From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requests for clarification and amendment Information


Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by TenPoundHammer

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

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

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

They explicitly may:

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

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

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

Statement by Jclemens

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

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

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

Statement by Cunard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

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

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified

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

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

Amendment request: Gender and sexuality

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

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


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


Statement by Sideswipe9th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Daniel Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nil Einne

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

BTW, User:Daniel Case, perhaps this is WP:BEANS but I think the risk is low. Georgina Beyer passed away just over a year ago, but this was well after a lot of the craziness and unless I'm missing something apart from a 7 day semi protection [1] about 2 weeks after her death due to some misgendering, the article seems to have survived relatively without problem despite this lack of protection and being of decent size [2]. (I mean there early problem reoccured but was resolved via blocking. The problem AFAICT seems to be mostly from editors insisting on removing female and calling her male in edit summaries, although I think at least most of these have stayed away from inserting male into the article.) I think it helped that she was significantly out of the public eye in recent years although I also think her pioneering role is still fairly well recognised within NZ.

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

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

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

Statement by Courcelles

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

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

Statement by The Wordsmith

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


Statement by Swatjester

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

Statement by SWinxy

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

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

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement by Robert McClenon

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

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

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


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

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

Archived Disputes at WP:ANI

Archived Disputes at WP:DRN

Explanation and Clarification

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

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

Statement by Cossde

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

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

Statement by Petextrodon

Statement by Oz346

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

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

Statement by UtoD

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

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards

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

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Swatjester

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

Statement by The Wordsmith (2)

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

Statement by Abhishek0831996

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Requests for clarification and amendment Information


Amendment request: Conduct in deletion-related editing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by TenPoundHammer

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

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

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

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

Statement by Thryduulf (re TPH)

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

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

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

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

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

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

They explicitly may:

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

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

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

Statement by Jclemens

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

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

Statement by Izno

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

Statement by Extraordinary Writ

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

Statement by Cunard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Clerk notes

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

Conduct in deletion-related editing: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Motion: TenPoundHammer topic ban modified

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

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

Amendment request: Gender and sexuality

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

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


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


Statement by Sideswipe9th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Daniel Case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Nil Einne

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

BTW, User:Daniel Case, perhaps this is WP:BEANS but I think the risk is low. Georgina Beyer passed away just over a year ago, but this was well after a lot of the craziness and unless I'm missing something apart from a 7 day semi protection [1] about 2 weeks after her death due to some misgendering, the article seems to have survived relatively without problem despite this lack of protection and being of decent size [2]. (I mean there early problem reoccured but was resolved via blocking. The problem AFAICT seems to be mostly from editors insisting on removing female and calling her male in edit summaries, although I think at least most of these have stayed away from inserting male into the article.) I think it helped that she was significantly out of the public eye in recent years although I also think her pioneering role is still fairly well recognised within NZ.

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

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

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

Statement by Courcelles

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

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

Statement by The Wordsmith

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


Statement by Swatjester

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

Statement by SWinxy

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Gender and sexuality: Clerk notes

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

Gender and sexuality: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Amendment request: India-Pakistan

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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


Statement by Robert McClenon

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

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

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


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

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

Archived Disputes at WP:ANI

Archived Disputes at WP:DRN

Explanation and Clarification

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

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

Statement by Cossde

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

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

Statement by Petextrodon

Statement by Oz346

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

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

Statement by UtoD

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

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards

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

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

Statement by Vanamonde

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

Statement by Swatjester

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

Statement by The Wordsmith (2)

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

Statement by Abhishek0831996

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook