Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration


Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Armenia-Azerbaijan 2

Initiated by Callanecc at 23:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request

Consensus of admins at AE requesting at ArbCom open a new case to examine the Armenia-Azerbaijan area of conflict.

Statement by Callanecc

There is a consensus of administrators at AE to refer conflict in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area to the Arbitration Committee for you to consider opening a new case. The consensus formed out of a discussion that the issues facing this area of conflict are more complex than can be successfully resolved at AE and require a full case (with evidence and workshop) to determine what measures may help to reduce conflict and improve the editing environment. Noting the amendment request above for an extended-confirmed restriction and the community discussion about the same (which could likely be folded into this), arbitration processes are best suited to resolving the current conflict on these articles by having the full range of remedies available. Effectively AE admins are saying that this is beyond what we're capable of resolving at AE so we're referring it to you under the CT procedure. I intentionally haven't listed any other parties as I (and the rough consensus at AE) believe that identifying parties needs to be part of the initial steps of opening the case, that is the parties in the current AE request are the catalyst for us referring it to you but not the scope of the problem. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll leave the specifics to my colleagues who have more recent experience in this area but broadly the problem admins have at AE is that we're making decisions based on a limited amount of information (which is vastly different following an evidence phase), with a relatively (to a case) limited timeframe and with relatively (to a case) limited timeframe to examine the conduct of everyone rather than those who are actively reported or doing the reporting. For someone to be reported there generally needs to have been some sort of conflict with someone else which means that the scope of who we're going to be able to identify and make summary decisions about is limited short of us actively searching through a topic area. AE is great at dealing with behavioural issues that are relatively clear or can be easily explained and identified in a limited number of diffs. It isn't great looking at long-term patterns of behaviour are beyond what we would accept but aren't clearly obvious to an independent observer. That, really, is why arbitration cases have long evidence and workshop phases - so that that type of conduct can be identified, evidenced and dealt with. El C made a comment in the AE thread about the issues being ideological rather than personal - that's something that AE will always struggle to resolve in a nuanced way (other than just topic banning everyone and moving on until there's an appeal for doing exactly that) but it's what arbitration cases are designed to do. Other admins will likely have some other ideas but I think the need for a case is to look at the long-term conduct of various editors and do, for lack of a better phrase, a clean-out. Re whether contentious topics is fully implemented, it's largely irrelevant as AE admins could, by custom, always do this, CT just formalised it. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork: The intention is that it would be a new case. The reason it came here rather than ARC is the suggestion in the new contentious topics procedure that this is where the Committee would prefer it comes rather than as a case request. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Barkeep49: In addition to Rosguill's comment below. There might be some scope to do an extended evidence phase and use the extended bit at the start for public & private submissions about who should be parties in the case? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 04:22, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Barkeep49: I think even if no one different is willing to submit evidence a case that just examines the issues with regard to ZaniGiovanni's evidence it will definitely help. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Brandmeister: The restrictions at WP:GS/RUSUKR now apply to this topic area per this discussion. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 06:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Barkeep49: Generally, discretionary sanctions tend to be very good at resolving issues that can be clearly demonstrated with succinct evidence and where the conduct breaches behavioural guidelines particularly earlier on in an editor's 'career' on Wikipedia. Where an editor has a greater number of edits in a topic area, especially when there's not been serious previous issues, it is much more difficult to effectively determine what's happened, what if any policies (etc) have been breached and what if any sanctions are appropriate, and then to gain a consensus for that. This is mainly due to the amount of evidence which is, can be and really needs to be submitted to demonstrate long-term patterns of disruptive editing, particularly where that editing is tendentious (and especially when the tendentious component we're being asked to adjudicate is related to §2.6, 2.8 or 2.12). This is primarily due to the intricate nature of what needs to be presented and the knowledge needed to determine if any of those things are happening and how serious it is. On the other hand, arbitration cases are designed to allow editors the time and space to present evidence and design responses to it but also, more importantly, to give arbitrators (particularly the drafting arbs who can become more expert than an admin at AE given that's their job) the time to review the evidence in depth, challenge it, ask questions and workshop ideas. AE just isn't, and can't be, set up to do that. That's why arbs get the big bucks. Additionally, the DS/CT decisions an admin makes needs to be able to stand up to review and appeal by other similarly time-poor and non-expert admins at AE and editors at AN. Enforcing admins need to be able to individually justify their enforcement decisions whenever and wherever they're asked (a little overstated sure, but point stands). That might be satisfied by pointing to an AE thread where it's relatively simple but if the admin needs to search through piles of evidence and look for additional evidence that becomes a much more in-depth job. So the decision for an enforcing admin becomes more complex: not just is the enforcement action justified but can they justify it to a less informed group? On the other hand, the Committee points to the case (with its evidence, workshop and proposed decision) and that is the justification for the decision. This is a feature of DS and AE rather than a bug though. Discretionary sanctions, and even more so contentious topics, are designed to give administrators additional options to deal with problems robustly before they become intractable not to give admins super powers, nor to replace the Arbitration Committee. Even with DS/CT there will be times that AE admins need to refer matters to the Committee because of the complex nature of the issue. That isn't a bug of DS/CT that needs to be fixed, it's a feature. It encourages complex issues to go to the Committee rather than being dealt with summarily so that the best decision can be arrived at. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 23:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And I just read this (from Barkeep49) which seems like a much more succinct summary of what I was trying to get at. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs)

@Robert McClenon: I realise that you're after an arb opinion but as one of the admins involved here I think going ahead with the moderated discussion could be a big help in the topic area and in the case (if one is opened) as it'll help to clarify, and hence separate, the conduct and content issues that are being referenced. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 08:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

The problem that Callanecc describes regarding scope and evidence is correct. At this point, the entrenched editors of AA have been feuding for years, and it is difficult to distinguish tendentious attempts to use AE to win the conflict from legitimate frustration. The consequence is that the par for this course, when it comes to civility and impartiality on the part of AA editors, is extremely low, and editors get away with a lot of kicks below the belt because admins only feel like we can intervene when something happens that is so far beyond the pale that it clearly merits a block all by itself. The subject-area is dominated by editors with POV agendas, to a degree that outstrips almost any other subject on Wikipedia.

Additionally, in a thread that is closed but still at the top of AN which describes an off-wiki campaign to POV-push in favor of Turkish viewpoints affecting AA and other topics of interest to aggrieved Turkish nationalists. While a few editors have been blocked and broad 30/500 protections have been authorized, the elephant in the room is that ZaniGiovanni has accused various other editors active in AA of playing an active role in organizing this and other pro-Azerbaijan or pro-Turkey POV campaigns. I think an ArbCom case is necessary in order to evaluate the evidence that ZG has collected. Adjudicating AE cases for edit warring or tendentious use of sources while these accusations lay hanging across the entire topic area (and, given the AN thread, potentially others as well) feels a bit like flagging a player for being offsides while the goalposts are being stolen. signed, Rosguill talk 01:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding SilkTork's second comment, I think that the primary concern right now in my mind is the resolution of the off-wiki canvassing allegations. I think it would be inappropriate to pre-empt the finding of fact with predictions about who will end up sanctioned, but the state of the topic-area as a whole may end up significantly affected in response to whichever conclusions ArbCom arrives at and may deserve re-evaluation at that time. I think it would make sense for ArbCom to take up the off-wiki canvassing issue first, and to expect a further request for clarification and amendment from us if the outcome does not significantly address the general disruption in the subject area. signed, Rosguill talk 18:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barkeep49, beside ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl who are already named, I expect that ZaniGiovanni can best name additional parties as they are the one that has raised the allegation. My off-hand recollection is that there are a range of claims of differing levels of involvement against a few different editors (including but not limited to Abrvagl), and I don't want to risk misleading anyone by listing parties on their behalf. signed, Rosguill talk 18:59, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Barkeep49, I think your summary was fine and I don't have anything to add beyond seconding Callanecc's description as well. signed, Rosguill talk 00:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

I agree entirely with the issues brought up by Callanecc and Rosguill. The problems in this area have gone beyond what AE can handle by sanctioning a few bad actors. And of course, AE cannot review private evidence of off-wiki collusion as ArbCom can. Like the community (as shown by the recent ECP request), AE admins are at wits' end in dealing with this topic area.

To answer the question from SilkTork and the others, the intent here is a referral to ArbCom as laid out in the new contentious topic procedures. At this point, I don't think any of us know exactly what that even looks like, and who should be on the list of parties to the case is also not yet determined. While the immediate AE request precipitating this involved a dispute between two editors, the problems in the area go much deeper than that and involve many other editors. So I think the request is to open a new case, but also to determine what the scope and participants should be, hence why the request is here rather than just as a new case request. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Brandmeister

There's one particular ongoing pattern in the AA area that I think is worth considering - the usage of sleeper accounts as has been noticed e.g. here ("gaming autoconfirmed then going into hibernation"). Such accounts may look like sockpuppets, but are often found to be unrelated to each other, consuming editors' time and efforts at WP:SPI. Perhaps implementation of what has been done in WP:GS/RUSUKR, Remedy A (opening discussions only to extended-confirmed editors, while comments by other editors can be removed) is warranted per WP:GAME. What do admins and arbitrators think of that? Brandmeistertalk 08:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for heads up, Callanecc. Brandmeistertalk 10:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by ZaniGiovanni

