewhat the GMO equivalent of Andrew Wakefield and vaccines in terms of WP:FRINGE, in this case, claims that GMOs and glyphosate cause cancer despite MEDRS sources saying the opposite. Sometimes we get editors looking to WP:RGW that create timesinks in this topic between edit warring and behavior, so help would be appreciated.

Underlying this, there's a sort of WP:BLUDGEON/combative approach with this new account on the talk page that blows up talk sections in size to the point even I had trouble catching up with the discussion (bludgeon-style comments by Freestyler Scientist vs. succinct responses by others). When issues with their edits came up, they'll claim the comment wasn't legitimate or mistaken followed up by repeated Could I assume that you have withdrawn? Then there's this comment Every point you contested, even I disagreed, had been removed from the edition. I don't see reason everywhere explained.[89] The gist of what I'm getting from the talk page is that this account seemed justified in edit warring because they claim every single point about their massive edits were not addressed on the talk page in detail. There definitely is a tone that they're going to charge ahead anyways without hearing the issues with their edits. There's also a WP:ADVOCACY angle where they're primarily pulling from sources that have a financial conflict of interest in trying to claim glyphosate causes cancer and that it's ok do that because the article supposedly has tons of COI already (it doesnt).[90]

I mentioned socks above because I had been dealing with some following me in topics I edit in the last few days, so if this is a legitimate account, a controversial topic like the GMO/pesticide area doesn't seem like a good place for them to learn the ropes with the combination of edit warring and bludgeon/overbearingness. KoA (talk) 16:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde93, the formal notification of 1RR listed in the AE template was on Dec. 8, two days before today's edits. They also would have seen the edit notice when you try to edit the article in their very first edit or the talk page. So at least 2-3 times before their edits today. Add in another time during my revert today before AE and the final straw before this AE when they came to my talk page still clearly asserting they didn't violate 1RR.[[91]]. If it had only been the 1RR issue in isolation, I would have tried to work with them a bit more before coming here, but there's enough exasperation with WP:IDHT at this point that I had to ask for help here. KoA (talk) 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth I definitely get that based on 1RR in isolation, indef would be overkill. A warning might work, but new editor coming in with an advocacy/WP:FRINGE push like this gives me pause as such editors often become timesinks for regulars in the topic. For something super narrow, maybe a p-block just for Seralini affair? They could easily move to other glyphosate related topics though, so a next step up could be a glyphosate topic ban that would really just be a handful of pages. That's as far as I'd go with any sanctions for realistic options admins might want to consider. I think the key thing with any sanctions (including a warning) though is the message to step back from controversial topics like this and learn the ropes in other areas first. KoA (talk) 18:06, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[92]


Discussion concerning Freestyler Scientist

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 Freestyler Scientist

ScottishFinnishRadish there is currently no version to revert here. Also, I want to disagree, I'm writing my statement just now. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1RR Violation, (I was aware about this policy, so no excuses).
The first of my edit was on Dec. 8. It was reverted by @Bon courage with the reason that I cited unreliable source as secondary, made huge change, and deleted of significant material.
To sum up quickly, those 1) were primary sources citing along secondary sources that discussed them. In this discussion, there was also in discussion 2) an argument of removing significant part of text (it dalse claim, that part was moved), and 3) LeadBombing, and 4)(@KoA) citing (peer reviewed) articles, where authors have COI.
After that discussion send second edit, I (1) removed citation of primary sources, to avoid conflict, (2) restored all phrases I removed, (3) Removed entirely part that was flagged as "LeadBombing" with citations (4).
This edit was reverted again by @Bon courage who wrote: "Pretty much the same issues. Reverted"
I reverted this revert (Wikipedia:Obversion) as an obvious WP:STONEWALLING.
So there were two distinct editions, and one revert, so I wrote to @KoA assuming good faith, that I that that is a mistake.
Why I think it is a case of WP:STONEWALLING?
@Bon courage several times, after my reply to his objection, he added new, unexplained things, and also made several claims in the Talk page that were obviously wrong and easy to check, such as including some ref that I did not include, or removing "a significant part of the text" that was only moved one paragraph up. (There were more false claim, probably no need to list them here, they are in Talk). I tried to get a consensus by simply asking which of his objections were still valid, but that was ignored. There have been accusations of disruptive, tendentious or TLDR editing, tendencies towards edit war lockdowns, and also borderline personal attacks such as: "That seems like good content, in contrast to yours". When I received unspecified or just false objection, it is not surprising that my responses were longer (like in Brandolini's law).
In summary,
I really tried to find out which passages were objectionable, and got only brief responses, including false claims about the sources I'd used. Where there were objections, such as @KoA pointing out that some articles have COI, I removed the entire section containing them and the entire claim/sentence based on them. After my second edition was reverted with only with "Pretty much the same issues" summary, I've obvert, and it was only single reversion I've made.
Should I respond to WP:FRINGE, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:SPI and WP:DUCK accusations? Freestyler Scientist (talk) 21:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If could I ask, ⁣when the new edition after revert is considered a revert, and when not? Is "Restoring part of a reverted edit" also a revert?
    Before I've made second edition, I to read on "how to avoid edit warring", and I found: "if someone discarded some good stuff when reverting, please don't revert the reversion. [...] Just find some of the good stuff and put it into the current version" Wikipedia:Restoring part of a reverted edit.
    Also, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle distinguishes between BRD Bold again, and BRD Revert, and also bold again should say: (2) such a practice prevents you from falling afoul of the three-revert rule. Freestyler Scientist (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bon courage

It's a violation in the face of warnings. There may be some change that would improve the article that draws on the material being proposed, but I don't think these edits are it at all, and edit-warring is not the way to go.

Also I suspect socking, based on an apparently oven-ready passing knowledge of Wikipedia norms and PAGs. Bon courage (talk) 17:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Freestyler Scientist

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=1136596190"