Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339

Softlemonades

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 Softlemonades

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Cambial Yellowing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Contentious topic designation

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

8 Feb 2023 13:26 violates "Consensus Required" applied to the page in October 2021; adds new material to the page a second time that had been challenged and was under discussion
8 Feb 2023 14:54 violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding the same material
9 Feb 2023 06:32 violates "Consensus Required" and 1RR, re-adding different material without discussion and without establishing consensus

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

Alerted about discretionary sanctions or contentious topics in the area of conflict, on 5 April 2022 and again on 27 January 2023

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The page has been a particularly contentious area for some time. At one point the talk page reached some half a million bytes. The restoration of the Consensus Required sanction has done much to reduce this, and has meant that significant changes have had the backing of clear consensus or by RFC. Softlemonades has sidestepped this by generally simply ignoring it, despite reminders of the page restrictions.

As Softlemonades has raised the issue of a closely related page, it's worth discussing here. Here are the reverts made by Softlemonades on that page in one 24-hour period:

and within the next four hours after that

[7]
[8]
[9] Cambial — foliar❧ 13:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Softlemonades, accusing someone of "edit-warring" after they make a single edit to a page is prima facie absurd. Edit-warring by an individual needs *at least* two edits to the page. None of your claims address your problematic behaviour at the article Julian Assange. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:23, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Drmies, you say you are uninvolved, yet when there was an edit war at the closely-related page Wikileaks, you blocked one editor but took no action at all against the other (who breached 3rr first and by several more edits). Why? This seems to be deciding a content dispute by administrative fiat.
Drmies you make a claim of an "inveterate edit warrior" and refer to a breach of 3rr two years ago on an unrelated article – the ip editor's insertion of unsourced content had already been reverted before me by two other editors and would subsequently be reverted by two others. Where have I incorrectly signalled a lack of consensus? You give no diffs to support that claim, which has not in fact occurred. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Drmies your baseless characterisation of a neutral and polite edit summary as pompous and misleading is not objective or constructive. "In accordance with WP:CR applied to this page, please gain affirmative consensus for the addition of new material". The only misleading aspect a reasonable person could find is that WP:CR is not the correct link to consensus required - I should have checked the shortcut first. The phrase "affirmative consensus" is taken from the restriction's talk page template, which says Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page. The notion that one person giving a single-sentence response represents affirmative consensus is a narrow interpretation, to put it mildly. Over the year since El_C (talk · contribs) restored the restriction, all other editors have interpreted it to mean a wider, more explicit consensus than "2 for, 1 opposed".
- You say you p-blocked me on the Wikileaks page but not the others - there was only one "other" - Softlemonades. Their violations of the same policy that you blocked me for, and those that I've listed above, you've simply ignored in both cases. You've also gone to some length to dig up a 4rr warning from two years ago on a completely unrelated matter (the IP editor whose unsourced claims I reverted was indeffed for personal attacks and edit warring a week later). This does not seem like the behaviour of an uninvolved, disinterested admin.
- As to whether I edited "neutrally" - always a value term - my edits at Wikileaks and at Julian Assange have invariably been to uphold BLP standards for a living person. A highly, highly unpopular person in the US, granted, but that does not negate the need to adhere to mainstream secondary sourcing. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @Doug Weller: If you recall, I immediately emailed you about this, you responded, and I replied to you. I had hoped that had resolved the matter, but if not please reply to my email of the 21 Jan 1:41 pm UK time. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:36, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Doug Weller: As I mentioned in my email, that edit to my talk page was in no way a response to the DS notice you placed, nor to anything else. As you can see there was a near-18-month gap between you placing the DS notice and those edits. They were not a response to it. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:57, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HJ, what is the basis for your characterising my approach to editing that way? Apart from adding scholarship - very rarely a source of conflict - I spend the majority of my other edits either removing unsourced material or poorly-sourced BLP content. Cambial — foliar❧ 15:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Softlemonades, you raise an earlier set of edits. As has already been discussed in the conversation immediately following those diffs, a conversation in which you took part, that content was added three years earlier by Burrobert. Consensus Required was added in late 2021. It means that if an edit, such as yours on 7 December, has been challenged, a consensus that your edit on 7 December should be carried out needs to be established on talk before anyone does the edit a second time. It's odd that you say you dont think they brought it to talk when you commented multiple times 1 2 3 in that conversation. Cambial — foliar❧ 00:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

notice

Discussion concerning Softlemonades

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 Softlemonades

Cambial is constantly edit warring and has been repeatedly warned and recently banned on a related page, and removed RS material and used CR to try to control the page. An admin User:Drmies talked to them about this on this page a week ago. diff