I've been targeted by Abrvagl for the longest time now whether in AE or otherwise; during the first month since my tban expired (15th November), my name has been involved in at least 3 reports already by ideologically opposing editors [8], [9], [10]. None of these have resulted in sanctions, neither did Abrvagl's subpar reports throughout 2022. For the longest time I wanted to comment about the Azerbaijani off-wiki meatpuppet groups but I couldn't because of WP:OUTING. Even when I got the 2 month tban during my own close challenge (when I said 8 out of 8 Oppose users were Azerbaijani or az-wiki admins), I couldn't directly provide evidence of canvassing groups because I'd had to brake outing. I hope I can speak freely here. The users I've identified canvassing through social media/off-wiki groups are Abrvagl, Solavirum (indeffed for socking), Qızılbaş and Rəcəb Yaxşı. These are the ones I intend to provide evidence for. There is broader involvement by additional accounts, but I've been unable to tie considerable off-wiki canvassing/disruption to any other editors in particular. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abrvagl, you're not in ANI anymore. When making outrageous claims like this Even here, their comment indicates that they continue to believe that it is OK to oppose RfC votes based on the editors' assumed ethnicity, despite them being Tbanned for that exact case., be sure you can prove it. The only thing my comment above indicates regarding the RFC is that it's not OK to canvass. For future reference to ArbCom/admins, this isn't the first time Abrvagl makes baseless accusations in their comments so I hope something like this doesn't pass further in here and Abrvagl finally starts being more diligent especially when making such blatant accusations with no foundation, considering my comment is literally above for everyone to read.
I don't have any comments on the canvassing allegations. I've never done any canvassing, nor do I have any off-wiki contacts with the other named editors. – I'd expect you to deny off-wiki canvassing, but I don't think it's going to help you. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Barkeep49: Am I understanding it correctly that the AA3 is still in the process of being accepted or not, and should I comment the aforementioned off-wiki evidence here or after the ArbCom vote ends? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 16:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have the off-wiki coordination evidence ready and if emailing it to Arbcom is felt to be a prerequisite for opening a case then I'm ready to do it. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilkTork emailed to [email protected] ZaniGiovanni (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by North8000

These things are simpler to understand and harder to solve than most understand. There is a contest out in the real world. With Wikipedia being influential, each side works to help their side in the real world contest by tilting the Wiki article. An unacknowledged common milder form of wp:gaming / wp:wikilawyering. And if done in a sufficiently wiki-saavy way one doesn't smacked and can keep doing it. And maybe get your opponents smacked. And the articles stay contentious forever, or at least as long as the real world contest continues. Evolution of policies and guidance is probably needed more than an arbcom case. It should be "Your #1 priority should be top quality of he article" rather than the above-described stuff. If you can make a finding like this within policies and guidelines, maybe you could fix things on this topic and have a template for fixes elsewhere. Or maybe in areas of this case you see a possibility of uncovering egregious offenses not easily visible and use normal remedies. Otherwise I'd recommend not taking unless you see a clear possibility of what you may accomplish. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:43, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Abrvagl

The issue that led to this situation is already clearly described in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines: It's a case of long-term Tendentious and Civil POV Push editing behaviour by one of the most active editors of AA2 that cannot be correctly stated in a few diffs, and as a result, the community is facing difficulty dealing with it. The issues with civil POV pushing and tendentious editing are one of the main problems I'd like to see the committee tackle to, at the very least, prevent the toxicity that currently dominates almost every discussion going on in AA2.

ZaniGiovanni is a user who has displayed prejudice and battlefield behaviour since day one of their editing. There is also serious and extensive evidence of meat puppetry raised against ZaniGiovanni, which I believe the committee should review in conjunction with this case. ZaniGiovanni, who was warned for being uncivil (apparently only to their "ideological opponents") 2 times ([11]; [12]) this year alone, continues to demonstrate the same battlefield-like behaviour despite the numerous Warnings, Bans, and Topic-Bans. Even here, their comment indicates that they continue to believe that it is OK to oppose RfC votes based on the editors' assumed ethnicity, despite them being Tbanned for that exact case.

As far as I'm aware, there is no other editor who has received as many complaints, warnings, or bans in AA2 in such a short amount of time as ZaniGiovanni. If several editors are reporting and complaining about ZaniGiovanni, then perhaps there's a reason for that (one that goes beyond them being ideologically opposing editors). Is it not worth taking a step back and objectively evaluating the broader picture rather than victimising ZaniGiovanni based on the subjective beliefs that there is a cabal out to get rid of them?

I don't have any comments on the canvassing allegations. I've never done any canvassing, nor do I have any off-wiki contacts with the other named editors. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 10:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SilkTork: I have no evidence or involvement with the meatpuppetry allegations against ZaniGiovanni. The report was filed by Golden, and commented by two other editors. I only brought it up because I believed the allegations to be plausible. A b r v a g l (PingMe) 16:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ymblanter

I am not currently active in the area, but I dealt a lot with the editing area, including my past experience in the Russian Wikipedia - where indeed we had to deal with off-wiki coordination, so may be my perspective could be useful to the Committee. We have two groups of users which are absolutely hostile to each other. No Armenian editor would ever voluntarily agree that Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan, even as a statement of fact, no Azerbaijani editor would ever voluntarily agree it is not. They are not capable of talking to each other in any constructive way, only under a threat of an immediate block and sometimes even despite this threat. They have their own sets of reliable sources which one side accepts and the opposite site does not. They would be reverting the articles to their preferred version forever, until the articles get protected or put under a severe restriction such as 0RR. It is usually not about two users which can not get along - if one of them is blocked another user would come to take their place. And nothing has changed here in the last 15 years. On the other hand, I just do not see what the ArbCom can do here - all the tools are already available, and in my opinion should be applied consistently to all editors in the topic area - topic bans, and then blocks and site bans if they do not learn. I am sceptical about what the actual content of a perspective case could be.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon

First, I have moderated Armenia-Azerbaijan discussions at DRN in the past, and will in the near future provide links to them as evidence if there is a case. Second, I am in the process of starting another moderated discussion at DRN, and think that the arbitrators should be aware of this case. The case is at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Massacres_of_Azerbaijanis_in_Armenia_(1917–1921). The participants are:

Should I attempt to conduct moderated discussion, or is this discussion being overtaken by arbitration? Robert McClenon (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Callanecc, User:Barkeep49, and others: The DRN case is open, and I am waiting for responses from the parties. I will note that is not about Armenia and Azerbaijan in general, but about a particular historical subtopic. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The dispute has identified 12 sources about whose reliability there are questions, and a case has been opened at the reliable source noticeboard. I expect the case to take between one and three weeks, which is not very precise. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have closed the DRN case as failed. Some of the editors are arguing with the neutral volunteers at RSN, which makes me pessimistic about the possibility of resolving the dispute. In my opinion, this article content dispute, and other content disputes over other articles about conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, require administrative or quasi-judicial action before content mediation will be workable. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of Disputes

The following are the three most recent disputes at DRN concerning Armenia and Azerbaijan:

As can be seen, these cases involve some of the usual participants, including Grandmaster, Brandmeister, and the banned user Steverci, as well as Chipmunkdavis and CuriousGolden. I haven't reviewed the record to determine which side if either they were on. I will provide links to earlier disputes in the near future.

Here are more disputes at DRN concerning Azerbaijan and Armenia:

Opening a Case

Some of the arbitrators asked me to open the DRN case request for mediation, before they decided whether to open a third arbitration case on Armenia and Azerbaijan. I opened the case and began mediation, stating what the ground rules were for mediation, and asking the parties to state briefly what the article content issues were. The content issues included questions about thirteen sources. Normally questions about sources are about whether they are reliable, but, in this dispute, they were more about whether the sources were neutral. (Perhaps our policies and guidelines on sources need to be clarified to recognize that source reliability and source neutrality are different considerations but are both important.) The sources were listed in an inquiry at the reliable source noticeboard. When presumably neutral volunteers at RSN offered their opinions as to the sources, some of the editors disagreed at RSN. At this point, it appeared that this dispute was not one that could be readily resolved at DRN, and I closed it as failed.

Armenia and Azerbaijan has already been determined to be a contentious topic. Like several other contentious topics, it is subject to battleground editing because the area on the Earth has been a real battleground, in this case, for a century. The community has not been able to resolve disputes in this area effectively. Mediation at DRN is one of the community dispute resolution mechanisms that is not effective (because editors will not accept third-party advice as to neutrality of sources).

When ArbCom opens a third case on this contentious topic, it should ask at least two questions. First, are there any particular editors who are tendentious in this area, and who should be topic-banned? Second, should any new or modified enforcement procedures be adopted? ArbCom should open a third case in this area. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Clerk notes

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

Armenia-Azerbaijan 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I have not read over the AE discussions that prompted this, but I think brief summaries answering the following would be helpful:
    • Why are the current tools available under AA2 insufficient to deal with problems in the topic area?
    • What tools can ArbCom add to the AE toolkit for AA2 to help deal with the disruption?
    • Do the referring AE admins have any specific suggestions or requests of us beyond "open a new case"?
  • I recognize that the request is "open a full case to examine the issues" but I would prefer to have some idea of problems and desired outcomes up front. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Callanecc. My thoughts, now that I've had a chance to read the AE thread: when dealing with topic areas that are subject to so much real-world controversy, I think most of the value of an ArbCom case comes from the powers delegated to admins and the community (mostly DS/CT, but there's other remedies out there). ArbCom can hand out some TBANs, IBANs, or plain old sitebans, warn people, whatever, but the problem isn't with specific editors, it's with Wikipedia being a front in a wider ideological battle. You suggest that we look at the long-term conduct of various editors and do, for lack of a better phrase, a clean-out, but to me that doesn't really solve the problem. If there are editors with conduct problems, an arb case can deal with them, but that doesn't do anything about the next group of disruptive editors who wade into the topic area, and we're just setting ourselves up to have to do more of these cases. If we need to have AA3, we can have AA3, but I want to understand how this will differ from AA2 and what we can do in order to prevent us from having to do AA4.
    And when I was about ready to hit post, Rosguill came along. Thank you - that helps me see the problem a little better, and the off-wiki campaigning concerns are certainly something that is in our court. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • From the purely procedural standpoint, my impression is that we are not (quite) yet operating in the blessed land of contentious topics. L235 (as a drafter and implementer)? I remain interested in this discussion however, especially answers regarding other tools. Izno (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The essence seems to be that "ZaniGiovanni has accused various other editors active in AA of playing an active role in organizing this [...off-wiki campaign to POV-push in favor of Turkish viewpoints affecting AA and other topics of interest to aggrieved Turkish nationalists...] and other pro-Azerbaijan or pro-Turkey POV campaigns. I think an ArbCom case is necessary in order to evaluate the evidence that ZG has collected". That seems to be an ArbCom issue as it looks involved and messy, and has off-Wiki aspects that may involve private evidence. I am, though, unclear on the procedure used - why has this come through as an amendment rather than a case request? It looks like a case request, though without a clear list of the unusual suspects. The people named are not those who we will be looking at, but those who wish to bring the case. Is the intention that we reopen the 2007 case, or start a new one? SilkTork (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for responses. I've noted the wording of the new CT procedure and the discussion leading to this request - is the understanding/intention of the new procedure that case requests (not just enforcement requests) should come to ArbCom via ARCA? As we are trialling the new procedures, some feedback on this part of the procedure would be useful. My feeling is that where there is enough information for a case to be properly considered, it might make more sense to go straight to that, with appropriate evidence provided, rather than a request via ARCA to make a case request. A consensus of AE admins would still make sense, so that the request is not thrown back.
Meanwhile, where do we go from here? ECP has been agreed, so is a case to examine the allegations of off-Wiki campaigning enough? There's the suggestion that Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 is not working; do we need to adjust it to prevent future campaigning so we are not playing whack-a-troll? Are we being asked to do two things? Both open a case to examine the campaigning, and refine the restrictions and procedures to help AE admins keep the topic area clean? I suspect that we need to do both, and that they may or may not be complementary. I think my preference would be to treat them separately. Open a case specifically into the allegations (not AA3, but perhaps AA off-Wiki campaigning). And hold a discussion here on ARCA with AE admins as to how AA2 can be improved. SilkTork (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC) SilkTork (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou ZaniGiovanni, your email has been received. SilkTork (talk) 14:33, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thankyou Robert McClenon - noted that the DRN has failed, and that there is an ongoing discussion at RSN. SilkTork (talk) 11:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept I think we should open a Review of AA2 or a new case called AA3 to examine these issues. --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 07:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • General Notability: I do think there is value in ArbCom's ability to do a comprehensive look at a topic area and apportion appropriate responsibility, regardless of whether there is a need for new sanctions. Also, obviously, in this case we have ARCA request above that has been sitting there from one AE admin that the committee take over the community's new ECR.
    I would be reclutant to do that as it stands, but am open to doing it as part of a case. That said Callanecc, Rosguill, El C, and Seraphimblade I'm a bit reluctant to join Guerillero is moving to accept without some idea of who the parties might be. I think of the IRANPOL case here, where we had some parties when we started the case and then added parties during the case. That's fine. But the Committee, and editors, having some sense of who the parties might be besides ZaniGiovanni feels necessary to establish what has been stated. Could other parties or AE threads be submitted at this point? Bottomline I'm inclined to say we need AA3 - knowing that this will be a hard case to untangle - but I don't think we're quite ready to do so just yet. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Callanecc (and others) the issue is that at some point ArbCom needs editors who are willing to compile evidence for a case to work. It's possible that ZaniGiovanni and the editors he named would be sufficient as parties to start a case. I admit to some trepidation here. We have a whole bunch of AE admins telling us there is a problem and so I believe that we do have a problem. But we also have a paucity of evidence beyond what Zani has put together about offwiki coordination. So if ArbCom opens a case, I worry that the outcome is going to be disappointing to those AE admins because without evidence the case will flop. So we can certainly do a longer evidence period to allow parties to be added in the case - we structured our last case like this even - but ArbCom can't do the work to gather evidence, it can only do the work to judge it. And I'd prefer to move forward with confidence that the community stands ready to do its part in an ArbCom case rather than a leap of faith. But as it stands now I feel like maybe all we can judge is ZaniGiovanni vs Abrvagl. If that's all the ArbCom case addressed would it be sufficient? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Abrvagl and ZaniGiovanni a general note of expectations while in an Arbitration Committee proceeding (including this one): parties who are in conflict with each other (like you two) are advised not to directly address each other, though providing evidence is fine. Additionally when making any statement of fact, but in particular when alleging wrongdoing by a specific editor, it is expected that this be supported by evidence in the form of diffs. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ZaniGiovanni the decision to accept a case or not is still being decided. A majority of arbs will have to vote to accept the case and so far 2 have done so. If you have private evidence ready, you are welcome to submit it now to the committee. By default the committee does not accept offwiki evidence and so the first decision will be whether or not this qualifies for an exception. You can also wait until the decision is made to open a case as compiling evidence can be time consuming. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Robert McClenon speaking for myself, I'd be inclined to say "Yes open the DRN" and for us to put the case on hold while you did so. I think it unfair to expect people to participate in DRN and a case at the same time and as Callanecc points out, the results of the mediation would be informative about the need for the case and if there continues to be a need what shape it should take. This would not stop us from investigating or otherwise addressing the private evidence sent to us (which I need to review more fully before having opinions about). Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm of a mind to let the DRN finish here before we open a case. I'd further add that the lack of parties here is a big issue for me; unless we have some more clear parties I'm not so sure this case will achieve anything. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n! 21:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

The Arbitration Committee agrees to open a case with the name Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. The parties, drafting arb(s), timetable, and structure will be communicated to the clerks following this motion passing (see ArbCom procedures).

Support
  1. Per my comments above. I suggest we add a week to the Evidence phase to allow evidence to be submitted, as we did in Conduct in deletion-related editing, about others who should be named as parties but that we start with ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl as parties. I think we'll also likely need to consider evidence of off-wiki coordination, though I expect that most evidence will be about onwiki conduct. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:15, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Per my comment above --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. I am not overly thrilled with the name, which to me implies that we will be looking at the topic area and not just the individuals in it, but there does seem to be enough to start a case looking into those individuals. Primefac (talk) 09:13, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shifting to Oppose per SilkTork. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    No point in holding up the process. Primefac (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. I'm willing to accept as a case of "at wit's end" at AE, though I still want people to be thinking about what ArbCom can do to keep us from getting into this situation in the first place. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:19, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I'm willing to accept a case here, with the understanding that there is some evidence of off-wiki canvassing, and if there is no evidence put forward that the participants are likely to be sanctioned making such accusations without evidence. WormTT(talk) 14:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Keeping in mind North8000's comment, I'm slightly concerned over the current lack of parties but will accept since there appears to be enough of a case here and the input from AE admins. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 04:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. We should generally accept good faith referrals from administrators to whom we delegated arbitration committee authority, and this was formalized in the forthcoming contentious topic procedures. I'm inclined to believe the referring administrators when they say this is a problem their tools are poorly suited to handle, especially when the authorizing case is nearly 16 years old. For reference, the page on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict has twelve sections dedicated to armed conflicts which have occurred since we last looked at this topic area systematically, and that's ignoring the Wikipedia-internal technical and social changes that have occurred over the last 16 years. The best case is we review a case older than many of our editors in order to identify and help resolve issues through a thorough and well reasoned inquiry; the worst case is we arbitrate an intractable dispute potentially involving off-wiki evidence (which is still our job even if it's not as glamorous as passing topic-wide restrictions). On the merits, I think the requesting administrators have made a sufficient showing as to why a case would be justified.
    The alternative on offer is that we resolve this by motion here through a case amendment, but quite simply I don't believe that's an actual solution. No actual solution-by-amendment has been suggested, and this board's clearance rate is so abysmal that we passed a motion a few days ago in order to sweep our 3-month-old unresolved requests under the rug once everyone's forgotten about it. In that context, I simply do not believe an unstructured "discussion" with no accountability or timeline will actually work because it almost never has. We already have an established procedure by which arbitrators and the community collect evidence and discuss potential solutions: it's called a case and it has an exceptionally better track record than this board does. Administrators who work this area have requested a case because they believe its procedures will yield the best outcomes, and given the track records of this board and cases, I'm inclined to agree with them and support opening a case. Wug·a·po·des 20:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Moved to accept in order to speed up resolution of the matter. SilkTork (talk) 10:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
After considering the issues I am landing here. I see three issues here. One is the allegations of off-wiki campaigning, another is the relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, and the third is the ongoing difficulties keeping the Armenia-Azerbaijan area under control. I am not opposed to looking for a solution to the problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area, including the relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, but I'm not convinced by the evidence here and in the related discussions that a case is the answer to these issues. I am unsure of the value of opening a case looking into allegations of off-wiki campaigning without some evidence. If we had been sent an email with even the smallest hint of these off-wiki campaigns, I'd be more encouraged; but we haven't. The relationship between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl should be able to be solved by existing AE restrictions, and if not then a discussion here with Arbs and AE admins should be able to arrive at a motion to amend AA2 with a more useful set of restrictions. The third issue is even greater reason not to have a case, but rather to look for a workable solution here with the admins who are experienced in the area, and know best what solutions might work. What I am hearing is that if a case clears out the current set of trouble-makers, all that will happen is that another lot will come along, and that what is really needed is a better set of restrictions to stop that from happening. That then is not a case but an amendment to the current restrictions. I think what is needed here to best address all the related issues is for AE admins to suggest to us what sort of solutions they feel might work (or at least to point out where and why the current restrictions are failing); for us to consider those solutions, work on them through discussion, and then draft those solutions into a motion and vote them into place. I think that would be making the most effective use of the new procedures - focussing attention on finding a solution via those most experienced in the area rather than going through what promises to be a long, drawn out and possibly inconsequential case. SilkTork (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the above rationale. Primefac (talk) 09:28, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Abstain
  1. My ArbCom energy of late has focused on DS and I haven't had the chance to review all the relevant information yet but I don't want to hold this up. I therefore abstain. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arbitration Discussion (Motion to open Armenia-Azerbaijan 3)
  • The circumstances are those which would be appropriate for a case request, though with so little evidence I'm not certain that I'm ready to jump straight to a case. Could this be presented as a case request with appropriate evidence so we can consider it before actually opening a case? I'd be happy to accept email evidence. SilkTork (talk) 19:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We told AE admins we would accept referrals from them - even if that technically hasn't been fully implemented - at ARCA. If we would prefer they go to ARC then we should change our guidance, but I don't think we should ask people to do more work when they followed the guidance that we had given them. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    More substantively I think we do have some evidence, namely the AE thread that led to the referral which then references a lot of the history. I think that thread, combined with the request, is sufficient to look at ZaniGiovanni/Abrvagl. For me - and I certainly understand that not all arbs look at this the same way - I take the first person accounts offered here, particularly by the AE admins, as its own set of evidence. While that wouldn't be enough for an FoF, it is enough for me to weigh the request with the expectation that actual diffs could be produced at the Evidence stage, rather than asking people to go through the rather time consuming process of gathering diffs when ArbCom might not even be willing to evaluate them. On this second piece YMMV. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Here are some recent AA topic area AE threads: Olympian (December 2022), Kheo17, Grandmaster, Dallavid (October 2022), Golden, Zenzyyx (August 2022), Armatura, ZaniGiovanni, Grandmaster (July 2022), Abrvagl (May 2022) --Guerillero Parlez Moi 19:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @SilkTork: The last time the committee looked at the topic area was 2007. Don't you think that after 16 years of issues that we need to do more than a motion? Your proposed discussion with AE admins seems like a perfect thing to happen in the context of a case. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 10:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we are agreed on the need to look for a solution. I think we are agreed on involving the AE admins. Where we differ is in the need for a case in order to find a solution involving the AE admins. If we can find a solution via ARCA which allows AE admins to sanction not just those who are problematic today, but those who will be problematic tomorrow without going through a case, would that be an acceptable outcome? Is it worth trying that first? SilkTork (talk) 10:31, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilkTork: My worry is that ARCAs have a bad habit of stalling out when they are complex, like this seems like it will be. We also need to look at evidence of how and why the current restrictions are failing (evidence phase) and then work with AE admins on what the solutions should be (workshop phase). That seems like it would be case in a much less user and arb friendly format. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 12:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These are good points, and I have thought about them. My thinking is that the issue of the problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area is not complex in itself, but has the appearance of being complex by the merging of the personal dispute, and the allegations of off-wiki campaigning. All three are related, but are distinct.
The problems in the Armenia-Azerbaijan area are ones we encounter in other areas across Wikipedia where there are real-world national or ethnic disputes, be it Northern Ireland, Palestine, India-Pakistan, etc. Very often the participants are well meaning, and from their own perspective their views are correct. From the evidence we have been given, we are aware that there is a dispute. We don't need more evidence of the dispute, we need, as you indicate, precise, targeted evidence of "how and why the current restrictions are failing". It seems to me that the exact place to fine tune or adjust existing ArbCom sanctions is ARCA. (Now, if ARCA is not the place to discuss how and why the current restrictions are failing, then perhaps we need to look into that as a failing of ARCA, and seek to resolve that. But I'm not considering or suggesting that - I think that ARCA works.) Reopening cases when the restrictions are felt not to be working may open up the dispute and possibly invite relitigation. Reopening a case would have value where there is fresh evidence that might indicate the original solutions were wrong, but where the solutions are felt to be correct (as here) but not working (as here) then going for the more focused solution of fine-tuning at ARCA seems appropriate. Whichever route we go down, it will culminate at the point where an adjustment or new solution needs to be formulated. Let's cut to the chase and simply ask AE admins (and interested others) why they think DS/CT is not working, and what suggestions they have for improvements.
On the matter of the personal dispute between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, that doesn't need an ArbCom case. The community can decide if the dispute is so disruptive it requires an interaction ban.
On the matter of allegations by ZaniGiovanni that Abrvagl and others are involved in "canvassing through social media/off-wiki groups", and allegations by Abrvagl of "serious and extensive evidence of meat puppetry raised against ZaniGiovanni"; those are serious allegations, and matters which ArbCom is fitted to investigate. But while these matters remain allegations without evidence, we can't really open a case. If User:Abrvagl and/or User:ZaniGiovanni email ArbCom with evidence, then we can consider a case. But at the moment these remain unfounded allegations by two users in a dispute.
Strip out the ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl allegations and personal dispute, and we are essentially left with a request "for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic)", which is the purpose of ARCA. SilkTork (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the AE admins have told us what is not working: examining the nitty gritty and figuring out who is right between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl is beyond what they're willing to do as volunteers. I think it fair for volunteers to say "I don't want to deal with disputes like this, this is why we elect an ArbCom so we can pass the buck to them." I think one of the reasons AE works is that ArbCom generally backs-up admins who work it, making the delegation of powers credible. I see accepting this dispute as another way of backing up AE admins. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosguill, @Seraphimblade, @Callanecc @Lord Roem, I realized I probably shouldn't put words in your mouthes as the referring admin. So why do you think DS/CT is not working, and what suggestions you have for improvements? Courtesy pings to @El C and @Tamzin as other admins who participated in that AE discussion but did not appear to be part of the consensus to refer to ARCA. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opposition is not to ArbCom dealing with the dispute, it is to the way that ArbCom deals with the dispute. My feeling is that if the community is enabled with appropriate procedures to deal with disputes, then coming to ArbCom to open a case should not be necessary (or, at least, less necessary). And if the procedures are not quite working, then we need to upgrade the procedures through discussion at ARCA. We are still not entirely clear why AE is not working in AA - issues mentioned are the number of tendentious attempts to use AE, acceptance of sources, off-wiki canvassing, and a conflict between ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl.
If we have a three strikes limit on the number of dispute complaints a user can make in the AA area which do not result in an agreement that the dispute complaint was appropriate (so if User X makes two sock allegations against other editors in AA, and a claim of a sanction violation against an editor in AA, all three of which are assessed as unfounded, then User X is prohibited from making any other AA complaint for six months), that might help.
Making a decision on sources is not something that ArbCom can or should do. That is a matter for RSN. What we can do, though, is perhaps encourage debate on the sources rather than edit-warring, and have people try to resolve matters themselves before going to RSN or AE. For example, if User X objects to Source A in an article, then User X does not revert, but raises a query on the article talkpage, during which time Source A cannot be used again in that article. If after seven days the query has not been resolved on the talkpage it is referred to RSN.
Off-wiki canvassing is something we should be looking into. I am not objecting to that principle. I am saying we need more evidence before we open a case. I don't feel it is appropriate to open a case to look into allegations without some evidence first. User:ZaniGiovanni, it would be helpful if you did email us the evidence you have.
When there are conflicts between two users, such as ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl, there are procedures in place whereby the community can attempt to resolve the matter. If such attempts have failed, then ArbCom step in. ZaniGiovanni and Abrvagl have been mentioned in this request, but there is no evidence showing that attempts have been made to resolve that matter.
Part of my hesitation here regarding opening a case is that there appear to be a number of issues, which perhaps could be more quickly resolved by other means. I do see, though, that consensus is against me, and that my objection is merely holding up matters, so I will withdraw my opposition and move to support to speed things up. SilkTork (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@SilkTork I think you intended to strike your oppose but at the moment you have votes supporting and opposing. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:42, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motions

Documenting transition procedures

Documenting transition procedures

The Arbitration Committee procedures are amended to include the following section:

Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions

Arbitrators-elect must sign the confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information and any other non-disclosure agreements required for access to privileged communications before assuming office. All arbitrators are:

At the end of their term, outgoing arbitrators will:

  • be removed from all Committee-managed email lists with the following exceptions:
    • access to the clerks-l mailing list will be removed absent a request to remain, and
    • access to the functionaries-en mailing list will remain absent a request to be removed; and
  • have their CheckUser and Oversight permissions removed unless the outgoing arbitrator requests to retain one or both of them.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 1 arbitrator abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Arbitrator voting (transition procedures)

Support
  1. As proposer. During this year's transition, the committee realized that our transition procedures are not well documented, so when our internal documentation and institutional memories are ambiguous, we're left without much guidance. For example, CheckUser and Oversight are assigned to incoming arbitrators and outgoing arbitrators may request to retain access. This relatively well-known fact is not mentioned in the Arbitration Policy, the Arbitration Procedures, or the CU/OS appointment procedures. In my search of Arbitration-related documentation pages, I only found mention of the assignment in Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections which is not very useful as a procedural document. Beyond internal problems, the lack of documentation is also a disservice to the community because it is not obvious what tools arbitrators have access to or for how long. The goal of this motion is to increase transparency and consistency by documenting in broad strokes what arbitrators and former arbitrators have access to. Wug·a·po·des 19:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. I strongly support something that systematizes these processes. For instance an arb declining CUOS would create some issues for the functioning of the committee in our current context and so rather than give a choice that isn't really a choice just make it automatic. Same thing at the end of a term - make things automatic with the option to ask otherwise. I will note that even if an outgoing arb gives up CUOS they would be entitled under our current procedure to ask for it back in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 19:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. I could write a few paragraphs about why I agree with Barkeep49's substantive analysis, but I really think the "arb insists on not receiving CUOS despite not being required to use them" edge case is not worth spending the effort debating. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:08, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:13, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. While I have used the tools, and accept the risks attached to doing so, I don't get involved in appointing CUOS or discussing issues arising as I'm not entirely confident I know enough of the legal distinction between the IP addresses of IP editors and the IP addresses of anonymous accounts, so I'd prefer to abstain. SilkTork (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrator discussion (transition procedures)

