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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

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

Arbitration Committee proceedings

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Scottywong	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Jun 2023	05 Jul 2023

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
World War II and the history of Jews in Poland	20 May 2023

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
Amendment request: The Troubles	none	(orig. case)	19 May 2023
Clarification request: Eastern Europe	none	(orig. case)	27 May 2023
Amendment request: Manning naming dispute	none	(orig. case)	9 June 2023

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration

Shortcuts

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

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

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

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

File an arbitration request

This page is for statements, not discussion.

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

Requests for clarification and amendment

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

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

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

Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions).
Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives

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

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

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts:

Clarification and Amendment archives

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

Amendment request: The Troubles

Initiated by The C of E at 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected: The Troubles arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

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

The C of E (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed.

The C of E is indefinitely topic banned from all pages relating to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland, broadly construed except in relation to sporting articles.

Statement by The C of E

This is an appeal for amendment for my Troubles restrictions. After almost 3 years under these restrictions, I have understood where I went wrong and apologise for my editing in that time. I have followed the restrictions and I am currently under a separate tban from DYK. I would like to ask if my sanction could be amended to clarify that editing sporting articles related to Ireland be permitted. The reason I ask is that I wish to be able to work mostly on underrepresented women's football in Ireland and I believe the ban as worded currently restricts me from doing so. I had previously done work in this area pre-ban in Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and a number of clubs such as Derry City Women. I no longer have DYK as an option so any work done would solely be for content creation and development of an area underrepresented and separate from politics. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was going to let the debate happen naturally but I believe there might have been a little misunderstanding here. @Cabayi: I was put under the restrictions I am currently under for issues relating to pushing pro-unionist content, not nationalist. If anything, creating that Derry City article before the ban (which is a nationalist majority club as well as minimising the Stroke City terms in it) shows I am capable of treating things equally and the 3 years I have stayed away has given me the time to reflect that what I did was wrong and I would like to have the chance to prove I have changed. That's why I'm asking for the amendment to clarify that editing sports articles are permissible. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 10:41, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Cabayi: Even if the women's team has no political associations whatsoever being part of a club that founded pre-Troubles and the women's team being founded after that period but just so happens to share the contentious name of the city? The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by OID

"the multiple declines of the DYK ban which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal)."

Putting aside the rather insulting reframing of the consensus process, that when the community has outright declined a ban appeal it is the communities fault for 'not moving past it'. It could be equally said that The C of E has not moved past the fact there is no community appetite to let them back into an area where they were extremely disruptive over an extended period of time. Also there is absolutely not more support in the 2023 appeal, given the similar level of support !votes and substantially more opposition compared to the previous appeal, indicating opposition has hardened over time, not softened. Had the closing statement accurately reflected the consensus in the 2023 appeal it should have said "There is consensus not to lift the ban" rather than "there is no consensus". The only way it could be argued there was more support is if you completely discounted any of the opposes or took some liberties with basic maths. This is 'I didnt get the answer I wanted from the community so now I am trying my luck with arbcom.' It should be declined as asked and answered. 3 years with a ban is 3 years of the community not having to deal with their crap. That is a topic ban working as intended. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

I am tentatively leaning towards accepting, my main concern being the multiple declines of the DYK ban (July 2022, April 2023). ~~which indicates that the community has not yet moved past the previous issues (though I do note there appears to be more support in the 2023 appeal)~~. That being said, I appreciate that The C of E has taken to asking us first rather than wait for someone to call them out on it, indicating that they realise it might be controversial and thus seeking approval rather than forgiveness. Primefac (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Only in death, my apologies for the wording, I did not want to say "has not forgiven The C of E for their actions" as it did not sound right to me but clearly I chose a poor choice of alternate wording. "The community is not yet ready to accept that The C of E has changed" is likely a better way to phrase it. Regarding consensus, you are also correct, and I have no good answer for that particular blunder. Primefac (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have re-evaluated per the discussion and my thoughts on it below, and agree that it should be possible to maintain separation here without needing to formally amend the written topic ban. Primefac (talk) 09:38, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(edit conflict) I'm of two minds. On the one hand, looking at the history, there was a patter of pushing boundaries right up to the limit until CofE teetered over the edge. That sort of brinkmanship does not give me hope for the future, as the community is not great at dealing with that sort of grey area. However - I'm also aware that the majority of issues were at DYK, and ask CofE points out, they are tbanned there. More, the request is very specific, regarding sports and therefore might be a good place to show the understanding that they say they now have. Finally, we are three years down the line, so that's a positive too. At the moment, I'm leaning towards accepting a limited relaxation, but I'd like to hear more from the community before we do. Worm^TT(talk) 09:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
After reviewing the other arbitrators thoughts, I would decline this request. Sport in general should not be covered to this topic ban, and I do not see the benefit of adding a tweak for sport. I would expect The C of E to ignore sections of articles related to the topic ban, which should be a small part of the articles in question. There will be some articles where it would be a large part, but given the number of sports articles (and potential sports articles) out there, I see no reason that The C of E should be focussed on them. Worm^TT(talk) 08:32, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be clear, the original ban was for trying to get a particular POV onto the main page through DYK, so the community not wanting to lift the DYK topic ban is material to me. One of the examples given in the appeal Derry City F.C. Women, is from the city whose (contentious) name C of E was trying to get on the main page in the AE where he was topic banned. It's not clear how well monitored the North Irish women's football topic area is, but I'd rather we not make that a test case. This topic ban came at the nexus of two issues: disruption related to The Troubles and disruption related to DYK. If the community is not willing to budge on its end (DYK ban) I do not feel comfortable undermining that consensus by weakening our end (Troubles ban). I'm not strongly opposed to loosening the sanction at some point, but doing it now, so soon after the community said no to lifting a related sanction, strikes me as imprudent to say the least. — Wug·a·po·des 01:16, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note, The C of E, that you have been editing at least one sports article related to Ireland since the restriction was put in place - British & Irish Lions. The wording of the restriction doesn't appear to cover such editing, though I understand your uncertainty, and your desire for clarification moving forward. The oddity, of course, is that by making this request, you may end up losing the access to editing sports articles related to Ireland which it appears to me you currently have. Having looked at those two articles you mention, which you created, Northern Ireland Women's Football Association and Derry City F.C. Women, I feel it would be a shame that you should end up being prevented from creating more such articles not though any misbehaviour, but merely by asking if you could do it. As these sporting articles appear to me to be unrelated to the issues which caused your ban, and indeed appear to me to be unrelated to your topic ban - and as it appears to me to be inappropriate to restrict someone from editing in an area they are currently not restricted from editing, and in which they have no history of problematic editing, indeed, have made uncontroversial edits fairly recently - then I vote to accept the amendment, which I see as a clarification of an existing situation rather than an actual adjustment. SilkTork (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Would we be willing, along the lines suggested by Izno below, to say that The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland as long as they do not relate to the exception area; and that The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should be able to assess themselves which articles they should stay away from, which includes grey areas (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it), and that the Committee doesn't need to make a formal amendment to the clause so this request can be closed? SilkTork (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - If it is a statement and not an amendment, sure, if only to sate the folks who will say "all of Ireland = The Troubles" or expand "broadly construed" a little too broadly. Primefac (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    - I'm thinking of a close summary along the lines: "Provided the pages do not relate to the ~~exception area~~ area they are not allowed to edit, The C of E is free to edit articles that relate to sport in Ireland. The C of E, like every other user subject to a topic ban, should assess themselves which pages they should stay away from, which includes grey areas such as pages related to Derry (essentially, if you have to ask about it, then best not to edit it)." If another arb agrees, then I'll close this request with that summary. No formal amendment, just a rough answer to the question. SilkTork (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - Fine by me. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      - The "exception area" was the proposed exception to the TBAN which is sports, so your sentence does not make sense. Izno (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I read that as "the area they are not allowed to edit" i.e. The Troubles, but I can see your point. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        I've adjusted the wording. SilkTork (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recuse as the admin who implemeneted the consensus of AE. Barkeep49 (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am a decline due to the way sport and community are linked in Northern Ireland. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 12:05, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we actually want to vote on this one? I see a mix of responses above. I think I'd be a decline for the requested amendment, but mostly along the lines that the user should be able to figure out which sporting articles, and which sections of articles, are inside and which outside the area covered by the ban, especially if he really has learned what went wrong to cause the topic ban. As Guerillero points out, sports were a particular issue to the Troubles, though apparently uncontroversial editing has been happening in the desired exception area as pointed out by SilkTork. Izno (talk) 03:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Decline Sport is interwoven with politics in this context, or at the least, the perception of politics. Derry City F.C. Women is not problematic but its name does reflect a nationalist take on the stroke city issue. Do I think The C of E is able to avoid the marbling in this particular chunk of beef, or that we should give license for him to try when the current restrictions have worked well? No. Cabayi (talk) 10:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The C of E, I cited that article as an example of the mingling of sport & politics. Cabayi (talk) 11:34, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clarification request: Eastern Europe

Initiated by Cinderella157 at 08:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected: Eastern Europe 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:

Cinderella157 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Cinderella157

A clarification as to "broadly construed" in respect to WP:ARBEE and Russia/Soviet Union. Does this capture articles about the Soviet Union and Russia in a global context for example: the Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Soviet–Afghan War, the Cuban Missile Crisis, Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia (central Europe) and like?

Based on comments, this clearly encompasses Eastern Bloc European countries not otherwise considered Eastern European. Does this also extend to the lands of former Soviet Republics also outside Eastern Europe (ie Asia) in the Soviet era/Soviet collapse, on the basis that the Soviet Union is considered Eastern European but is also trans-continental?

Rosguill, please clarify CPC v CCP. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2023 (UTC) Context clarified by BilledMammal that they are edit warring over which term should be used on EnWP. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

I would say that anything to do with the Warsaw Pact is definitely within the scope, but the other topics you listed are not as they are not related to Russian/Soviet activities/policies/etc in relation to eastern Europe. the table in my comment here is a useful but unofficial guide to what counts as Eastern Europe. A simpler (but equally unofficial) rule of thumb would be that if the area concerned is in Europe (in the relevant context) and was on the Soviet side of the Iron Curtain then it counts as Eastern Europe (although there will be exceptions both ways). Thryduulf (talk) 09:27, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rosguill

How much disruption do we actually see for Warsaw Pact/Eastern Bloc topics outside of geographical Eastern Europe? Anecdotally, most of the EE disruption we see relates to ethnic disputes, and I'm not sure we see much Eastern Bloc or Communist Party-related disruption outside of the flashpoint of Mass killings by communist governments and CPC vs. CCP SPAs. Unless there's evidence of widespread disruption, I think we can limit the CT regime to just topics geographically limited to Eastern Europe (although I would include Czechoslovakia in that region a la Thryduulf). I think expanding the regime to cover Vietnam, Cuba or North Korea and other Soviet-bloc countries, or Soviet interventions in other regions that did not significantly affect ethnic relations inside the USSR and Warsaw Pact, would be unnecessary. Although n.b., Soviet-Afghan War would be covered by the A in IPA (and, somewhat amusingly, our Armenia-Azerbaijan CT regime is arguably redundant with EE by virtue of Azerbaijan's location). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by ibicdlcod

Note how Thryduulf's advice does not include Kazhakhstan and I expect them to clarify. In other times we should use our head and exclude Sino-Soviet border conflict, the Soviet–Afghan War, and non-Kazhakhstan Central Asia as they solely concerns the Asian aspects of Soviet Union (even through Soviet decisions are from Moscow). Use due diligence. ibicdlcod (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Eastern Europe: Clerk notes

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

Eastern Europe: Arbitrator views and discussion

Thryduulf's advice looks good. SilkTork (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree -- In actu (Guerillero) ^{Parlez Moi} 07:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Primefac (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per my colleagues (i.e. per Thydruulf) Worm^TT(talk) 08:33, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd quibble with Thryduulf's choice to mark Greece as EE for religious purposes (Turkiye/Turkey is not despite being the seat of Orthodoxy), but generally Thryduulf's table is sound. As regards countries further east, if they were in the Warsaw Pact as an independent country or as a soviet republic, they are EE for these purposes. Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 31 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amendment request: Manning naming dispute

Initiated by Ritchie333 at 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected: Manning naming dispute arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

Discriminatory speech by 'x'

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

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

Request: On the case's summary page, replace the quoted content in brackets by a simple diff link. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ritchie333

I recently revisited this ten-year-old case, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with some of the disparaging comments that are reproduced directly in the case summary and findings of fact marked "Discriminatory speech by 'x'". I don't think reproducing the borderline hate speech is necessary to get the point across that these users have exhibited sanctionable behaviour. Could this be toned down to just a link to the diff in question? Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Primefac: That is correct. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Courcelles

I voted on that case, and looking back now, I’m kind of surprised it was done this way. Should be a simple, non-controversial fix to just retain the diff links without the quotes. Or, perhaps, better just courtesy blank everything but the remaining in force remedies? Courcelles (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I was also one of the arbitrators in the case, and have no objection to addressing this request, perhaps by substituting diffs for the quotations on the main decision page, and courtesy-blanking the other pages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MJL

I'm definitely against blanking the case page because I don't see how that is of any benefit to anyone. As for removing the quotes, I can see Ritchie333's point, but my preference leans slightly towards leaving them in. I think it's pretty clear that the quotes aren't being endorsed by arbcom, and they demonstrate exactly what arbcom found objectionable in those diffs. That's where I'm at. Still, if other users find them to be too offensive, then I'll defer to their sensibilities on the matter. I just wanted make my thoughts on this clear as genderqueer person who wasn't there at the time but has used this case as reference point. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Manning naming dispute: Clerk notes

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

Ritchie333, I have reformatted the request a bit and added a request summary; please modify (or even revert/remove entirely) in case this doesn't match your intention. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Recused. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:16, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Manning naming dispute: Arbitrator discussion

I see your point. While it certainly brings the issue to the forefront, preserving those quotes in the case instead of simply linking to them was an unusual move for the committee. I beleive the "principle of least astonishment" is applicable here, people don't expect to find that kind of vulgarity in an arbitration decision. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see a reason to blank everything due to ongoing editor restrictions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:36, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the avoidance of doubt, am I correct that the problematic sections are FoF 15, FoF 16, and FoF 18.1? Did I miss anything? Primefac (talk) 06:57, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motions

Shortcuts

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

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

Make a motion (Arbitrators only)

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

Requests for enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

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

Arbitration enforcement archives

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

Homme

Indeffed as regular admin action, now CU-blocked for socking. Report further socking to AIV or SPI. Courcelles (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Homme

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: Maddy from Celeste (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 13:08, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Homme (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:GENSEX

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

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

User talk:Homme#May 2023

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: Special:Diff/1159033573.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Special:Diff/1159131669

An IP has restored Homme's inflammatory comment: Special:Diff/1159276043. No idea if it's actually them, but is an option. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 09:45, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion concerning Homme

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 Homme

What kind of statement is expected from me? Do I get it right that somebody wants to punish me for calling men men and women women? You guys really enjoy being ridiculous and cancelling everybody who dares to speak out, do not you? Homme (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by 192.76.8.87

@ScottishFinnishRadish and Courcelles: They're now socking as HommeRenaissant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). 192.76.8.87 (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Homme

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

I've indeffed as a standard admin action. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Socking taken care of by Blablubbs. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I’ve protected the talk page the IP sock targeted. I’m closing this, further socking is better dealt with at AIV if obvious, or SPI. Courcelles (talk) 12:35, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just came from UTRS by way of his talk page. Had a block coming for some time. Endorse regular admin block.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:45, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[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]