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:

Request a new arbitration case
Request clarification or amendment of an existing case
This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed
Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case
Arbitrator motions
Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	(t) (ev / t) (pd / t)	27 Apr 2023	11 May 2023

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Armenia-Azerbaijan 3	18 March 2023

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4	none	(orig. case)	21 April 2023
Clarification request: Gender and sexuality	none	(orig. case)	22 April 2023

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

Use this section to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority).

Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests.

Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace.

To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

If you must reply to another user's statement, do so in your own section (more information).
Your section must not contain more than 500 words (Word Count Tool; internal gadget). This includes your replies to other users. To request an extension, email the clerks at clerks-llists.wikimedia.org.
Arbitrators or clerks may refactor or delete statements, eg off-topic or unproductive remarks, without warning.
Banned users may request arbitration via the committee contact page; don't try to edit this page.
Under no circumstances should you remove requests from this page, or open a case (even for accepted requests), unless you are an arbitrator or clerk.
After a request is filed, the arbitrators will vote on accepting or declining the case. The <0/0/0> tally counts the arbitrators voting accept/decline/recuse.
Declined case requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Declined requests. Accepted case requests are opened as cases, and logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases once closed.

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).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
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.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124

This is not a discussion. 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.

Arbitrators or 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. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. 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:

Clarification and Amendment archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124

Clarification request: Palestine-Israel articles 4

There is a rough consensus that there is no conflict of interest issue with this particular editor, and as a general principle, simply being the employee of a government does not prevent all editing in a contentious topic that involves that government. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Makeandtoss at 21:22, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected: Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Makeandtoss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Dovidroth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Dovidroth

Statement by Makeandtoss

Considering PIA falls within contentious topics, and has an arbitration decision, what is the position on editors who are government-affiliated, as is the case with the editor Dovidroth who states on his user page that he is an employee of the National Library of Israel? ~~WP:ADVOCACY~~ WP:COIPOLITICAL states that "Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics. This basically applies to all PIA articles and would be a troublesome conflict of interest. Makeandtoss (talk) 00:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note that the NLI is 50% owned by the Israeli government, and is currently being subjected to further political influence by the country's far-right wing government, for future considerations. [1] Makeandtoss (talk) 08:54, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Dovidroth

As stated on the National Library of Israel page, the library is an independent corporation owned partially by the government. I am thus not considered a government worker. Dovidroth (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by tgeorgescu

A librarian does not seem important enough to count him as an agent of the Israeli government. If he is the boss/manager of that library, I would agree he can be counted as expressing the views of the Israeli government. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

Unless Dovidroth is being paid to edit Wikipedia by the NLI, the extent of Dovidroth's conflict of interest is the same as any other resident of Israel and their edits should be judged on their own merits. Editors are allowed to edit contentious topics even if they're from the region that the topic affects and presumably have strong opinions about it, so long as it doesn't interfere with the quality of their editing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:21, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MarcGarver

Extending the definition of "Government employee" to include any employee of any organisation or corporation partly owned by a government would be inappropriate. For example in the UK, it would in effect apply to all employees of the NHS, BBC, teachers and the myriad of arms lengths agencies. This is clearly not the intent of the policy - nobody surely thinks it is reasonable to limit the edit rights of a teacher to prevent them editing an article about, say, Brexit (a controversial subject). The clarification request here should be closed as confirming that editors like Dovidroth are not government employees MarcGarver (talk) 09:46, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Iskandar323

Ongoing threats to the libraries independence notwithstanding, the institution is independent by law. It has been noted that the government has a 50% stake, but, shy of a majority, this is not a controlling interest, and does not make it a government subsidiary, so WP:COIPOLITICAL does not obviously technically apply here. In any case, many libraries are semi- or fully public institutions, but, regardless of this, are not typically considered government organs, but simply public institutions. More generally, the more librarians editing Wikipedia the better. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 4: Arbitrator views and discussion

More or less failing to see how this is relevant either to WP:CTOP or the other restrictions in place for the area. A community explanatory essay having X to say about what Y people with COI can edit is not particularly pertinent to the factors that caused the institution of the restrictions and the previous arbitration designation of the area as a contentious topic. Izno (talk) 23:38, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree with my colleague Izno that community policies and guidelines are not relevant to Contentious topic enforcement as WP:CTOP itself states Within contentious topics, you must edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and... comply with all applicable policies and guideline (formatting removed). So for this question I would start by noting that WP:ADVOCACY, which is what the filer linked, is an "explanatory essay" which isn't nothing but means it has considerably less weight behind it than a guideline which has less weight than a policy. Instead we need to look at what the WP:COI guideline itself says. COI does have the text the filer quoted Government employees should not edit articles about their agencies, government, political party, political opponents, or controversial political topics. As such I think administrators can certainly consider any declared COI when assessing whether or not to sanction or warn a user. If I were the administrator considering enforcement, I would largely think about it the way that tgeorgescu suggests: an ordinary civil servant does not necessarily have a conflict of interest with any political topic. A high ranking civil servant (e.g. a Permanent secretary) or a political appointee is much more likely to have a conflict of interest. So in this case I personally would not be bothered, on its own, by a librarian in the Israeli government editing with-in the topic area and would find no reason to sanction. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By default, I prefer we look at the edits, not the background of the editor. There are situations where that is not true, and Barkeep goes into a few of them, but I don't see the need for anything over and above normal procedures here. Worm^TT(talk) 09:42, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there are edits that have been made which are a concern, I'd be interested in seeing those. I'm rather less interested in where a person works or lives, who they voted for, or what they had for breakfast. I like the Parable of the Good Samaritan in which a person is judged by their actions, not by which nationality or religion they are. SilkTork (talk) 11:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Plenty of Wikipedians are librarians. Libraries in the United States are almost exclusively run by various levels of the government, yet we take no issue with those librarians. So not seeing why this is an issue here. I in fact quite encourage librarians to edit Wikipedia, as they are particularly well suited to the research that Wikipedia requires. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 09:47, 18 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Government employees should not edit articles about ... controversial political topics. This basically applies to all PIA articles. No, it does not. Jerusalem and Israel (just to pick two recent pages edited by Davidroth) are designated as CTOP pages, but the pages (when considered as a whole) are not "controversial political topics". A COI is not a prohibition from ever touching anything related to that topic, never mind that in this particular circumstance (as indicated by my colleagues) there does not actually appear to be the alleged "government employee COI". Primefac (talk) 08:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: Gender and sexuality