  • I just want to note and expand here on something I said in-line below. If an arb were to decline the permissions - perhaps because they campaigned on a pledge to do so - it would require large procedural changes to how ArbCom works. This is because data covered by the CU and/or OS permission cannot be discussed with someone who doesn't hold that permission according to WMF Legal. This is true even if they could be granted the permission. Newyorkbrad, for instance, never uses CUOS, but he holds them while on the committee. When he steps off he gives them up and so right now I could not discuss any CUOS information with him. Were he to ask to have either of those granted to him I feel pretty confident the committee would quickly do so, but that doesn't change the fact that right now I can't discuss that data under the m:ANPDP.
    So if there were an arb who refused CUOS, I agree with those who say they could ultimately be seated. To make it truly mandatory would require an ARBPOL change and that's clearly not what's happening here. However, if this no-CUOS campaigning arb were to be elected it would require the committee during the 10 or so days of the transition to completely change how it manages mail to ensure that new CUOS appeals came into a different address than general committee business. Likewise they would be unable to have access to the archives of the lists because there would be CUOS information and arbwiki would have to be completely scrubbed of CUOS related information and a new user group would have to be setup on arbwiki so they couldn't see the content that was deleted. This would have impacts on the other arbs to function as well.
    For these reasons, I think it completely reasonable to put into procedures an expectation that someone will take CUOS when stepping onto the committee. We don't need to write the procedure for what is now be an edge case precisely because, as Donald points out, those who might initially be inclined to do so realize there's not any harm in taking them and not using them. Crucially none of this would get in the way of a different unusual situation - a non-admin arb being elected. A non-admin arb could be granted CUOS without the rest of the sysop toolset. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyedits at Special:Diff/1135823418. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 02:10, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community discussion (transition procedures)

  • Is "for use in office" a restriction or an explanation? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There was a fair amount of discussion about that and whether it's more an "ex-officio" situation or an alternative pathway to appointment. It's definitely not a restriction. I think, as it's used in the motion, explanation is an accurate description. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Agree with Barkeep that it's meant as an explanation rather than a restriction. The point of assigning CUOS to arbs is that it's needed to do our jobs of auditing use of those tools, but if an arb is willing and competent no one's going to stop them from doing some CUOS work on the side. So "for use in office" is meant to explain the first part, but not restrict the second part. Wug·a·po·des 21:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In my short time as an Arb, back in the mists of time, I resigned the CU tool while still an Arb* because I felt 100% incompetent to use it, and didn't want anyone to think I was either using it, or was available to be asked to use it. It sounds like you're saying this wouldn't be allowed anymore? i.e. part of being an Arb is to be a CU. Is this the intent? Or should there be some wordsmithing? I realize this is fairly low stakes; being required to keep the CU bit while not using wouldn't be a huge ask, I suppose. But I can imagine someone winning on a platform that included "I won't accept the CU tool" for some principled reason, and I'm curious if you're saying they wouldn't be accepted on ArbCom. (*Only an Arb for a few weeks after that, but I didn't know it at the time) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Current guidance from legal is that we could not discuss any CU related information with someone who doesn't hold the user-right. So if an Arb were not to hold the user right we'd have to figure out how to use the B or C list on an ongoing basis in order to separate discussions that the non-CU arb could have and discussions they couldn't. So yes this is worded in a way that takes away that choice. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be clear, I'm not blaming you, but... does "You must technically have the CU permission, even though the CU permission is automatically given to all Arbs without question" sound silly to anyone else? I suppose it's easier to just shake one's head than it is to push back against the silliness. But that does have the side effect of allowing layers of silliness to accumulate over time. Still, consider my question answered. The rest is just venting of the "in my day, we had to walk 2 miles in the snow" variety. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You must technically be an edit filter manager to edit filters, even though the edit filter bit is self-granted by administrators without question ;) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not sure whether to say "touché", or "another good example of silliness!" :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The latter is fine with me, and I realized after sending that I'm not necessarily providing an argument against yours, perhaps just one more example of what you described. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If someone has met all the criteria to receive the checkuser privilege (signed appropriate non-disclosure agreements and has been elected to the arbitration committee "with the support of at least 25–30 members of the local community", as per m:CheckUser policy), then theoretically I don't think it should matter if the arbitrator opts out of actually having the privilege assigned. But as a matter of practicality, I think it's simpler to have the privilege assigned to track the eligibility and the arbitrator can choose not to use the tool. isaacl (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (after EC with above) Floq has a point: there's no requirement to be an admin to become an arb (although the community de facto bundle the two) but there is a requirement to be an admin in order to be a CU. I would be happy to see arb-admin becoming de jure after the community comes to a consensus on this, which should be easy to get. But this is an accidental back-door to that outcome, no? — Trey Maturin 20:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "there is a requirement to be an admin in order to be a CU"? For most or all of the appointments, such as WP:CUOS2022, but not as a strict rule as far as I know. Neither policy-wise nor legally (dewiki allows non-admin CU elections, for example). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    TBF is correct, the primary requirement is that the appropriate NDAs are signed (and from WP:CHECK for example, While there is no formal requirement that checkusers also be administrators...). Primefac (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It is a de facto "strict" rule and this would make that de facto strict rule into a de facto 100% solid requirement. It would, I'd hazard, be better to not rely on case law for something so obviously a bright-line requirement and instead make it a de jure requirement. I can't see the community refusing that in a !vote. Otherwise, it accidentally looks like Arbcom is making its own rules about who can and cannot be on Arbom, which would be troubling if it were actually the case! — Trey Maturin 20:36, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is "de facto strict rule" referring to the requirements already described at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Selection_and_appointment, specifically the NDA requirements? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not to mention that there was a non-administrator who was appointed to WP:AUSC ages ago (bahamut0013, who, to be fair, passed an RFA shortly after being appointed). That said, it's the only case. No other non-administrator has ever been elected to WP:ARBCOM (even though many have run) or appointed to WP:AUSC. Salvio giuliano 21:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    But again, just to reiterate the point Primefac made above, there is nothing stopping a non-admin from being granted CUOS. It would just be a matter of ArbCom appointing one or the community electing one. If the community elected a non-admin arb they could get CUOS in the same way any other new arb who has signed the ANPDP would get it. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The bar should not be raised here, currently the existing arbcom normally grants CUOS to its new members, but is not required to - this appears to make it required. — xaosflux Talk 21:32, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • When I was elected to ArbCom last year, I initially declined CU and OS, but relented with a little prodding. I unfortunately missed the CU training offered, and never used it (I used OS once). An ArbCom member does not need to use either if they do not want to, so I see no problem in requiring that all ArbCom members hold those appointments for the duration. - Donald Albury 22:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We should never force a user to have access they don't want. Is arbcom prepared to evict elected members simply because they don't want this access? — xaosflux Talk 22:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They have to acknowledge their compliance with the m:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information in any case. If arbitrators are being trusted with nonpublic data, they should be able to refrain from using tools they aren't interested in using. isaacl (talk) 22:38, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • While grateful to the Committee for codifying its procedure for departing members (previously at WT:ACN), I'm very much intrigued by the stated complications and the idea that it's an edge case when an incoming member does not want one or both of CU/OS. Keilana was on the Committee for the 2016–2017 term and did not hold CheckUser. Did those complications exist then, or do they now exist due to requirements since introduced? Given that it is not an edge case, like Xaos above I'm disappointed that the Committee is making it compulsory. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The Access to nonpublic personal data policy came into effect in 2018 and created different expectations around how nonpublic personal data is handled. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requests for enforcement

Arbitration enforcement archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144
145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162
163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180
181182183184185186187188189190191192193194195196197198
199200201202203204205206207208209210211212213214215216
217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234
235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252
253254255256257258259260261262263264265266267268269270
271272273274275276277278279280281282283284285286287288
289290291292293294295296297298299300301302303304305306
307308309310311312313314

SashiRolls

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

Request concerning SashiRolls

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tryptofish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
  • [13] 1-way IBAN with me, as an AE sanction
  • [14] 1-way IBAN with me reaffirmed by the community a week ago (January 15), as a condition of unbanning. From the close: There is very little rope left on the coil, and I cannot imagine another unban gaining consensus.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  • [15] Giving me a "thanks" notification for an edit I made, January 22, 2023.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Facepalm Facepalm This is so far beyond "I told you so", that I can't believe I have to post this.

It's a relatively small thing, to "thank" someone, and on the face of it, not something one would normally expect to result in sanctions. But, our WP:IBAN policy says: Editors subject to an interaction ban are not permitted to:... use the thanks extension to respond to each other's edits. Those are the existing ground rules, and I didn't make them up. I'm willing to WP:AGF that, somehow, SashiRolls was unaware of that, and that he was trying to reach out in a friendly way. So, as a minimum, I'll be satisfied with a very clear message to him that it was unwelcome, and that the IBAN has no exceptions, footnotes, or special circumstances, full stop, the end. Anything beyond that is up to the administrators here, and it's not on me.