Cambial has been removing selective assessments. Cambial removed an assessment saying the source wasnt secondary when it obviously was. I told him that if you use this reasoning you need to use it on all of them and not just assessments that arent positive and he said The claims you make about what I need to do are not accurate. diff
Ive asked Cambial to stop edit warring. He reverted it as absurd.
The last revert Cambial cites didnt involve him but a different editor, and it addressed in Talk where the other editor says they didnt see two of the sources. It also wasnt just a revert because I added stuff addressing the editors issue Softlemonades (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not saying that Softlemonades isn't quick to revert Ill work on it and try to be better Softlemonades (talk) 15:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

HJ Mitchell

I ignored Cambials warnings because he overuses them. Example February 7 2022, he warns me about template abuse for asking him to stop edit warring. diff

I thought the 1RR and sanctions policy was less strict because of how Cambial used it

Diff 1, 03:44, 7 December 2022 I delete text

Diff 2, 22:20, 11 December 2022 Cambial restores text edit summary says its RS

Diff 3, 23:42, 11 December 2022 SPECIFICO deletes text, edit summary says I removed it so it needs consensus to restore and cites page restrictions

Diff 4, 06:44, 12 December 2022 Cambial restores text again, edit summary says it needs consensus to restore and cites page restrictions

~~I dont think they brought it to talk.~~ So when Cambial was the only one who said anything, I didnt take it very seriously. And when Burroberts edit summary, That's an odd quote to pull from a long essay., made it clear they didnt see the other two sources, one had it in the headline, I reverted it and then explained on talk.

Ill be less quick to revert whatever happens. But I wanted to explain. Softlemonades (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2023‎ (UTC)[reply]

It's odd that you say you dont think they brought it to talk I just looked at the talk page which went to before the edits and saw nothing about it. I didnt think I had to check the archives since it had discussions older than the edits. Softlemonades (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sideswipe9th

@Doug Weller and Drmies: the "lying cunt and a piece of dogshit" is in relation to these two diffs; [10], [11] where over two edits Cambial first inserted "a lying cunt" into Doug's signature, then replaced it with "a lying piece of dogshit" a minute later. It remained in that signature until it was removed twenty days later [12] by another editor. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what prompted Cambial to do that though. A quick check of the interaction analyser doesn't reveal anything obvious to me in the interaction data between Doug and Cambial in the three months prior to making the edit. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by NadVolum

If you're going to do anything can you do it to both at the same time thanks. I'd prefer the Assange article not be left to the tender mercies of just one of them. As to the accusaion of NOTHERE I believe that is quite wrong for either of them. They are both valuable contributors in their own ways and they try to respect Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. They can also be a pain in the neck in their own ways, but Wikipedia is full of pains in the neck and many far far worse that nothing is done about. They do seem to try to collaborate with others. I have not seen either deliberately trying to do others down or use everything in WP:DISRUPTIVE as a guide to how to get their way in pushng their POV. NadVolum (talk) 19:53, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Softlemonades

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

Cambial Yellowing is an inveterate edit warrior (not saying that Softlemonades isn't quick to revert) who consistently misapplies terms like "consensus"--or incorrectly signals a lack of consensus. They're p-blocked from WikiLeaks; they should be p-blocked from the entire area. And perhaps it's time for more serious sanctions, as I suggested earlier. I just don't think they are capable of editing impartially.
Going through their talk page history (which they usually blank) is instructive too: warnings are all over the place, esp. for edit warring--here was one from Oshwah, for edit warring on United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, so this has been going on for years. User:Doug Weller, do you care to expand on this, "a lying cunt and a piece of dogshit"? The more I look at their edits, the more I am thinking of NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I can't find it. I've looked but don't want to waste any more time searching. Doug Weller talk 16:14, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