Closing as answered: GENSEX does not generally apply to topics around sexual intercourse. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Tgeorgescu at 22:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected: Gender and sexuality arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Not applicable. They are far too many to list here, and the question is abstract (general). tgeorgescu (talk) 22:39, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tgeorgescu

Does WP:ARBGENDER include topics such as sexual addiction, pornography addiction and NoFap? Reasons for asking: "Sex addiction is also used as a way to pathologize homosexual behavior." [2], [3], and [4].

To put it otherwise, "porn addiction therapy" is often a cover story for "pray the gay away". Since conversion therapy is often illegal, while porn addiction therapy is still legal. And both push people towards suicide. tgeorgescu (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Izno and Barkeep49: This was discussed at Talk:Gary Wilson (author)#Arbitration, but there are more places where it is applicable. See [5]. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why I posted that DS notice? Because an admin did that at Talk:NoFap and Gary Wilson (author) is more or less the same topic as NoFap. Gary Wilson is the ideologue of NoFap, while Alexander Rhodes is its organizer. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork: The DS notice is about WP:ARBPS, not about WP:ARBGENDER. MarshallKe did not object to the article being subjected to WP:ARBPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see how one could honestly argue that NoFap falls under WP:ARBPS, but Gary Wilson (author) doesn't. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I voiced my opinion (always as my opinion, not as the WP:RULES of Wikipedia), got the official decision and I won't engage in trouble-making. Nobody claimed here that marking Gary Wilson (author) as falling under WP:ARBPS (not WP:ARBGENDER) would be controversial. And, yup, inside the talk pages (not inside articles) I can be excused for engaging in a little WP:OR. Original research is banned from articles, not from talk pages. Being afraid of performing some edits it is actually a good thing: one needs to be afraid of performing certain edits in order to be a good editor. If there is no fear of consequences, people get haughty and misbehave. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:28, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork: Yes, it can be closed. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

My gut reaction was that conversion therapy and closely-related topics would be covered but that "NoFap" would not. However, on reading the contentious topics designation at WP:ARBGENDER (WP:GENSEX targets the same page) says Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are designated as a contentious topic., the plain reading of which would exclude all the topics you mention. If there is disruption the community is unable to handle at present, but which could be handled by an expanded designation, then I'm sure the committee would consider that - but only if evidence is presented. Thryduulf (talk) 23:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork Both CT and the previous DS regimes (tgeorgescu's edit was made before the change) are/were clear that only uninvolved administrators can/could place restrictions on users or pages. Under DS, alerts were seen as purely informational and any editor was explicitly allowed to make someone aware that a given subject was subject to discretionary sanctions using {{Ds/alert}} on their talk page, and Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Awareness of contentious topics is the spiritual successor to that and also explicitly allows anyone to alert specific editors.

Neither procedure explicitly mentions who can place notices on talk pages alerting editors that the topic is covered by DS/CT but which is not subject to specific sanctions, however Template:Contentious topics/talk notice does say Anyone may place a contentious topics talk page notice.. That references Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Archive 21#Who can place Talk page notices of ACDS page restrictions and when from 2019 where @GorillaWarfare said It's important to distinguish between a sanction and a notice. Page sanctions (1RR, protection, etc.) may only be placed by administrators, but as far as I'm aware there is no restriction on who may place a notice that a page falls under a topic area where discretionary sanctions have been authorized. [emphasis in the original].

It might be worthwhile adding this to Wikipedia:Contentious topics, but that's tangential to this request. Thryduulf (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork And can anyone remove a notice? To the best of my knowledge that's never been defined anywhere. In practice, if a notice is egregiously incorrect then someone will remove it pretty quickly, other than that then I don't recall notices being removed other than following a consensus discussion.

Looking at how talk pages notices were dealt with when DS authorisations were rescinded, in 2014 Callanecc (a clerk at the time I believe) removed the notice from Talk:Monty Hall problem shortly after the motion passed.[6] In December 2016 the DS for Austrian Economics were rescinded but the notice wasn't removed from the article talk page until Srich32977 (a non-admin) did so in January 2018.[7] In January 2021, the cutoff for the WP:AP2 discretionary sanctions was changed from 1932 to 1992, the only relevant article from the 1932-1991 period that I found to have the template was talk:Dwight D. Eisenhower where non-admin Interstellarity removed the notice in April 2021.[8] Thryduulf (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

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

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

Is there an actual need beyond curiosity about the limits here? Izno (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This was also my question. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not entirely clear who is allowed to put a page under CT restrictions. My understanding and assumption is that it is admins who are permitted - in order to keep control of the process. Is this [9] allowable by a non-admin? SilkTork (talk) 09:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Thryduulf. And can anyone remove a notice? SilkTork (talk) 14:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks again Thryduulf. So we have a situation where anyone can place a notice on an article which they reasonably feel might come under CT - such as tgeorgescu placing a notice on Gary_Wilson_(author) because they feel it relates to ARBGENDER. The placing of the notice was challenged by User:MarshallKe; though it appears there is no accepted precedent for notices being removed other than by consensus discussion. Because of the intimidating nature of the CT notice which may put some good faith users off editing, I think I'd prefer such notices to be only placed by users whose judgement the community have assessed via a process such as RfA, or by some form of consensus discussion, perhaps on the article talkpage, but which is perhaps logged somewhere. And if we did have some form of accepted way for a notice to be placed on a talkpage, then requests such as this needn't come via ArbCom. ArbCom would only get involved if there were a dispute over the placement. SilkTork (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has your question been answered Tgeorgescu? Can this request be closed? SilkTork (talk) 15:08, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not in favor of codifying restrictions on who can place CT notices. It should (almost always) be uncontroversial. For the first time in a long time, it seems we've found one that is controversial. I think regular 'ol consensus can establish whether a page is, or isn't, suitable for a notice. But that notice isn't binding anyway. Its up to the admins at AE to decide if a page is in scope and whether sanctions are appropriate.
For what its worth, it seems a considerable stretch to say that the Gary Wilson page fits under GENSEX. As much as it talks about sex, it isn't engaged in controversial issues of sexuality, which is what the SEX part of GENSEX applies to. The idea that Wilson himself turned "pray the gay away" into "pray the porn away" just does not seem backed up by the available sources. Of the sources Tgeorgescu linked on the talk page, neither of the news articles mentioned Wilson (the PDF wasn't searchable for me, but perusing it, I didn't see his name). Nor do the sources back up the idea that anti-porn is somehow intrinsically anti-gay. Bottom line: GENSEX does not generally apply to topics around sexual intercourse (which if you were wondering, that page does not have a notice on it), and the links to sexuality are dubious at best. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:56, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

This page can be used by arbitrators to propose motions not related to any existing case or request. Motions are archived at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Motions.

Only arbitrators may propose or vote on motions on this page. You may visit WP:ARC or WP:ARCA for potential alternatives.

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

You can make comments in the sections called "community discussion". Arbitrators or clerks may summarily remove or refactor any comment.

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

request administrative action against editors violating a remedy (not merely a principle) or an injunction in an Arbitration Committee decision, or a contentious topic restriction imposed by an administrator,
request contentious topic restrictions against previously alerted editors who engage in misconduct in a topic area designated as a contentious topic,
request page restrictions (e.g. revert restrictions) on pages that are being disrupted in topic areas designated as contentious topics, or
appeal arbitration enforcement actions (including contentious topic restrictions) to uninvolved administrators.

For all other problems, including content disagreements or the enforcement of community-imposed sanctions, please use the other fora described in the dispute resolution process. To appeal Arbitration Committee decisions, please use the clarification and amendment noticeboard.

Only autoconfirmed users may file enforcement requests here; requests filed by IPs or accounts less than four days old or with less than 10 edits will be removed. All users are welcome to comment on requests except where doing so would violate an active restriction (such as an extended-confirmed restriction). If you make an enforcement request or comment on a request, your own conduct may be examined as well, and you may be sanctioned for it. Enforcement requests and statements in response to them may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator. (Word Count Tool) Statements must be made in separate sections. Non-compliant contributions may be removed or shortened by administrators. Disruptive contributions such as personal attacks, or groundless or vexatious complaints, may result in blocks or other sanctions.

To make an enforcement request, click on the link above this box and supply all required information. Incomplete requests may be ignored. Requests reporting diffs older than one week may be declined as stale. To appeal a contentious topic restriction or other enforcement decision, please create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}.

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications of contentious topic restrictions state the following:

All contentious topic restrictions (and logged warnings) may be appealed. Only the restricted editor may appeal an editor restriction. Any editor may appeal a page restriction.

The appeal process has three possible stages. An editor appealing a restriction may:

ask the administrator who first made the contentious topic restrictions (the "enforcing administrator") to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email.

Appeals submitted at AE or AN must be submitted using the applicable template.

A rough consensus of administrators at AE or editors at AN may specify a period of up to one year during which no appeals (other than an appeal to ARCA) may be submitted.

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

An administrator may only modify or revoke a contentious topic restriction if a formal appeal is successful or if one of the following exceptions applies:

The administrator who originally imposed the contentious topic restriction (the "enforcing administrator") affirmatively consents to the change,^[a] or is no longer an administrator;^[b] or
The contentious topic restriction was imposed (or last renewed) more than a year ago and:
- the restriction was imposed by a single administrator, or
- the restriction was an indefinite block.

A formal appeal is successful only if one of the following agrees with revoking or changing the contentious topic restriction:

a clear consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE,
a clear consensus of uninvolved editors at AN,
a majority of the Arbitration Committee, acting through a motion at ARCA.

Any administrator who revokes or changes a contentious topic restriction out of process (i.e. without the above conditions being met) may, at the discretion of the Arbitration Committee, be desysopped.

Standard of review
On community review

Uninvolved administrators at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") and uninvolved editors at the administrators' noticeboard ("AN") should revoke or modify a contentious topic restriction on appeal if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action was not reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption when first imposed, or
the action is no longer reasonably necessary to prevent damage or disruption.

On Arbitration Committee review

Arbitrators hearing an appeal at a request for amendment ("ARCA") will generally overturn a contentious topic restriction only if:

the action was inconsistent with the contentious topics procedure or applicable policy (i.e. the action was out of process),
the action represents an unreasonable exercise of administrative enforcement discretion, or
compelling circumstances warrant the full Committee's action.

^ The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.
^ This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA"). If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to arbcom-enwikimedia.org).

Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.

While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
These provisions apply only to contentious topic restrictions placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorized by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.

Information for administrators processing requests

If you participate on this page you should be prepared to mete out potentially long term bans and you should expect reactive behavior from those banned.
Administrators who consistently make questionable enforcement administrative actions, or whose actions are consistently overturned by community or Arbitration Committee discussions may be asked to cease performing such activities or be formally restricted from taking such activities.
The enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally in order to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Not all enforcement requests will show behavior restricted by ArbCom. It may, however, violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines which you may use administrative discretion to deal with.
More than one side in a dispute may have Arbitration Committee conduct rulings applicable to them.
Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags, after which a bot should archive it in 7 days.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted under Result concerning X.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36
37	38	39	40	41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54
55	56	57	58	59	60	61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72
73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80	81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90
91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100	101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108
109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120	121	122	123	124	125	126
127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140	141	142	143	144
145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160	161	162
163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198
199	200	201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216
217	218	219	220	221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234
235	236	237	238	239	240	241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252
253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260	261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270
271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280	281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288
289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300	301	302	303	304	305	306
307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317

NeuroZachary

No action needed at this time. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 NeuroZachary

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:11, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: NeuroZachary (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:ARBGENDER and WP:ARBAP

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

[10] 19 April 2023 20:09 UTC — it should be obvious;
[11] 19 April 2023 20:05 UTC — it should be obvious;
[12] 19 April 2023 20:03 UTC — it should be obvious.

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 [13] 19 April 2023 19:05 UTC (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

[14] 19 April 2023 20:23 UTC tells me he is an experienced Wikipedian. You should examine if he is a WP:SOCK. He just got indeffed. That's an extra reason to perform a sockpuppetry investigation. Their first edit at en.wiki at [15] looks pretty advanced for a "newbie". According to [16], this account has no edits at other Wikimedia projects. See [17]? I have an account for more than 20 years, and I didn't know that <kbd> exists. tgeorgescu (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[18] 20:13 UTC 19 April 2023

Discussion concerning NeuroZachary

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 NeuroZachary

Statement by Sideswipe9th

NeuroZachary strikes me as an editor who is textbook WP:NOTHERE. In addition to the diffs from Gays Against Groomers linked above, I've also had to revert two edits relating to human conception and abortion ([19], [20]). Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sockpuppetry concerns aside, which are probably better handled at WP:SPI if still necessary, as NeuroZachary has just been indeffed (I think as a regular admin action) by Courcelles, this filing may now be largely moot? I guess unless or until NeuroZachary files a successful unblock request? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:32, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Aquillion

Just a note that it does seem like they're likely to successfully appeal their indef with the constraint that an indefinite AP2 topic ban will be applied instead. Aside from that, I agree that there are WP:DUCK issues suggesting they may at least not be a new user, but without more concrete reason to think they're a specific user and are violating WP:SOCK it's always unclear what to do with that. --Aquillion (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning NeuroZachary

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

Indeffed per NOTHERE, since the only thing they want to do is POV push. Courcelles (talk) 20:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:SPI is thataway, but it would probably be rejected. I don't see any real indication of sockpuppetry, those edits seem like just looking at the formatting that is already there and copying it which isn't hard to do even for a new editor. Using a basic HTML tag that isn't even used on Wikipedia really is also not evidence of sockpuppetry. Regardless, user has been indeffed as WP:NOTHERE and is probably not going to be unblocked, so asking for a Checkuser without any evidence would just be a fishing expedition. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:27, 19 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Zaathras

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 Zaathras

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 21:13, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Zaathras (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

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

Repeated edit-warring in a BLP in violation of WP:EW and WP:ONUS

21:02, 20 April 2023
20:58, 20 April 2023
20:56, 20 April 2023 (yes thats three reverts violating ONUS in a BLP in 6 minutes)
02:41, 15 April 2023

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

N/A

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 12:37, 11 June 2022 (see the system log linked to above).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This is super basic, an editor is seeking to enforce their view through edit-warring, repeatedly restoring material that a quick look at the talk page shows there is no consensus for its inclusion. This is discussed at Talk:Marjorie_Taylor_Greene#Comments_on_Teixeira, where among other issues Zaathras calls another living person a "traitor" (without that person having ever been convicted of treason), shows five editors opposing or being unsure of inclusion, and three editors in favor. Yes, not a vote, but there being no consensus for inclusion means the material stays out. Zaathras apparently feels like ONUS does not apply to him or her, see the edit summary here. The page has since been protected, but this method of edit-warring to enforce a personal position violates the arbitration decision, and given this is also a BLP I feel this should be met with sanctions.