Under the circumstances, though, it seems to me that he should have made it his business to know what the IBAN rules are. And there was no particular reason for him to have thanked me for that edit I made ([16]). It was completely unrelated to anything I'm aware of him doing, and I don't see him making an edit in that RfC after I made that formatting fix. From my end, it feels creepy, like he was following edits I made and letting me know that he was seeing them. Although I'm under no restrictions under the 1-way ban, I actually have no idea what edits, if any, SashiRolls has been making, because I'm not concerning myself with that, and I sure didn't ask for that blue notification that brings me here. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Following up after the comments so far, I find it plausible that it was a matter of inadvertent mis-click/mis-swipe. Not unlike someone accidentally hitting rollback on a 1RR page, and then quickly self-reverting – except that here, there is no way to self-revert. As I already said, I'm OK with a firm understanding that this will absolutely not happen again, and I'm not comfortable with a severe sanction. But there's no getting around the fact that SR was viewing my edit when the error happened, which, in the future should be a big flashing red light that when you are viewing anything I've done, be very, very careful.
I think that Politrukki's comments directed at me are worthy of administrators taking note, and I am seriously sick and tired of this kind of conduct. (Seriously, the fact that I didn't go back and check whether SR had edited the page earlier indicates that I could have followed SR there and somehow manipulated him into thanking me? Yes, in filing this AE request, I checked if he had also been editing there around the time that I edited there, in case it was an inadvertent thank, but in fact I didn't check the whole page history, because I'm not looking for SR's edits.) Anyway, I think that Floq has read the situation astutely. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also: seeing Vanamonde's comment about Mr Ernie, I understand Mr Ernie's comment in the context of discussions that he and I have had, and his comment was not a sarcastic one. I appreciate it. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning SashiRolls

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

Statement by SashiRolls

I had no intention of having any contact whatsoever with my accuser. I think this must have been due to a careless swipe closing a window while looking through the RfC on Vector 2022 last night. When blocked, the giant 'thanks' button did not appear at the bottom of the screen on the phone app, so I'm used to just swiping from bottom to top to make the app disappear.

I am aware that thanking someone is not permitted and would not have done it intentionally.

It is my assumption that wp:banex allows me to reply to this immediate escalation.

I will look into this further when I get home from the hospital this evening, as normally I thought you had to confirm to give thanks, which I certainly did not do... unless the dialog box was also swept away in the effort to close the window.

-- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have just checked and indeed no confirmation is necessary on Android... You have two seconds to cancel if you misclick / mis-swipe. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 16:52, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please do not accuse me of lying. I guarantee you I just thanked SFR and was given only 2 seconds to cancel using Chrome on Android. Talk about a gotcha' filing and a wp:agf failure.  :/. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 17:26, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Again, please do not accuse me of lying. I just thanked Bishonen for her comment and was unable to take a screenshot of the tiny line of text appearing beneath the BIG BLUE BUTTON at the lower right of the screen where your thumb goes to swipe Chrome into the background on Android. It disappeared that quickly. I may have mispoken when using the word "app". It is for Commons that I sometimes use the App, but apparently I need to redownload it because it hasn't worked for months now. I assure you, I had absolutely no intention whatsoever of interacting with him. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 18:19, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nableezy: on pages with significant amounts of text scattered all over the place (such as in the Vector 2022 RfC) I find the easiest way to read, by far, is by going to the top diff and then clicking "previous diff" so that I have enough context to understand what's going on. Perhaps in future, this method of reading would be best avoided as it apparently makes inadvertent errors such as this one possible. Thanks to those who compensated for my incompetence in video capturing using my phone! -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 19:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: It's alright: no blood, no foul. I've gotten my heart-rate back down now and appreciate the comment below explaining that diff-viewing is a reasonable way of reading a complicated discussion (but that has unexpected risks on mobile). I was unaware of these risks because while blocked I did not see a thanks button. I don't believe this inadvertent mistake warrants any further sanctions and would ask for whoever closes this to put themselves in the position of someone (me) who had a heart attack during their three-week long appeal and who did not appreciate this thread. Granted, I can put myself in the shoes of the person KoA describes below as having been the victim of a terrible "car crash" I caused and see that they might want retribution for such reckless swiping.
My apologies for my inadvertent role in this. I would like to be able to continue to thank people and so I will avoid flipping through diff-view in mobile should either of the good users I'm i-banned with come gnoming in threads I've previously made comments in. This will surely help avoid offended reactions. I would prefer to be able to continue to thank helpful users like yourself.
I would ask that no further comments be made about my cardio-vascular health anywhere on en.wp. -- SashiRolls 🌿 · 🍥 20:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by KoA

And here I just caught myself earlier today thinking I hadn't heard anything about SR since their unban (and hadn't gone looking either until I saw this).

All I'll say is that multiple editors in the unban discussion did mention one of SR's issues is a sort of stalking of targets that warranted the sanctions in the first place. That context matters even if it were just a little thing that wasn't directly spelled out in ban policy instead of this. Tryptofish was correct to come here in part because there is no other realistic option to discuss an I-ban violation even when it's one-way. Otherwise, it would be like someone who caused a car crash (accident or not) chastising one of those who got hit for asking the cops to get involved.

Regardless of intent or accident, SR already knows they are supposed to steer clear of Tryptofish, and WP:BANEX is not an excuse for sniping. Instead, SR used this AE as an opportunity to launch into loaded language to lay it on thick like my accuser or this immediate escalation that is definitely out of line considering previous snark they've been warned about and comes across as taking advantage of an accident to make potshots at best. That is not the language of someone who had a simple accident that recognizes the issues such an accident would still cause and have to be followed up on. That's instead the kind of escalation of situations that's gotten SR repeatedly sanctioned, and someone that's supposed to be protected by an I-ban like Tryptofish shouldn't have to deal with it at least.

Others that can test it can assess the validity of the Vector 2022 comments, but what led to the interaction can also become a red herring from later behavior, so that's why the comments caught my eye. KoA (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Nableezy, Tryptofish linked the diff in their section that was thanked.[18]. As you mention, SR was there at that discussion too (basically that they wanted to keep the Vector 2022 and that they were already familiar with it from the French wiki).[19] It at least makes sense that the interaction was because they crossed paths there and not through contribs. KoA (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Sashirolls, you know better with respect to Granted, I can put myself in the shoes of the person KoA describes below as having been the victim of a terrible "car crash" I caused and see that they might want retribution for such reckless swiping. You're already being warned to stop sniping at AE and likely to get by with just a warning despite ramping up the battleground behavior again. You are the one who "crashed" into Tryptofish in this case regardless of intent, and instead of lashing out like in the analogy, all you needed to do was recognize the problems it caused other editors in showing it was an accident rather than use the opportunity to take unneeded potshots and go beyond WP:BANEX with respect to your I-ban. KoA (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • On Buffs' and Politrukki's comments, I will remind both of you not to violate the WP:ASPERSIONS principle that is in effect here being a GMO DS discussion in your comments on Tryptofish. Admins have been letting enforcement of that slip lately. KoA (talk) 15:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Shibbolethink

Without making any other statement or claim as to this filing, I just wanted to point out, @ScottishFinnishRadish @Isabelle Belato-- @SashiRolls is talking about using the mobile site on the Android Chrome app. Not using the Wikipedia for Android App. Very different interfaces on iOS between these two so I can imagine it's similarly very different on Android.

I just tested it (on @Tewdar Face-smile.svg) on iOS Chrome mobile version on the DIFF (not the history or contribs pages) and indeed, it only gives 2 seconds to cancel before it goes through with the thank action. On the history or contribs pages, the "thank? confirm cancel" persists, but on the DIFF, it is ephemeral.— Shibbolethink ( ) 18:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Tewdar

If you view a diff using a mobile web browser (Chrome, Firefox, Opera...) and hit "thank", it gives you two seconds to cancel, without confirmation.  Tewdar  18:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just tested with Shibbolethink 😁.  Tewdar  18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Nableezy

What was the diff Tryptofish? Because personally I'd be willing to buy it was an accident that I will make sure will never be repeated if it was a diff from a discussion SR was involved in, but if they just randomly trolling through Tryptofish's contributions to go through them for god knows what then I personally would say it doesnt matter if it was an accident, block for the IB vio anyway. nableezy - 18:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

oh nvm see it linked in your statement. Given that SR had already commented in that discussion I suppose it was possible they were just going through more recent comments. But honestly I dont get why youd even be on somebody's diff like that to be in that position in the first place. nableezy - 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Objective3000

I’m no fan of Sashi, !voted neutral with TBan last time and block on all previous times. I’ve also been sarcastically “thanked” in the past by another editor. But, my feeling on this is Meh. Sashi will have to try harder than this to get blocked again. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just not enough evidence to convict, as I would say as a jury member. If convincing evidence appears; I'll wholeheartedly support an indef. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:06, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

I've just sent two videos to ScottishFinnishRadish demonstrating the two different ways that en.m.wikipedia handles sending thanks for contributions. If you're looking at the history for a page, there is a confirmation requirement prior to sending thanks. However if you're browsing by the diff views, sending thanks has no confirmation, and only a 2 second window to cancel as other editors have said. I don't know of any other ways to send thanks via the mobile site. I'd be happy to send these videos by email to any other admins who'd want to see, but I don't want to upload them to files/commons if I can avoid it. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To nableezy, I often find it significantly easier when reading a highly active page to read through the contributions made since my last view or edit via the diff view. This makes it easier for me to identify which comments/contributions I've seen already and which ones are new. Sometimes I'll do this just as a block of all changes since my last view, and sometimes I'll step through each one at a time, depending on how my attention span is behaving at the time. I imagine other neurodiverse editors will do something similar when catching up on active pages. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Mr Ernie

Let me at least use this opportunity to thank everyone who chooses to contribute to Wikipedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Floq

Would the same uninvolved admin who closes this with an assumption that this was an unfortunate coincidence and a weak reminder that SR shouldn't thank TF also remind SR that using terms like "accuser", "immediate escalation, "gotcha filing", and "agf failure" above, about someone they're ibanned from, is also an iban violation? I presume this is SR on their best behavior, and they still can't help but test the boundaries. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Error or not, the worst punishment appropriate here is a WP:Trouting, but more appropriately "be more careful". I recognize that Tryptofish effectively has no other recourse and find no fault bringing it here. As with above, I too thank all the people who have made solid edits to Wikipedia (since when is such gratitude a punishable offense? If he were spamming with "thanks" all over the place, you'd have a point, but two things that appear to be nothing more than a misclick? Tempest in a teapot perhaps?).

