Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Note about these archives

In 2008 the committee amalgamated all talk pages of the various arbitration requests subpages, and from then AE-related discussion took place at WT:AC. In 2015 this decision was overturned and AE regained a stand-alone talk page (with the committee ruling that it should have one solely for procedural and meta-discussion, with it not being used to rehash enforcement requests themselves). There are therefore two distinct archives for this page. Archive 3 and onwards are from after the restoration of the talk page. Archive 1 and 2 above are the archives from before the amalgamation.

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

indefinite formal topic-ban from the Israel-Palestine conflict topic area

I am indefinitely topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict area. Does this mean I'm not allowed to participate in discussions on article talk pages related to this topic? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To the best of my knowledge, it includes everything everywhere on en.wiki. FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super ninja2 That is correct; however, it was implemented on 8 January and is appealable (at WP:AN) after 6 months, so you would be able to do that on 8 July. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Logging AE sanctions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

A few years ago Lugnuts repeatedly violated a topic ban, but no one noticed because he was such a prolific editor and because the editors he violated them in disputes with weren't aware of the sanctions. I've considered how to address this a few times over the years, and I've settled on creating a tool that lists such sanctions similar to how page bans are listed when "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" is shown.

However, including AE sanctions doesn't seem viable given the structure of Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, as there would be too many false negatives and false positives. I was hoping admins might be willing to start logging relevant sanctions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as well as the log? I would be willing to go through the logs and transfer any relevant and still active past sanctions over.

If it would help/bribe, I would also be willing to create a tool that assists in closing AE discussions? It would log all actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, and for relevant sanctions log them at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Arbitration enforcement log. If it would be helpful, and not overlap with other existing tools such as Twinkle, it could also support making and logging discretionary enforcement actions? BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that we keep the AE log separately (but include a link to it) because the editing restrictions page would be too long otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question related to the 500 words and 20 diffs limit

Say you have a case of WP:GAMING, but the only way to show it is to present a lengthy discussion, then what? I'm not sure how to go forward with this, I was thinking of showing some screenshots and highlighting them for practically, but dunno. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can ask for an extension (including ahead of filing). My suggestion is to sandbox it and then ask for permission to post that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks Barkeep49! HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Sweet6970 arising from the cases of Void if removed and Colin

I am making this comment on the Talk page because it is not directly part of either the cases on Void if removed or Colin. But since I am involved as the person against whom the comment was addressed, I feel I ought to comment.

@Raladic: I saw your original comment to me: promoting transphobic views as protected in a country condemned by the Council of Europe[1] isn't the flex you think it is and Wikipedia is not the platform to promote it. [1] I deny this accusation, which is unspecific and evidence-free. I did not respond at the time because you subsequently changed the wording of your response to me, but you have never explained your bizarre accusation against me, nor apologised for it. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I didn't make an accusation against you, or at least didn't mean to, which is also why I pre-emptively reworded it to the live comment a few minutes after I wrote the initial response, to ensure it wasn't perceived as such after re-reading the initial comment, which I felt could be misinterpreted wrongly - which is basically what appears you are saying here, hence I reworded it pre-emptively to ensure that no such misinterpretation occurs and we can continue to edit civilly, even if we may disagree on certain topics.

The comment I made, was specifically directed at this part of your statement: ...In fact, ‘gender critical’ views are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, and several people have successfully made legal claims for discrimination on the grounds of this philosophical belief.

My reply to you, and more precisely, the reworded (to avoid above said potential misinterpretation) live comment I made in response to your statement of the fact that ~~such views~~ such philosophical beliefs are protected in the UK (which I don't dispute), but as my comment explained - @Sweet6970, Wikipedia has a higher standard against the WP:PROMOTION of hateful transphobic views than the UK (see WP:HID/WP:NQP)., which is a simple true statement. On Wikipedia, editors are free to not be barred from editing while potentially holding such beliefs, as long as they don't affect their editing. But the line that we draw on Wikipedia is expressing such views, which are not protected on Wikipedia, as they run afoul of our civil editing policies, with the linked essays on why hate is disruptive (HID) and the more topic specific NQP essay explaining this.

So I do apologize to you that my pre-reworded statement may have been subject to misinterpretation, as it wasn't directed at you personally, but at the fact that the protection of such views in the UK deviate from the protection of such views on Wikipedia, but also that I didn't intend any misinterpretation, which is why I reworded it myself a few minutes after to the live statement to ensure we can all edit civilly on this contentious topic area. Raladic (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

to Raladic: Thank you for your explanation and apology (though I do not agree with your comments about a ‘higher standard’ etc). If it is technically possible, and procedurally permissible, I would like you to strike your original comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is closed, so it should not be edited from a technical standpoint. The live comment in the closed section is not factually incorrect, but I will concede to you that I could have used a less strong word and used "different standard" instead of "higher", so please consider it understood as that we have "a different standard on Wikipedia..." :) Raladic (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just point out that only gender-critical philosophical beliefs (i.e. that sex is immutable), not opinions or views, were ruled to be protected under EA2010. Transphobic views are absolutely not protected - part of the ruling said "(this) does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can misgender trans persons with impunity” and noted that acts of discrimination against trans people are also prohibited by the Equality Act. Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that helpful clarification, so I guess technically even in the UK, those views are not actually protected, which helps refute it in the future, just the philosophical belief as you quoted might be. I have struck and used your quote of philosophical beliefs to address the point I was trying to make. Raladic (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]