*::@Drmies On the other hand, if you were accused of that, and it wasn't true, wouldn't you deny it and ask me to prove it? Almost anyone would. Doug Weller talk 18:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I missed the fact that the clever User: Sideswipe9th found it. It was Cambial Yellowing's response to my DS notice last April. I'll support more serous sanctions.Doug Weller talk 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Cambial Yellowing, I picked up on one slightly older warning to indicate that this is an ongoing problem. That's what "inveterate" means. That I p-blocked you and not the others is precisely because it has become clear to me that you cannot edit neutrally etc.--as opposed to those you keep fighting with. Anyone can look through the archives of ANI and ANEW to find that this is not a new thing. And you could have protested my p-block, or even my later warning, but your only response for that block was this--in keeping with how dismissively you treat communications, warnings, and notifications. You also never responded to VQuakr's rather detailed ANEW report, which resulted in that p-block for WikiLeaks.
  I am not going to give an exhaustive list of diffs of all your disruptive edits, but this diff, placed above by Softlemonades, is instructive, pointing as it does to a talk page conversation where you were opposed by two editors--and your response is to revert, with the rather pompous and misleading summary "'n accordance with WP:CR applied to this page, please gain affirmative consensus for the addition of new material". Drmies (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Cambial Yellowing yes, but you never explained the three week gap between posting and deleting when i asked. Your explanation made sense but didn’t convince me you should be editing. Doug Weller talk 19:16, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel some sort of sanction for Softlemonades is necessary based on the diffs presented above. They have clearly edit-warred and violated the "consensus required" restriction and the 1RR. An article ban or narrow topic ban may be in order, unless there's a suggestion that they have misconducted themselves in the broader topic area. As for Cambial Yellowing, I'd love to hear an argument for why their combative approach to editing doesn't necessitate an indefinite block. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:56, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay requesting amendment to topic-ban

Amendment request by GoodDay (talk)

Sanction, that amendment is being requested for

Administrator imposing the sanction

Dennis Brown

Notification of that administrator

notified

Statement by GoodDay

I'm requesting that my t-ban be amended to allow me to edit main space only, concerning Gender & Sexuality related pages. I make this request, so that I don't erroneously edit a page that may have any connection to the gender/sex topic. For example: If I were to fix a spelling error (nothing to do with gender/sex) on the Nicola Sturgeon page? I wouldn't want an editor (or editors) complaining, because Sturgeon is connected to the Bryson case. PS - At the very least give me clarification, so I won't have to check nearly every page (from top to bottom) before editing, to make sure there's zero connection to the topic-in-question, if it's decided not to remove my t-ban from main space. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will make an effort in 'toning down' edit summaries. That being said, I will be avoiding the gender/sex area of pages, even if my proposed amendment is passed. GoodDay (talk) 22:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking that my t-ban be amended so that I'm restricted only from the talkpages/discussions in the Gen/Sex area. At the moment, (I assume) I can't edit the pages (for example) Jordan Peterson or Justin Trudeau 'at all', because they're directly or indirectly connected to the Gen/Sex topic area. If Trudeau was to announce his pending resignation? I wouldn't know if I could edit his page concerning his resignation (assuming it had nothing to do with Gen/Sex), because he brought up the preference of using "people kind" in the past. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't compel arbitrators to amend my t-ban. Amending it or not, is entirely Arbcom's choice. I'm merely asking that it be made slightly easier for me, when editing pages. I'm certain that we're all in agreement that my t-ban is a preventative measure & so I'm trying to persuade arbitrators that there's no longer a need to t-ban me from main space, concerning the Gen/Sex topic area. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just would feel (figuratively) safer & less stressed, if I didn't have to check over every article I edited. At the moment, I avoid (for example) editing bios like Sturgeon, Peterson, Rowlings (etc) as I already know they're connected to the Gen/Sex topic area, be it pre-tban participation 'or' Youtube observation. However, not 'every' bio page is so well known to be connected to that topic area. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: would you provide me an example page. I'd be able to tell you 'how' I would edit the example page & how I would handle being reverted. GoodDay (talk) 02:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Wu, assuming the bio page is under the Gen/Sex topic. I would have to move on, if an edit of mine was reverted. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I edit pages via the "Random article" route & just moments ago, made some changes to the lead of Joe Hasham. I then read some of the page's intro & reverted my changes, due to uncertainty about the bio page's status. Would appreciate it, if editors would check the bio page (and my changes/revert of changes) over. It would give more light on why I'm requesting an amendment. Note - This wasn't a test edit. But rather a situation where I discovered something in the bio, 'after' editing the bio. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: I've no interest in messing around with 'pronoun usage'. My concern about a bio page of a trans person, would run along - Is the birth date correct 'or' the place of birth. Is the birth place spelled correctly. Should a bigger dash be placed between the birth & death dates, in the intro. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Floquenbeam: I'd rather stay away from pronouns, gender identity, etc. See my response above to Jayron32. GoodDay (talk) 21:42, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HJ Mitchell:, @Jayron32:, @Floquenbeam: & @Callanecc:, earlier (today) I made edits to 2023 Scottish National Party leadership election, which had nothing to do with gender/sex. But, after reading through the entire page, I sided on caution & reverted my edits, as I'm not entirely sure if that page falls under the t-ban. Would appreciate much, if you'll 'review' my edits. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