As for reading through old posts, I know I've done so to see where I could have done better and that means looking through diffs to see what others said too. It seems to be a reasonable mistake...SR, please avoid being even close to such behavior in the future. Buffs (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Floq's comments, he's being accused of violating his IBan by the same person. Kinda hard to point out the (potential) problematic behavior of another editor here otherwise. Both would do well to drive down the temperature by WP:AGF more, but due to the IBan, there isn't another avenue to ask and clarify. Buffs (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Politrukki

Tryptofish claims "I actually have no idea what edits, if any, SashiRolls has been making", but also admits checking that SashiRolls didn't edit the RFC after TF's edit. The two statements are contradictory; either TF was checking SashiRolls's edits or they weren't.

Based on the timeline of SashiRolls's edits and Tryptofish's edit, it could be argued that Tryptofish creepily followed SashiRolls to the page, but I think if TF wished to annoy SashiRolls, TF could have found a better way.

Even though a technical violation happened, the filing is unnecessary escalation. As the two-way IBAN is yet to be reinstated, a peaceful resolution could have been reached by assuming good faith and leaving a message to SashiRolls asking them to refrain from using "thank" function. Moreover, Tryptofish, your claim that "IBAN has no exceptions, footnotes, or special circumstances, full stop" is both objectively and subjectively false. You should know better.

SashiRolls shouldn't say they were accused of lying if they weren't accused of lying, but I believe this is moot after their last comment.

What more there is to be done? Close with no action. Politrukki (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

I guess that I am involved because I have commented on the conduct of SashiRolls in the past although not in the recent unblock request, where I was sincerely undecided and chose to remain silent. As is pretty well known, I edit using the fully functional desktop site on Android smartphones, and my thank function requires an affirmative verification before it goes through, because I choose to use fully functional software instead of slipshod WMF software deviations. All that being said, I am perfectly willing to accept that WMF software botchery may well yield a less acceptable result when using any of their less than fully functional sites and apps. But what really concerns me here is the snide, confrontational remarks by SashiRolls that Floquenbeam points out above. This editor is fresh off a lengthy block for this type of behavior, and I was prepared to assume that this editor would refrain from stuff like this, but I guess that I was wrong. Maybe they will now stop behaving this way, or maybe they will continue and get blocked again, this time forever for real. Time will tell, I suppose, but after the comments by SashiRolls above, I am not optimistic about their future as a Wikipedia editor. Cullen328 (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning SashiRolls

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • @SashiRolls: I've tested on the app and on the mobile view on Android and both of them request a confirmation. The app even opens a big window warning you can't undo a thanks. I'd appreciate if another univolved user could confirm this, but right now this appears to be a clear case of breach of sanctions. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 17:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I just downloaded the app to check, and it certainly asks for confirmation when I did it from the diff view and history view. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I've now seen that in the mobile web interface in the diff view there is no confirmation. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks Shibbolethink. That's a very odd behaviour and should probably be changed. In that case, this should probably be closed with no action.
    @SashiRolls: Apologies if it appeared that I called you a liar. Exactly because I couldn't reproduce that behaviour (and was unaware of it till today) that I asked for other users to confirm whether it was an actual thing or not. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It seems completely incredible to me that this was done on purpose. I could imagine Sashi sarcastically thanking Tryptofish for something meaningful, but Tryp's edit in this instance was the most uncontroversial gnoming. Surely Sashi could and would have found a better way to either annoy or "reach out in a friendly way". Bishonen | tålk 17:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Just to avoid a whole lot of debating about technical things, and keeping in mind that it would be a lot harder to sell this as an accident twice (even if it really were an accident both times), could we compromise on SR agreeing to disable the thank button by CSS? (I can take a stab at the correct CSS, but would probably best to ask at WP:VPT.) This would be considered an extension of the IBANs, i.e. as long as SR is subject to an IBAN, they would be expected to keep this CSS rule active. Once pblocks from thanking go live (which has seemingly been a month away for ~18 months), we could switch to that if desired. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Tamzin: I guess if SushiRolls agrees with it, then sure. Otherwise, my recommendation to them would be to avoid checking the diffs by users they are iban'ed with while on mobile to make sure this doesn't happen again. Isabelle Belato 🏳‍🌈 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Based on the evidence that no confirmation is required on a tiny mobile screen, and that this was a discussion SR was already participating in, I don't any action needed on the original complaint. I'm a little less impressed by the language used by SR in response to said complaint, and also in the responses to the response (Mr. Ernie, what exactly does your statement above achieve?) per Floq. I would support closing with a reminder to SR both about the IBAN and about temperate language at AE. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minaro123

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

Request concerning Minaro123

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
TrangaBellam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 20:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User against whom enforcement is requested
Minaro123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:ARBIPA
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 24 January 2023 Claims the "official" map of the district to mention a certain region. It took minutes to disprove the claim and establish that he had cited a map by a barely known publisher. Minaro123 reasoned that if the map had any problem, it should have been banned by the government and the lack of a ban established the official status. Wow!
  2. 18 January 2023 I do not know how to explain this.
  3. 18 January 2023 Representative chat-bot behavior; their replies have little relation to the topic under discussion.
  4. 18 January 2023 Claiming that Wikipedia has an exhaustive list of reliable sources and accordingly, removing sources from prominent Indian media!
  5. 11 january 2023 Cavalier attitude with sources; citing scholars who do not support the content before being forced to concede grudgingly.
  6. 3 January 2023 Claims that "Brokpas had never claimed to be Aryans at all." This is a 180-degree misrepresentation of content and shows the insistent POV-pushing; see the current version of Aryan Valley where multiple scholars note the Brokpas to have claimed themselves as Aryans for decades!
  7. Talk:Aryan_Valley/Archive_1#Lead_dispute (3 January 2023) - An example of "discussion" with Minaro123.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 18 January 2023 Indefinite P-block from Aryan Valley and t/p under AC/DS. This arose out of an AN3 complaint.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I argue that Minaro123 has a CIR issue; his contributions are essentially disinformation and the noise-to-signal ratio is too high to be a net positive. Right after being subject to a sanction, he is misrepresenting sources and defending the same using ridiculously tortous arguments!

He can either be indefinitely blocked from the project or sanctioned with an indefinite T-Ban from anything that has to do with Brokpas (broadly construed). I, Joshua Jonathan, and others have wasted sufficient editorial resources in the process of engaging him and trying to sort the wheat from the chaff.

@Elinruby: You wrote, The central issue here is however that it isn't up to TB to decide [] what ethnic group [Minaro123] belongs to. Provide the diff where I tried to "decide" (or even comment) on Minaro123's ethnicity.
Bishonen, thanks for chiming in on the applicability of REDACT. I did not restore the new text because I was unsure about the extent to which it was to replace the old post. Hence, I chose to alert Elinruby of the revert at his t/p and the REDACT policy so that he could reincorporate his edits in compliance. TrangaBellam (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elinruby, thanks for your compliance with REDACT. That said
My request for the diff where I had decided on Minaro123's ethnicity remains unanswered. Do note that I have to comment on Minaro123's ethnicity explicitly; not on the ethnicity of Brokpas, to which he belongs to (per you).
Also unanswered is K3's query about how Minaro123 — who is editing for months and has raked in about a thousand edits — is a newbie. Actually, you have doubled down on the claim by accusing me to be "biting" him citing the very evidence, that I had cited as the latest example of their incompetency!
Can you please double-check your diffs? The diff linked to your claim that [n]obody in this story here claims that they are [Aryans] — thereby contradicting scholars like Mona Bhan, D.S. Bhagabati et al and about a dozen journalists — has no relevance. Frankly, there is not a single source which notes that the Brokpas do not claim being Aryans!
Minaro123 removed information sourced from OPEN, Mint etc. by claiming that the sources were not featured in Wikipedia's list of reliable sources; it is obvious that he took it as an "exhaustive" list. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I won't reply to Elinruby in any substantial manner (unless requested by RP or other admins) since I believe he is spamming the board with irrelevant stuff to take the focus away from Minaro123. I have no clue about which ethnologist got dismissed and by whom. That said, my edits were supported by K3 and JJ, two of the most veteran editors in S. Asian topics; frankly, it was JJ who had overhauled the content before I jumped in. TrangaBellam (talk) 18:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RegentsPark: I disagree with your approach. If I am picking up a single edit, how do you explain Minaro123's claim that "Brokpas had never claimed to be Aryans at all" when scholars and journalists note Brokpas to have even changed their surnames to Aryan and garnered political mileage citing their (distinct) Aryan-ness! That is not a competence issue but blatant POV-pushing; the precise reason why we have a sanctions-regime covering all South Asian social groups. TrangaBellam (talk) 05:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RegentsPark I will concede to such a perspective.
But, in addition, some sort of (logged) warning needs to be provided about participating in discussions at the t/p in a coherent fashion. As I (and JJ) noted at the 3RRN thread, it is quite a feat to discuss anything with him. You ask him about X, and he replies about Y. TrangaBellam (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Latest edit. If admins agree that

According to geographer Frederick Drew,It is made up of a very narrow strip, ledge, or flat irrigated ground. Between two distinct stages of the great river cliff. As a result, there is a precipitous drop in ground on one side. While on the other side of the vertical cliff, overhanging the narrow fields, which received their registed heat and quickly ripped the crops, the palaces did not drop their heat even at night. Water flows across the field from a ravine on the high mountain. Apple trees, apricot trees, mulberry trees, and vines are all grown. In association with the cereal, on the narrow space and thrive well with the mixture of moisture and warmth.

is mainspace-worthy content, what can I say? TrangaBellam (talk) 09:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notified


Discussion concerning Minaro123

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

Statement by Minaro123

1[1] I have welcomed TrangaBellam to welcome a have a constructive critisim here regarding the Map and i told him I could be wrong ,[2] and since Indian book deport was established before 1936 [3],i added it only in a talk section to have a opinion about others editor.
2,4: I have added the information cited by international reliable newspaper like BBC[4] news,The hindu [5], Aljezerra , The Hindu says which cited that" One theory says they arrived from Gilgit, Pakistan in the seventh century; a popular story is that they are descendants of Alexander’s army, while many argue that the Aryans are the indigenous inhabitant of india[6]. I talked about it in a talk section ,but TrangaBellam have ignored it and added the newspaper like Mint which have a no mention under the reliable newspaper by wikepedia .
3: I tried to explain to TrangaBellam to add a geographical boundaries in a lead because Aryan valley is a geographical area and have a boundary , because TrangaBellam have removed the part which was backed by reliable sources here [7] .
5: I wanted them to add about geography and History of Aryan valley[8] , now i have added the content in geography section of Dah, Ladakh.
6: I wanted them to emphasis the Aljezerra cited that " Brogpas do not associate their Aryanism with its ‘dirty and cruel’ history in Germany and elsewhere" .[9] TrangaBellam and other were adding mainly about 'Aryan association ' in the history section so I was afriad that i could go against the reality. I have said the statement in this context.
6: I have created a 13 Topic in active discussion page [10][11] Aryan valley ,and has a actively participating in talk page .