Also note their response to the AE notification here in which they continue with their MO of making personal attacks. nableezy - 21:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You dont need a 1RR to prohibit edit-warring. Maybe the user would find a personal 0RR a good way of learning how to properly edit in restricted topics without resorting to edit-warring and personal attacks. And that below comment appears to be an admission of disruptive editing, as Users who edit in their preferred version of an article while there is an active, ongoing discussion is exactly what they were doing. nableezy - 21:19, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Continuing with the personal attacks here is all sorts of special, and Ill note Zaathras is also aware of the restrictions in the ARBPIA topic area. nableezy - 22:47, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SPECIFICO, pretty sure Im the uninvolved editor in question, and also at a loss as to how Zaathras was baited in to edit-warring. But glad there is agreement that they were indeed edit-warring. nableezy - 00:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Im sorry what? I saw an editor repeatedly restore edits that they acknowledged had no consensus for. I saw a talk page in which even editors and admins who can quite easily be identified as not being in the pro-MTG contingent saying that this material should not be included. You cant just force in edits you want, you cannot just abuse the first mover advantage the you think you have with the 3RR. Zaathras was edit-warring against WP:ONUS while claiming the opposite of what ONUS requires, that the removal is what needs consensus. If you had editors that actually told their own side when they were editing poorly this topic area wouldnt be half as bad as it is. But you would rather defend your own sides edit-warriors because it is to your advantage to have their reverts in these articles. If you feel like I was edit warring for having made two reverts against one person while citing the policy that supports my reverts (WP:ONUS with a majority of the talk page opposing inclusion, then the user having made 3 reverts in 8 minutes against multiple users with a minority of the talk page backing inclusion while editing against that policy was definitionally edit-warring and should be sanctioned. You cannot simply force your favored versions in to an article. That is WP:DE. nableezy - 03:07, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Black Kite I think Kcmastrpc was reverting too much as well, though they did have both ONUS and a talk page majority on their side here. If this had been on AOC's page and I say Kcmastrpc reverting 4 times to push in material that was objected to by a majority of the talk page I would have reported them instead. But I dispute I was tag-teaming anything. I saw this whole sequence play out, and like in a bunch of other pages saw a contingent of edit-warriors trying to push in to an article material that did not have consensus. That should be dealt with, but sure, Kcmastrpc reverted too much. I dont think I did, but feel free to ban me from AP2 too if youd like. nableezy - 15:03, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok this is just absurd with Valjean making absolutely bonkers claims that I am not a "mainstream or experienced" editor (when I have >10x the edits of Zaathras) and that I needed to convince a minority that material should not be pushed in against the majority of editors on the talk page. Is anybody questioning why editors like Ianmacm (46k edits), Muboshgu (admin, 104th most active editor all time), Slatersteven (62k edits) all questioned inclusion? But no, I needed to convince editors lol. I knew ARBPIA had issues with factionalism and excusing poor behavior when it is to your advantage, but this is on another level. nableezy - 15:42, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]; SPECIFICO youre dissembling, but not very well. ONUS is part of V, and on top of that CON is likewise policy, and so is EW. All of those things are violated when an editor repeatedly pushes in material without consensus. And the thing of it is, even editors on your side of the ideological divide (waves hand, and also points to the editors that objected on the talk page) objected. But the ONUS is not a prescriptive policy like V misses where ONUS redirects to. nableezy - 18:01, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified

Discussion concerning Zaathras

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 Zaathras

The article is not under a 1RR or a "You may not reinstate a reverted edit for 24h" restriction that I saw. Users who edit in their preferred version of an article while there is an active, ongoing discussion about said content is what I consider to be disruptive here. There was not a BLP concern with the content, the discussion revolved around a question of due or undue weight, therefore, IMO, removal in mid-discussion (esp. this user who had no prior involvement in the discussion) was a quite naked act of bad faith. Zaathras (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not believe BLPRESTORE applies here, as the content is not damaging or damning to the subject if left in the article. I do not wish to get too far into the weeds of discussion on the content itself, but briefly, this is about whether the subject's public tweets in support of an alleged leaker/whistleblower. The subject publicly supports the leaker, so being linked to him in her bio is not a "negative", in the BLP sense. Zaathras (talk) 22:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the "personal attack", sorry, but this user has apparently long been allowed to vice support of a terrorist organization on their user page. That the wording is extremely careful and couched is immaterial. We all know what it means. Zaathras (talk) 22:44, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kcmastrpc