HJ Mitchell, I tend to be a forgiving type where there is any reasonable chance of success, as I hope people already know. I haven't looked into this recently, so I would say the same as last time, that I have no objections and trust the admins adjudicating the case to use their best judgement. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newimpartial

Without prejudice, I just wanted to point out that GoodDay has filed and then withdrawn two previous requests concerning this topic ban, this one last month and this more recent one. I may have missed it, but I didn't notice links to either in the current filing.

In fact, I don't even see a link to the original TBAN discussion, though I may well have missed it. Newimpartial (talk) 00:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

I'd conditionally support a tightening of the TBAN if GoodDay can give us a good sense of what he will do if reverted. If it's something like "I'll make sure the talk page isn't covered by my TBAN and just move on if it is", I'm fine with it.

Every time I've seen a similar proposal pop up—that an editor be allowed to edit mainspace but not the talky spots—I've seen reluctance on the part of administrators, due to the important we place on discussion to resolve content disputes. If there were ever an exception to that reasonable reluctance, it would be an editor like GoodDay. His gnomish edits do not really require a full reading of the article (ATG, you really fully read every article before editing?) and are often full passes through related articles to adjust things like image sizes, dash style, and whitespace. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An example for GD: let's say you were gnoming your way through Category:Candidates in the 2020 United States elections and you got to Brianna Wu. You make some minor edit, which is then reverted. How would you respond? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (involved editor 3)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the amendment request by GoodDay

Statement by AndyTheGrump

This appears to be a request to be permitted to edit articles without reading them through first. I can think of no good reason why this should be encouraged in any editor, whether subject to a topic ban or not. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

If I'm understanding things right, I can see two potential options that would (I think) satisfy GoodDay's desire in this area:

Allow GoodDay to make minor edits to article content as long as the edit is not related to gen/sex.
Allow GoodDay to make (minor or major) edits that are unrelated to gen/sex to parts of articles that are unrelated to gen/sex even if other parts of the articles are related.

To use the example from above, adding content about Justin Trudeau's (currently hypothetical) resignation would be allowed by option 2 but not by option 1, but both options would allow the correcting of typos in content about that registration. Option 1 would theoretically allow fixing typos in sentences unrelated to gen/sex in articles/sections that mostly are, although I would personally not recommend it.

In either case the permission could be restricted so as not to apply to articles that are wholly and/or primarily about gen/sex if desired; and I would strongly recommend careful consideration of the exact wording. If either are allowed then I would suggest also explicitly allowing GoodDay to respond to questions asked of them about edits they make under their provisions, even if other comments in that location would be a breach (e.g. if someone asked a question on Talk:J. K. Rowling)

I don't know yet whether I would support either or both options (I want to see other's comments first), and I am not suggesting these are the only or even best possible options, just ones that can be usefully considered.