My major contribution related to the topic of Aryan valley is: [12] In a old revision of Brokpa page ,the population of the Brokpa was false however i have discussed in Brokpa talk section [13]title=Brokpa&oldid=1124611839 And add a corrected it .

The Aryan valley articles was created by me and was nominated for deletion by kautilya3 and was suporting by TrangaBellam , [14], However me and Elinruby have provided evidence to save it. However after the decision of Aryan valley was to keep, k3 and TB has did a edits without having a discussion on a talk.

Thank you Minaro123 (talk) 22:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Elinruby

The thing that strikes me the most here is the utter certitude of TB and K3 of the correctness of their actions. Bookku is correct in saying that this is fundamentally a content dispute. My issue is the way it's been addressed. I first became aware of the article at AfD, where the rationale was that the residents of Aryan Valley weren't *really* Aryan.

Nobody in this story here claims that they are, mind you, but the important part is that the article survived AfD because it was about a place, not a people. That night it was edited into an article about how the people of the area are not really Aryans, over repeated attempts to discuss, as recent as yesterday.

I did want to address Bookku's concern about quality. Recent deletions include cited work by me about apricot and barley cultivation, and cited ethnography]. Nobody is suggesting that the article should not meet normal standards, which is why I suggested AfC. I would not oppose requiring him to publish that way, if my assurances that I will help don't seem sufficient. Meanwhile, having edited Aryan Valley into something unrecognizable, TB filed a 3RR complaint, and this complaint, and is currently trying to redirect another village article to the article about how the people who live in Aryan Valley aren't really Aryan. all within the last couple of days. Elinruby (talk) 19:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(Earlier) Minaro123 wants to write an article(s) about a group of villages. I was under the impression that we encourage that. He is willing to learn the standards and apply them. For example, Wikipedia does indeed have a list of perennial sources. I don't know where "exhaustive" came from. He really does need to figure out how to run spell-check however, yes.

I remain baffled as to Trangabellam's goal. I think Mindaro123 should work on his articles, offline if necessary, and publish them through AfC. I will continue to help him. TB should be admonished about newbie, biting, and encouraged to find something else to do.(later: besides the Aryan-ness of the Minaro, that is)

The current version of Aryan Valley should be moved to Aryan Valley (problems Trangabellam has with the name) The central issue here is however that it isn't up to TB to decide whether Minaro123 is competent or what ethnic group he belongs to. To the extent that he's a problem, it's being addressed. At this point it may as well be in Draft, since the article he was writing is gone. At that point the AfC process can be a failsafe, if anyone is worried about his English. I don't think he realizes how bad it is, but I do and will work with him on ways to deal with that, by editing the article myself if need be.Elinruby (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TB reverting my statement

Could someone please explain to TB that they are involved? I'm under the impression that the policy they cited doesn't apply here. If I'm wrong about that, I will rework the statement to include the words they questioned, although it all seems off-topic to me. I would appreciate a clarification that TB is a party here. I now need to be offline for a while, will address this on my return. Elinruby (talk) 20:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Housekeeping

TB presents themself as a subject matter expert, so it did not occur to me that this editor would not realize that Minaro123, participant in many a discussion about the oral history of the Minaro, is a member of the Minaro ethnic group. Apparently TB believes that the above account somehow accuses them of outing an editor who has their name and all of the IP addresses they have used on their user page. It would not have occured to me that it could be read this way. I am not interested in TB. I just want Minaro123 to be allowed to contribute an article. Hopefully this clears up any confusion. Elinruby (talk) 00:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Kautilya3:. Yes. My question is why? Elinruby (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bishonen: Thanks. I stand by it fine. I just think it's off-topic. But by all means if somebody disagrees.

@TrangaBellam: (trying again) You keep telling Minaro123 that the Minaro are Bropka Elinruby (talk) 11:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RegentsPark: sure. That is why I called the whole ethnicity thing off-topic. Just saying, my neighbors would get upset if someone assigned them some other ethnicity. Some exasperation is understandable, especially when it was cited ethnologists that were getting dismissed, not just the elders of Dha. All of the effort that went into discussion here was completely one-sided. I don't pretend to understand what TB is trying to accomplish, but they essentially gutted the Aryan Valley article and are now piously lecturing me on my talk page about the integrity of content. I will be offline most of the day but will check this when I get back to see if there are questions Elinruby (talk) 18:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Bookku

Uninvolved opinion.

  • Two very recent edit summaries 1, 2 by User:Minaro123 seem to have expressed psychological depression as co-Wikipedian I feel concerned.
  • Above complaint in part seems to be content dispute brought here before completing protocol mentioned @ WP:DDE and in part legitimate linguistic abilities concern.
  • IMO content disputes are best resolved through regular WP:DR
  • Info @ User:Minaro123 and writing style indicates that Minaro123 seem to represent some linguistic minority, though they seem to understands English reading, they would need little more improvement in English proficiency and some support while writing. Another user seem to willing to provide such linguistic support to them (appreciated).
  • IMO We certainly allow them continue to write in own user space, Draft and AFC.
  • And also allow participate in main space talk page discussion in spite of linguistic difficulties. Many say, even billion plus populations feel they are not best represented on Wikipedia, if some one from very small communities feel so, we can not do much about it if Reliable sources do not support.
Still I feel we should not take their right to represent their and their community's encyclopedic concerns on the respective talk pages. And not curtail right to WP:DR through WP:ARE.

Bookku (talk) 07:18, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I already admitted and again pointed out by @TrangaBellam concerns about English grammar of @Minaro123 even in their good faith edits seem quite legitimate as of the day.
  • Let @Minaro123 focus on their studies.
  • Shift all concerned articles to draft namespace.
  • Each of us experienced users will adopt two two articles each develop in a years time with minimum expectation of WP standard.
  • I am ready to adopt two such drafts for non-disputed content from my side.
Bookku (talk) 13:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Kautiya3

I am not writing a full statement here since the user seems to be voluntarily withdawing. But to drive home the CIR issue, he was told on 20 November 2022 the need for WP:Full citations and the guidelines for WP:RS. Yet, he provided within the last 24 hours this link (a book titled "My Unskooled Year" by a certain "Sagarikka", published by "Notions Press").

The user has been editing for more than a year and is extended-confirmed. If he still appears to Elinruby as a "newbie", that itself is an indication of a CIR issue.

We have also had to face edit-warring/tag-teaming from apparent members of the ethnic group, who are variously called Brokpa/Dard/Minaro/Aryan. So this doesn't stop with one supposedly "newbie" editor. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A gentle reminder to Elinruby that he is editing a section titled "Discussion concerning Minaro123". It is not a discussion concerning TB or K3 or AfD's or page titles or barley cultivaion. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RegentsPark, I would also like to request a prohibition against creating new pages, though he can go via the WP:AFC route. Notice here a wild claim that Tsewang Namgyal conquered "Lhasa" using an absolutely junk source. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result concerning Minaro123

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This conflict is above my paygrade, but I want to comment (only) on Elinruby changing their statement and Tranga Bellam reverting that change, per Elinruby's request. I don't understand why you would think the guideline WP:REDACT does not apply here, Elinruby. If you redact, in a significant way, something that has been replied to, you wrongfoot the person/s who replied. Don't do it. Even if there were no policy or guideline about it, it's confusing and discourteous. What's wrong with crossing out? However, a problem with Tranga Bellam's revert is that it removed the quite different text that you added in place of your original statement. You are most welcome to re-add that text yourself. (It needs a spellcheck, though.) Feel free to change or shorten it in any way you like, or leave it out, since nobody has replied to it. But please use cross-out for your original statement, if you no longer stand by it. Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • In a nutshell, it appears that, while editing in good faith, there are competence issues with Minaro123's edits. The question, I guess, is which one outweighs the other. I'll take a look but, meanwhile, Elinruby, please note that the stated ethnicity of any editor is not something that should be used as a pro or con in an argument. Wikipedia is a reliably sourced encyclopedia, not a crowd sourced one. --RegentsPark (comment) 13:51, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    After reviewing Minaro123's edits, yes, there are competence issues. I see examples of improper sourcing (e.g., here where did the literacy rate come from and the household number is less than half of what is in the source), and lots of moving stuff around breaking the relationship between the content and the citation (e.g. here). And then there is the unskooled book mentioned by Kautilya3 as well as the use of raj era sources. That said, the editor appears to be taking a break and has made an incremental contribution to wikipedia. I'm inclined to just let this pass lightly, perhaps by placing a 1RR restriction to reduce the probability of edit warring when they return. --RegentsPark (comment) 22:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @TrangaBellam: my thinking is that a 1RR restriction will alleviate problems associated with the sloppy sourcing. Perhaps I am wrong but they do seem to be adding content in a relatively underserved area and we don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --RegentsPark (comment) 17:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]