I was involved in this conflict, I felt the initial two reverts on April 15 were WP:GOODFAITH, at which point I'd backed off to let the conversation develop for roughly 5 days at which point it began to settle down. Before taking any action, I requested input from other editors and TFD suggested we revert unless any other major developments surfaced. In my judgement I felt consensus had not been reached, and while my primary concern was WP:DUE and WP:BALASP, there were aspects I felt were completely WP:UNDUE especially with regards to Liz Chaney's comments. Nevertheless, as other admins have pointed out, WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS apply here since the material in dispute was never stable nor gained consensus through discussion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SPECIFICO In addition to what some could consider WP:ASPERSIONS being casted in the talk page by the same editor we're discussing here, you've brought up an interesting action completely unrelated to this incident that other editors called out as excessive, all while making a significant and still uncorrected error in your claims that I was an uninvolved editor AND the claim that Zaathras had not been involved in this edit dispute from the very beginning as they were the first individual to undo my initial reversion. Kcmastrpc (talk) 12:00, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Black_Kite I'm still a relatively new editor here and by strict reading of WP:3RR I don't feel like I was in the wrong since my two sequential reverts were several days apart, however, if other editors and admins feel I stepped over a line I apologize and regardless I'll be more cognoscente of my actions in the future. Kcmastrpc (talk) 15:20, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Valjean perhaps you could take a moment to see that I was editing based on the fact that the conversation had reached an inflection point, which hasn't really changed in substance even to this very moment. Based on the consensus on the talk page (or lack thereof), it was clear to me that the content was disputed and should have been removed per WP:ONUS. Perhaps you see things differently, but I'd ask that you take a moment to take a deeper look at the situation. Kcmastrpc (talk) 17:11, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Am I correct that the editor you appear to be referencing as the uninvolved reverter was @Kcmastrpc:? That editor had been edit warring this content before Zaathras' involvement and is currently blocked regarding another FoxNews-adjacent page. I left a note on the article talk page in the hope that editors there will provide some context to these events. Also, I took a look at Zaathras previous CT sanction. He restored valid content that was removed without by @Mr Ernie: who gave no reason and did not engage on talk and Zathraas' edit was not challenged by any other editor. Zaathras' edit there did indeed have consensus. I'm surprised to see that he was sanctioned, but the page was fairly chaotic due to persistent Republican and right wing media coverage of the subject matter. In the current complaint, while Zaathras reacted poorly by taking the bait and edit warring, the behavior is hardly egregious enough for a draconian sanction such as 0RR, or anything more than a week's page block. FWIW, Zaathras is one of the best-informed and generally constructive editors active in the most contentious politics articles, and his contributions are based on mainstream sourcing and policy. The tone of this complaint feels a bit like weaponizing an unfortunate but harmless misstep. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wordsmith, I think 0RR/Consensus Required is contradictory. The best page restriction is 24-BRD, which has worked well at many difficult AP pages. SPECIFICO talk 00:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nableezy and SFR, there was already an edit war in progress and I would say Nableezy was part of that. I also did not consider citing WP:ONUS to be particularly mom/apple pie standing up for policy. That's just shorthand for saying they consider the content UNDUE. So this is a garden variety edit war on a page with no explicit restrictions and as MASEM says, it's trout-level stuff. The question of editors picking and choosing from daily news is ubiquitous and lots of time and attention is wasted on it. Just to be clear, I meant to say Zaathras' prior sanction was IMO ill-advised, and subsequent events, with the drive-by reverter failing to give any reason or engage on talk and with Zaarthras' reinsertion going unchallenged ever after, seems to confirm that. I would not hold that up as any indication of depravity or anything else outside of that place and time. SPECIFICO talk 02:23, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SFR, I may not have been clear I meant to indicate that the editor whom I called a drive-by reverter (whom I pinged so they can come to their defense here) gave a vacuous edit summary and did not meaningfully engage on the talk page. And the consensus was indeed demonstrated to be in favor of Zaathras' edit. That the reinstatement after the revert is a sanctionable violation actually points out one of the flaws with the "Consensus Required" as a page restriction. It allowed the unsubstantiated revert to sidetrack numerous other editors into a talk thread, only to endorse Zaathras' action for which he was shackled. That's why @Awilley: devised 24-BRD after a lot of experience with AP enforcement, and I presume why Arbcom codified it as one of the authorized page restrictions. SPECIFICO talk 16:05, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: WP:ONUS. Yes, it appears in a policy page, but it is not a prescriptive policy such as V, NPOV etc. ONUS gets cited in content disagreements. It's just a reminder that citing V does not resolve a content dispute. SO: I don't think we should be describing the removal of this MTG-tweeting content as if it were wrapped in the flag and glory of the five pillars. It was just a content dispute and the removal was to launch a garden-variety content disagreement which, per se, is beyond the scope of enforcement judgments. SPECIFICO talk 17:33, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Valjean

Black Kite is spot on. ~~Nableezy and~~ Kcmastrpc were edit warring against three mainstream and experienced editors. Even worse, Kcmastrpc was exhibiting OWNership behavior when they, after a pause, returned to try to again force their version, even though the article's history showed they were in a minority. ~~Nableezy and~~ Kcmastrpc bear the brunt of the blame and the others were justified in restoring the content. ~~Nableezy and~~ Kcmastrpc should have stuck to discussion and aimed to convince the others on the talk page. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worse than trouting for anyone here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:41, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My abject apologies to User:Nableezy. I intended to modify my comment, got caught up in an edit conflict, saved it and posted it, and had to immediately run to other responsibilities, forgetting to modify it. Nableezy is obviously an experienced and respected editor. I'll modify my comment now. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:18, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by DFlhb

I disagree with Black Kite that there were "tag teams". Reverting was straightforwardly indicated by our policies as the proper course of action until affirmative consensus is reached. I'm not a household name, so you don't need to take my word for it, take Blueboar's. DFlhb (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zaathras: WP:BLPRESTORE does apply, since its merely cites "good-faith BLP objections", and asking ourselves whether material is "relevant to a disinterested article about the subject" is part of BLP. No need for the material to be "negative", which would be far too subjective a criteria. DFlhb (talk) 19:27, 22 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Zaathras

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

Just noting that I protected the page before seeing this report in an attempt to stop the issuing edit war, which was related to BLP issues. Any uninvolved administrator can undo that protection (and return the indefinite semi-protection) if they see it is no longer necessary. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:18, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since I'm already here, I will add that I agree with an article restriction, with "consensus required" being my top choice. I'm undecided on any sanctions of Zaathras. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I'm unsure about how to deal with Zaathras, in that whether a logged warning would be sufficient or if they should be tbanned, I don't see the issue with Nableezy's reverts here. I protected the page because I saw several users edit warring over this issue, so pblocking wouldn't be ideal. No one has raised other issues related to Nableezy's edits in the area here, but Zaathras has a background of not respecting our consensus building guidelines, as pointed out by The Wordsmith. I personally don't think a 0RR restriction is useful, and would support either a logged warning or a topic ban from the intersection of BLPs and AP2 topic areas. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 15:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notating here that Zaathras has already received a two-week AP2 page ban from Hunter Biden laptop controversy [21] for reverting to restore BLP material that was under discussion (the article was under a "consensus required" page restriction), and I cautioned him about similar behavior violating WP:BLPRESTORE at Talk:Libs of TikTok#BLPN discussion, though it was unofficial and not a logged warning. There seems to be a pattern of this sort of behavior. Some kind of sanction seems to be warranted; 0RR is probably the least severe one that would resolve the issue unless somebody provides evidence of more widespread problems than just reverting content under discussion. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:14, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SPECIFICO: To clarify, I meant either 0RR or consensus required, not both. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:56, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concerns about due weight are most definitely legitimate BLP issues, and the PAGs dealing with restoration of BLP content certainly apply. Considering they've been sanctioned in the past, 0RR is the least I would support. I think a topic ban on BLP content involving American politics wouldn't be amiss. I'm also less than impressed with the personal attack in response to the notification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd also like to add that when someone uninvolved shows up and reverts in support of PAGs, you should make sure you're on solid footing, rather than continuing to edit war. Uninvolved input and opinions are always welcome, which is why we have the feedback request service, RFCs, and noticeboards. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
SPECIFICO, I'm referring to nableezy, who was uninvolved in the article, as noted by Zaathras here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the topic of Zaathras' earlier sanction which SPECIFICO brought up, it is a clear violation. An edit was challenged by revision, with an edit summary here, and discussed on the talk page here. By the time Zaathras reverted the edit, multiple other editors had disagreed with the edit. To claim there was consensus for the content when the revert was made is plainly false. This actually demonstrates one of the issues, a willingness to revert to their favored version rather than waiting for discussion to reach consensus. In the case they were sanctioned for they never even took part in the talk page discussion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Zaathras should clearly know better to not edit war on contentious topics and that ONUS applies. However, I would also add that I think Greene's article presents a clear example of the epidemic of poor editing around contentious topics in general, trying to include every negative mark that a person or other entity gets from RSes but not looking to write the big picture per NOTNEWS and RECENTISM - not just involving Zaathras but editors on that given talk page discussion. This idea to rush to include every minor kerfuffle that happens in the news - no matter how well sourced - doesn't fit with our encyclopedic purpose. However, that point is hard to take any action on any editor here, just that we really really need to look at this better to try to reduce disruption around contentious topics in today's political climate. I feel a trout is appropriate here, but it should be clear that Greene's page should be considered under 1RR or even 0RR. --Masem (t) 00:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think that looking at the earlier sanction and warning The Wordsmith linked to above brings this above trout-tier. This a continuation of the same behavior. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:38, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To Zaathras' benefit here, the Greene page does lack any revert restriction, only that it could be placed under one, where the Hunter Biden laptop story, as noted at the diff above, had such a restriction in place. I still think an editor as experienced as Zaathras would know not to pass that, but, you know, benefit of the doubt here that they saw no outright editing restriction and thus reverted multiple times. I don't think this instance is a blockable/bannable offensive but I can see something lighter and more effective than a trout too if we do apply the "should know better" concept. Masem (t) 00:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think there is definitely a wider issue around that article. Regarding the article not having a revert restriction, Zaathras is seasoned enough to know that three reverts in under 10 minutes is probably going to be considered edit warring even without a CTOP restriction on it. I could get behind adding a 0RR/Consensus Required restriction on the article in addition to a sanction on Zaathras. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 00:46, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would support some action on the article as well. I prefer consensus required over 0rr or 1rr. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:52, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am unconvinced that Zaathras is the only problem here, looking at the sequence of reverts. You effectively have two tags teams, one inserting the material six times (Soibangla x 1, Aquillion x 1, Zaathras x 4) versus one removing it six times (Nableezy x 2, Kcmastrpc x 4). I'd suggest that more than one editor needs to be looked at here. Black Kite (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request to lift Topic ban

Withdrawn appeal, per user talk. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 00:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I am asking the community and/or administrators to allow me to edit in the ARBPIA area, rescinding the current topic ban, a ban which I unsuccessfully appealed here, but which allowed me to edit ARBPIA pages without diverging into political issues. This freedom, too, was taken away from me when I wrote a new Wikipedia article entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” which you can see here

I first want to say that I made an honest mistake. Since my topic ban actually permitted me (as one can see here), to edit pages bearing the Arab-Israel (ARBPIA) tag, I felt that I could do so on a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem”, mentioning both Jewish and Arab cultural sites, following the format of Outline of Munich, without touching on the political intricacies besetting the Israeli and Palestinian Arab peoples. In fact, I simply mentioned while editing that page the name of the current government over Jerusalem, which information the page in its format had actually called for (and what information is presently known by all). My freedom to edit pages bearing the ARBPIA label gave me a sense “unfounded” confidence that it would not be a breach of my topic ban (which prohibited me from engaging in issues involving the area of conflict) if I were to write the name of the government currently in charge of the city, as the page format requested.

I made an honest mistake and am asking for the opportunity to renew editing in the ARBPIA area by rescinding my current ban. I can assure my colleagues here that I will do my utmost to abide by all Wikipedia policies, and act in Good Faith when editing. This will allow me the opportunity to help promote articles in the ARBPIA field to good article status, as well as to add historical data, whenever needed.

Secondly, I wish to say that my original topic ban in the ARBPIA field involved a dispute that I had with another editor, but that this dispute has since been resolved. I wish to remind all those here that I have NEVER once made any statement on Wikipedia that incites violence against any of my Arab or Palestinian countrymen, nor have I ever hoped that harm come upon them. My editing history will prove this without any doubt.Davidbena (talk) 07:39, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Venue is ANI? It is Arbpia related but the original and current ban are imposed at ANI. Selfstudier (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this belongs at ANI, I'll move it there.Davidbena (talk) 20:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this was imposed at AE and can be appealed here or at AN or directly to the committee. The prior community sanction can only be appealed to AN or to the committee. David, if you want to appeal here I strongly suggest you use the appeal template in the edit-notice ({{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}). nableezy - 21:29, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Davidbena: From my recollections: you were at one time given a broad topic-ban; another time given a "narrow" topic-ban (allowing you to edit about ancient history, but not present-day I/P-issues.) Am I right in understanding that you want all topic-bans lifted? Huldra (talk) 22:15, 23 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that is correct, so that I will not make the same mistakes that I made in the past. Having a "limited topic ban" is what brought me into trouble the last time and not safely recognizing the limits of that topic ban. If, however, the community should feel that I am still unworthy to have my ARBPIA topic ban lifted, even after more than 3 years under the ban, I will be content to have my "limited topic ban" restored.Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Nableezy. I'll use the format that you've suggested.Davidbena (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Where is this appeal actually active? The OP filed at ANI (not AN) as well, in which I commented. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per David's last comment here, he appears to want to reformulate this using the template. Id collapse this as withdrawn myself but sadly you all have not seen fit to grant me an admin bit, but I request that be done now. nableezy - 00:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Davidbena

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active 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: Davidbena (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sanction being appealed: Topic ban in Israel-Palestine conflict, broadly construed

Topic ban from editing in the ARBPIA area, broadly construed, imposed on 29 January 2022, and which Tban was subsequent to a failed appeal in November 2019 (see here), imposed by User:Ymblanter, and which original ban was related to disruptive editing by me (as seen here), imposed by User:Euryalus. It is to be noted that an appeal was submitted in September of 2022 to rescind my current Topic ban (as shown here}, but that it too was declined.

Administrator imposing the sanction: Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that administrator: The appealing editor is asked to notify the administrator who made the enforcement action of this appeal, and then to replace this text with a diff of that notification. The appeal may not be processed otherwise. If a block is appealed, the editor moving the appeal to this board should make the notification.

Statement by Davidbena

I am asking that my Topic ban be lifted, since I am fully aware now (finally) where I had infringed upon my own Topic ban (here), where it was stated explicitly that I was prohibited from making “any edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed, and regardless of whether an ARBPIA template is on the talk page,” but that I had wrongly taken the initiative (careless of me) to create a page entitled “Outline of Jerusalem,” following the Outline of Munich format, and which new page clearly discussed post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics. There is no excuse for this flagrant abuse of my limited topic ban, although I was permitted under the same ruling to “upload or add historical photos or multimedia of or about pre-1948 Levantine subjects,” as well as to contribute “verifiable and reliably sourced information regarding Levantine archaeological research,” in addition to “make edits relating to geographical features of the Levant.” This generous leniency and freedom given to me by my peers rendered my judgment obscured, and I had forgotten the most important proscription, namely, not to engage in edits relating to post-1948 Arab-Israeli geopolitics, broadly construed. I can now say honestly that the community was right to censure me for this flagrant violation, after giving me so much freedom. I will not be upset if the community should turn-down my current request to appeal the topic ban. I feel ashamed that I had not noticed my own error, before it came to this. With that said, for the record, I personally bear no grievance toward any man, and I fully understand the need to reach a consensus with my fellow editors, especially when dealing with contentious topics such as this. As a religious Jew, I have since come to learn something that will, hopefully, guide my attitude here on out in the future, and that is this: for Jews and Arabs, the country remains eternally under special sanctity, and both peoples have historical connections to the land. This calls for extra sensitivities when editing pages related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Davidbena (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

Statement by Nableezy

I have made no secret of my fondness for David, and have tried to ward him off from shooting himself in the foot in the past, and thats despite having been asked to be banned by David in the past, in fact two of his more ardent fans are the only ones he's ever asked to have banned I think. But he is without doubt one of the most sincere people on Wikipedia, and I have never doubted David's honesty or good faith. His zeal was the only real problem. But I absolutely believe that he thought he wasnt doing anything that violated his topic ban previously, and even though it was obvious to me, and to everybody commenting at AE at the time, I remain of the view that good faith mistakes should be forgiven, and honestly think you all should have just gone with escalating blocks up to one month for those good faith topic ban violations. Yes, it was a topic ban violation. But who cares really, it had zero impact on anything, and anybody could have removed it and he would have left it alone if told to due to his ban. I cant honestly say I have any real confidence that he wont make another good faith error in abiding by the AN imposed ban in the future, but I just dont see how this is beneficial to any of the parties here, David or Wikipedia. So my view, unchanged over years and years, is David can be an asset to articles that need knowledgeable editors who research thoroughly and have access to some of the world's best resources for the Jewish history in Palestine/Israel, and we are just depriving ourselves of that asset for technical violations of a ban that has barely any real benefit to Wikipedia to begin with. And it be better if we didnt do that. nableezy - 04:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Davidbena

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 Beyond My Ken

The appeal does not indicate any real understanding of why they were TB'd, nor does it provide any evidence of a change in attitude or behavior since their last appeal (here) was turned down. I would urge the admins here to turn down this appeal as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal by Davidbena

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

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]