Regardless of whether the restrictions are changed or not clarification on what is and isn't a breach should be given. Thryduulf (talk) 03:08, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SPECIFICO

@GoodDay:, one month ago, you withdrew the same request when it appeared to be going against you and you committed to avoiding talk pages for six months before returning here. In the intervening single month, by my count, you've made roughly 500 talk page comments, a staggering number. What has changed during the month that leads you to return so soon? SPECIFICO talk 21:22, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the amendment request by GoodDay

I can't see an issue with allowing GooDay to make edits they expect to be entirely uncontroversial, like fixing typos, even if the article subject matter would be covered by GENSEX, on the proviso that this is just enough rope. Per Thryduulf, there should probably be an exemption to allow them to explain themselves on the talk page if requested, but not to reinstate a reversed edit, because at that point the edit would not be uncontroversial. Obviously this would require Dennis's consent or a rough consensus of admins. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm inclined to call this a consensus of uninvolved admins and modify the restriction to allow edits that would otherwise be entirely uncontroversial unless any admin objects. Courtesy ping for Dennis Brown. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:49, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so long as the edit is truly unrelated to GENSEX (no shenanigans like changing "he" to "her" and claiming it was a spelling error), I concur with HJ Mitchell's regime above for allowing limited participation. Again, would require Dennis's consent as he instituted the initial ban. --Jayron 32 19:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm satisfied with GoodDay's response to me above; with the caveat that like Floq says below, the rope will be VERY short on actual disruption in the area of gender and sexuality broadly, like expect a no-warning block if there's anything untowards. Regarding Callanecc's idea below, in my mind, that's a little too unrestrictive. I think that we still need a prohibition on editing in the gender/sexuality realm broadly. Maybe that's a conversation for another time, though.
GoodDay asks above to review These edits. I see no way that changing "A" to "The 2023", adding the bold markup, or adding a parameter "ongoing = yes" to the infobox violates anything WP:GENSEX mentions. It says, and I quote "1) Gender-related disputes or controversies and associated people are designated as a contentious topic." None of these changes are a "gender related dispute or controversy". Neither is the Scottish National Party leadership election broadly speaking. Unless one believes that anything involving humans is a gender-related dispute or controversy. Which is a silly reductio ad absurdum reading of the scope of the case. So no, those edits are fine, and I would question anyone who thought they might be covered by WP:GENSEX, either as their content or as the general subject matter of the article in which they occured. --Jayron 32 16:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We choose to impose topic bans because it is exhausting for everyone to deal with the editor in some topic areas, but we hope they can be productive in other areas. The topic ban scope is guaranteed to annoy someone. Too narrow, and the editor can constantly push new boundaries, say it wasn't technically a violation, and exhaust the community some more. Too wide, and the editor has to walk on eggshells to avoid an accidental violation when the edit would normally not raise flags. I tend to support wider topic bans, because if someone has to do something exhausting, I'd prefer it be editor, not the community. But a wide scope for its own sake isn't a goal. So if this topic ban can be narrowed in a way that doesn't risk exhausting the community - where changing the format of J.K. Rowling's birthdate wouldn't raise an eyebrow, but changing "he" to "she" in some other article would result in an AE block without endless discussion - I'd be OK with it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay:, to be clearer, I'm not saying it's necessarily a risk, I'm saying if it happened, I wouldn't want there to be a lot of discussion about whether it violates the revised topic ban scope. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the discussion here is mainly around GoodDay not making edits relating to the gender of people (including editors) rather than other areas that may be related to GENSEX. What about if we replace the topic ban (which is very broad) to a prohibition on making any edit that changes or questions the gender of any person (including article subjects, editors, people mentioned in articles and so on). That would seem to address the concerns in the original TBAN discussion as well as comments above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:40, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the original AE request, it seems it was GoodDay's conduct on talk pages that caused particular concern. I don't want to open a door that would lead back to that. I would prefer to see how things go with a few months of uncontroversial edits. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards