Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Honestly, I could go on for quite a while: there are so many potential knock-on effects to this proposal which would needlessly complicate addressing user conduct in this topic area, and so many ways that it's one-size-fits-all approach does not connect with our current otherwise context-sensitive (and somewhat overlapping, as a good thing) remit of different forums for addressing disruption. But the overarching concern is that it drastically reduces the community's options for little practical gain, pulls oversight for determinations that ultimately should fall into the broader community's hands on occasion, and would introduce all kinds of opportunities for gamesmanship (ostensibly the very thing it comes to address). I just think it's a very poorly considered proposal. But again, if nothing else, it needs to be considered by the community at large in an appropriate forum, which AN decidedly is not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand your procedural objection, Snow Rise. This proposes rules that would apply only to WP:AN and WP:AN/I. There's not even any change in how AE would operate, other than possibly getting more GENSEX cases than before. This is a vastly less impactful change than, say, placing

WP:GS/RUSUKR under an extendedconfirmed restriction, which was handled by a simple thread at AN/I. I don't even think an RfC was strictly required here, but I'm following the path of least resistance.

As to the various negative effects you're worried about, I guess I'll focus on one thing you've said: ANI has an absolutely vital role in allowing the community to review and correct long-term behavioural concerns. Can you point to evidence of this actually being the case in the GENSEX area? In GENSEX AN/I threads I've been involved in, even when there's been some ultimate consensus, I really can't think of any that I would say show healthy self-governance. This strongly negative view of AN/I's handling of GENSEX issues is shared by, as of this comment, every commenter in this thread who substantially edits in the topic area, including ones who often sharply differ on content matters. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 20:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Tamzin: I'm going to divide my responses between two posts, since these are semi-discrete issues, in order to faciliate any response and further discussion that may result:

This is clearly not an "AN/I only" issue: it very obviously touches upon fundamental authority, consensus process of, and decision making generally reserved to the community at large (as opposed to the administrative corps in particular) and the proposal would heavily impact the community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area, relative to how literally all others operate. Such a discussion should take place in a cnetralized and highly visible community space, not just within site of a handful of admins, those already connected to a singular dispute, and handful of others pulled in via a typical FRS. At an absolute minimum you should make a posting a notice about this discussion at the village Pump and making sure the discussion is on the

WP:CD ticker. And frankly, I just strongly recommend you move the entire discussion to VP itself. Otherwise, even if you get a consensus for the proposal here, you are just begging for an uproar afterwards, with accusations of an admin power grab, however good faith the intention here. I mean, if nothing else, what is the good-faith, community-respectful argument against moving this to a place where the community at large is more likely to be able to be aware of and weigh in on it? SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On the proposal impacting on the "community's ability to address long-term disruption in a particular topic area", how would you respond to the point raised above by Barkeep49 that I'd like to build upon in the next paragraph. Not sure if this should be a reply to your first or second point however, if you feel that it's better answered in response to the second, feel free to move this comment as a reply to your second point.

Because prior disruption in this content area has required significant

the committee's remit is to operate on serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve, has the community already not demonstrated a significant inability to address long-term disruption in this content area? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:06, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

No, with all due respect to Barkeep, that is a conclusion I believe is unsupported by compelling evidence, and certainly not one I am aware of ever having been endorsed by the community or by ArbCom in particular. WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them, or is per se incapable of doing so. Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here, relative to some others, for completely obvious reasons. None of that militates for the conclusion that the broader community and our long-established rules and processes do not have a central role to play in addressing a heightened level of disruption in such areas--either as a general matter or, certainly, in terms of an express point of community consensus that has ever been adopted on this project. When we say "contentious topic" we mean "contentious topic", not "a topic the general community does not have a role in regulating". That's a massive non-sequitor and leap in logic, in my opinion.

CTOP (and DS before it) exists merely to grant relaxed use of certain tools in areas where rapid response to disruption is more likely to be needed, not to declare the rest of the community as irrelevant to such a fundamental function: if anything, the existence of a CTOP determination for a particular topic increases the likelihood the broader community may have to occasionally intervene directly concerning disruption connected with that topic, not that it should be forbidden access to it's normal role in that process: that's an incredibly counter-intuitive read on the purpose of CTOP in my opinion, and certainly not captured anywhere in the policy pages that describe those processes.

And again, I say this while being broadly supportive of an hierarchy and an important division of labor running adjacent to the community->admin corps->ArbCom->WMF ladder. But this particular proposal would take a particular topic area and isolate it more or less entirely from established non-admin community tools and norms for expressing consensus on problematic behaviour, and taking consensus action accordingly. I just don't see how that can be justified on the mere basis that this is a highly divisive subject matter: so are countless other topics, including (by definition) every other

WP:CTOP subject. Are we going to follow suit for each of those topic areas and essentially hand the entirety of our decision-making apparatus on behavioural issues surrounding contentious topics to the administrative corps alone? I very much hope not: I think it would be an immensely detrimental development in the history of this project. Regardless, such a massive change to the status-quo with such significant impacts upon how we conduct this project and hold eachother accountable to community standards absolutely must be discussed with the fullest possible involvement of the community at large, not just here in the hallowed halls of AN. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

On the conclusion from Barkeep I've built upon, the Arbitration policy that I linked to before, and was ratified by the community, does pretty clearly state that the Committee's remit is to handle content areas that the community has been unable to resolve.

WP:Contentious topics are not labelled as such because the community has a laisez-faire attitude towards them or has fundamentally failed to try to address them,...Rather these are topics that are inherently divisive in the broader social systems of our societies at large, and thus such biases and conflicts are simply more easily imported into this project when topics are discussed/edit upon here Those two things aren't necessarily separate. Yes some of the CTOP topics are inherently divisive in broader social systems off-wiki, but because of that many of them are also topics that the community has historically had an inability to address. Some exceptions to this apply, for example while the

BLP

areas.

Let me put it to you another way. If was the community who had

authorised the sanctions, even if ultimately the end result of the AE and wider discretionary powers for admins is the same, that would have been a clear demonstration that the community was able to handle disruption. However because this required an ArbCom case to be put in place, that alone is a pretty strong indicator to me that this is a content area that the community, for whatever reason, is unable to handle. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I've left myself open to being misconstrued by not being as clear as I could and should have been and so that has happened in this discussion. What I have said is that the community cannot self-manage Contentious Topics. If the community were self-sufficient and able to self-manage it would be inappropriate for it to be an ArbCom designated Contentious Topic. On the whole I am of the firm belief that this community is incredibly capable of handling large and thorny problems of both content (which is obviously out of bounds for ArbCom) and conduct. Because of this I think some members of the community will sometimes think that Contentious Topic is just a shortcut to make life easier - in this case I saw it in Billed Mammal's stating that ArbCom is supplementing the community in Contentious Topics. It goes beyond that. In a designated Contentious Topic there are going to be significant shortcomings in the community's abilities to self-manage. But being unable to self-manage does not mean the community finds itself helpless in managing a Contentious Topic. Hence my edited comment that there are reasons to do and not to do this proposal, which I continue to have no real opinion on. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification, Barkeep: your observations described in those terms, my own perspective substantially overlaps with yours. Sideswipe9th my response also touches upon your last post, but I'm doubling up here in responding to Barkeep to avoid redundancy. Let us assume for the moment that a CTOp being invoked in a topic area is a tacit statement that the community has been unable to handle issues in a topic area with the usual tools. I think the reality is quite a bit more complicated than that, but let's take that for granted in the present discussion so we can move on to more central points. Because the more critical/dispositive consideration here is that the increased tools that CTOP authorizes are meant to supplement existing administrative and community actions, not replace them. Even if we assume that any time ArbCom authorizes CTOP in a given area, it comes inherent with the message that the community is not getting the job done with typical methods, that is still a non-sequitor with the conclusion that ArbCom has declared that the rst of the community is not to take its own actions to arrest disruption in that area, where and when it can (be it at ANI or wherever). Not only does that conclusion not follow from the given premise, but we have a massive body of processes where the community clearly does regularly restrain problematic editors in CTOP/historical DS through processes taking place outside of AE. And this parallel activity has been undertaken as long as DS/CTOP have existed.

So the end result remains the same: a finding of CTOP in no way forestalls the broader community from exercising it's own prerogative to implement TBANs or other CBANs (to take just one example of what the community is permitted to do in CTOP areas). Surely if the contrary was the case, we would have adjusted the relevant policies on CBANs to reflect this fact years ago. CTOP merely authorizes the use of advanced tools to block or otherwise restrain problematic actors a little faster, and makes

WP:AE an option for reporting and getting a faster administrative response. What CTOP clearly does not do is forbid the community at large from also using its own discretion in conjunction with these liberalized tools, as it can (and does) use such community decisions/CBANs parallel to regular administrative blocks, in any other topic area where disruption arises. Again, that would be an absurd conclusion: why would we want the community to be less proactive in responding to areas of heightened disruption? Clearly we want (or at least entertain the occasional need for) increased use of CBANs alongside the use of CTOP/1RR blocks and AE filings. Insofar as CTOP/DS language has ever said "DS/CTOP is meant for areas where the community is having trouble keeping the disruption in check", it is for the purpose of explaining the need for looser standards for when warnings, blocks, and other preventative administrative actions can take place--not for the purposes of saying "these issues can now only be addressed at AE". If it were the latter, then countless of our policies and much of the history community bans would read completely differently. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

What I think this very fair analysis of Contentious Topics misses out on is that certain editors/discussions are, themselves, signals that the community is unable to handle something. This is why not only can admin act sooner and sanction with more severity than they can outside a CT topic area (what SR focuses on) but also can act with first mover advantage and knowing that their actions are less likely to be overturned on formal appeal because of the higher than normal requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As to the substantive arguments, you may very well be correct that regulars in the GENSEX space consider ANI an intractable travesty: while my background and editorial interests in both biopsychology and human rights semi-frequently bring me into contact with existing disputes in this topic area, I don't engage with the area with the regularity of such editors. However, a few thoughts as to that: first off, that is not exactly a rare perspective about ANI's complications, issues, and the general caliber of discussion there from editors in...oh, I don't know, let's say every single topic area under the sun. That low opinion of what can happen at ANI (unavodiable to a certain extent by virtue of the fact that it specializes in intractable disputes) does not automatically invalidate the role that space serves or the necessity for preserving the ability for concerned community members to bring issues there for the community's consideration.

So I would say the onus is upon you as the party proposing such a massive carve-out to explain why this one topic area should deviate so drastically from how our policies and procedures operate for every other topic. I mean, have you even considered the fact that your proposal would essentially make it impossible for any disruptive party in the GENSEX area to hereafter ever receive a CBAN from that area (or the project in general) as a result of their conduct? That's a pretty humongous abrogation of the community's inherent purview as it has historically existed on this project--and yet also just one of several such outsized implications of the proposal. Is GENSEX so much more inherently disruptive an area so as to seize the entirety of all such determinations from the community at large, even when compared against other DS/CTOP topics? I just don't think so. The community needs to be able to weight in on longterm abuse regardless of the topic area, and your proposal would instead shift that role entirely to just those admins participating at AE. That's incredibly problematic to me, for more reasons than I can begin to list here.

For that matter, putting aside for the moment how extensively this proposal would usurp the broader community's role in preventing disruption in this area, and hamstring our ability to respond to longterm abuse, I am equally, if not more, concerned about the impacts upon the interests of the reported parties. For all the issues inherent to ANI, it does permit for more shades of grey to enter the discourse than does AE. Taking TT's case as an example, some of us were compelled to modulate our recommendations based on the nitty-gritty details and context of the dispute. Let's remember that the responding admin at AE has a fundamentally different role from the closer of an ANI thread. At ANI the closer must, to some degree, take stock of any ameliorating factors which gained significant support among respondents, because they are finding a community consensus in the discussion. At AE, the admin's role is much more that of the party actually making the determination in the first instance, based on the information provided by involved parties. That's a fundamental difference that effectively narrows the decision making from a group (which can, in the aggregate, often reach a more nuanced and reasonable conclusion that balances competing interests) to a single person, who is more likely to act in a very black and white (or at least far more idiosyncratic) fashion.

Again, sometimes that is precisely what we want, for the sake of efficiency and fairness. But often we want the broader community weighing in, in complicated or nuanced cases with competing community interests, and creating a blanket rule that would just completely pull that decision making into the authority of a increasingly smaller subset of the community is a bad direction to take, and even more questionable when you consider that the proposal is that we do it for a given topic area on the justification that "it gets ugly at ANI sometimes when we discuss this subject matter", because 1) what topic would that not apply to? and 2) sometimes the areas with the most contention behind them are the ones we want the community at large to be able to dig into, to avoid oversimplifcation in the handling of those disputes. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 21:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Moral support - I'm generally in favor of making ANI operate more like AE (read: get rid of threaded discussions between the OP and accused party), and thus for as long as AN/I continues to not look like that, I'd generally support delegating more to AE over ANI. But, I do agree with Snow that there's procedural issues with raising this proposal here (at least as anything other than testing the waters), and beyond that would be more in favor of a proposal that cuts down on threaded discussion at ANI rather than just delegating work away from there in a piecemeal fashion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Reading through the proposal again, I guess my above reasoning puts me in the soft camp? But I don't think we need more guidance for this topic area so much as modest changes to how ANI operates, and for as long as ANI continues to be a free-for-all, AE will be a preferable forum for addressing pretty much any conduct dispute that it has authority to address. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's a fine line between accused having an opportunity/obligation to respond to their accusers and the potential for accusations of

  WP:BLUDGEONing and the current format makes it hard to tell which is happening. Very much agreed with you @Rosguill. Lizthegrey (talk) 22:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Oppose I don't believe this is something we need to formalize. However, a few times in this saga I've said that it would be a good idea for the closing admins to suggest that future incidents of this type might be better suited for AE. I still stand by that. I suppose this is similar to the Soft version above, but less formal. We can make a recommendation, but we don't need to make the process so rigid by reducing out flexibility to handle new situations at the most appropriate place. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 22:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preferring hard This case has pretty conclusively proven that in a controversial topic area it's possible to remove an opponent who has not actually done anything wrong just by showing up to ANI. Needless to say, this is bad. So I support any reform that would fix this situation, including this one. Loki (talk) 01:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

who has not actually done anything wrong - hmm, seems like a questionable summary to say the least. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, this is a completely inappropriate carveout of one topic area, basically making
  WP:CBANs impossible for that topic. That is unprecedented and disempowers the community. It is not the place of a few people on AN and a few people unhappy with the recent closes to give/take that away. And the idea that AE is inherently superior to ANI is questionable. The limits there make it hard to document a pattern of misconduct; and without a pattern, it's easy and common for bad behavior to be handwaved away as though it is an isolated incident, or just sour grapes from transphobes or whatever. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:36, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @Crossroads: CBANs are beyond AE's authority and would thus obviously not be covered by this. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That is not at all obvious, and besides, then why propose this? It was two CBAN discussions that sparked this idea in the first place, and is motivating some of the votes. A technicality of "the discussion has to be explicitly for a CBAN from the get-go" would make it much harder for problems to be addressed because it's not common for one editor to have all that evidence personally and know that it is that severe. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  CBANS are pretty much exclusively a product of ANI discussions, so if you create a rule which prevents the community from bringing disruption attached to a given topic area to ANI, you effectively are creating a situation where a CBAN can never be applied to a user who has proven disruptive in that area. So, yes, your proposal very much removes CBANS (or similar actions taken as an expression of community will) as an option in any case of disruption that took place in the GENSEX topic area. Indeed, under your proposal, even an LTA or a suspected sock of a previously CBANned editor couldn't be brought to ANI to be dealt with if the disruption touched upon GENSEX editing. I honestly don't wish to be rude, Tamzin, so I hope you will forgive how stridently I am about to word this, but the fact that you didn't recognize this extremely obvious result of the proposal suggests you made it without due consideration for its very broad and numerous impacts. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, there are two possibilities here. One is that I didn't consider the possible negative outcomes. The other is that you're wrong about those negative outcomes being remotely likely. Unsurprisingly, just as you tend to think your analysis is correct, I tend to think mine is. Perhaps after ~15kB of reiterating your parade of horribles that will come to pass if we so much as discourage these discussions, now would be a good time to step back and let others decide how valid your concerns are. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Tamzin I'm fairly sure I've seen you a lot around AN/ANI so I'm fairly surprised that you're so unfamiliar with how CBANS work. While some CBANs start from the get go as someone reporting some behaviour problem an proposing a CBAN, I'd say most CBANs do not work like that. Instead they start of with someone reporting some misbehaviour. Others than may report more misbehaviour. Sometimes the OP responds extremely poorly as well. Eventually someone decides their behaviour is bad enough and proposes a CBAN. The community discussions/!vote this and we hopefully come to a consensus. Even better if it is an uncontentious consensus although sadly that isn't always the case. The organic nature of CBAN discussions means that saying this proposal excludes CBANs simply makes no sense. How can a proposal exclude CBANs when we have no idea if a CBAN may result until we've discussed? Nil Einne (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nil Einne: I'm well aware of how CBANs work. I'm also well aware that there has not been consensus to CBAN someone for edits primarily relating to GENSEX since... Since when? I can't think of a time in recent memory, and I can think of one particular case where a CBAN proposal failed despite strong evidence of systemic discrimination against trans editors. If someone gets TBANned at AE from GENSEX, and continues to disrupt in other realms, then AN/I can still handle it, probably much less dramatically. "User:Example was indef TBANned from GENSEX last month at AE. They have since made comments X, Y, and Z regarding abortion. This user is clearly NOTHERE and further sanctions re in order" has a much better chance at AN/I than "User:Example has been saying A, B, C in this dispute about trans pronouns and D, E, F in this thread on gender dysphoria and also unrelatedly X, Y, Z about abortion". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamzin (talk • contribs) 03:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Look, I don't want to get in a cycle of counter-criticisms with you, especially because I can recognize that your proposal is a goodfaith response to seeing one too many trainwrecks in this area that could have driven away a valuable contributor (thankfully, from the above, it seems we have avoided that outcome with TheTranarchist). However, I will say that the vast majority of the "15kb" you reference is a necessary response to your hand-waving away observations about some pretty major consequences of your proposed course of action--which I would not describe as a "parade of horribles" but rather a series of results that would be direct consequences of that policy were it implemented, and which (far from being hypothetical or hyperbole), would be automatic and inevitable outcomes.

As Nil Einne, Crossroads and myself have already explained, almost all CBANs result from discussions where they were not suggested at the outset, and your personal recollections and feelings about their necessity not withstanding, there's no good reason to believe the community might not need to CBAN someone in this area from time to time, and no argument for stripping that option from the community's potential responses to disruption. Considering we just had two such CBANS of the sort that you describe as uncommon in one day, and considering there have been numerous other GENSEX TBANS implemented at ANI over the years, clearly the need for such tools is not as super rare as you suggest. And frankly, anti-trans sentiment is a reason why we should be concerned to preserve this option, not toss it away, because it's equally (if not more) likely that the next person we need to indefinitely remove from GENSEX editing will be a problem user aligned against trans rights.

And even as regards that rare exception where a CBAN proposal is a part of the initial complaint, that actually highlights another can-of-worms knock-on effect that would result from the framework you are advancing here. Because as soon as people adjust to this new dynamic, here's exactly what is going to happen: every single time that an editor with an ounce of

WP:BATTLEGROUND in them at the moment wants to bring what they perceive to be disruption in the GENSEX area to ANI, they are simply going to include a request for a CBAN in their filing, because that will become the most obvious way for them to get past the arbitrary "must be an issue that AE cannot address" threshold that is a part of your model. And I fail to see how forcing every complaint filed at ANI over GENSEX disruption to start out with the posture of a proposed CBAN is going to make the resulting discussions less inflamed. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 07:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment: Just spitballing. What about a system in which CT issues are still reported at ANI, but they can be forwarded to AE if it's determined that there was disruptive behavior? This would theoretically retain the benefits of the discussion format, but it would end the discussion before the thousands of words dedicated to arguing about whether sanctions are warranted and what sanctions are applicable. Of course, this system would not address the legitimate concerns raised by Crossroads above. I also think that any solution should involve reform that allows for topics to be delisted from CT more easily per Barkeep49. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Puts the cart before the horse. If "it's determined that there was disruptive behavior" then a conclusion has already been reached and an appropriate sanction or warning can issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Having watched AE proceedings over the years, I am quite confused on why anyone would see that as an improvement in venue. In fact the ability for a single admin to supervote by design, has been a detriment to the encyclopedia in my opinion. Arkon (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. this is
  instruction creep. lettherebedarklight晚安 03:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose in a number of ANI cases involving an DS area, I have suggested that it might be simpler to take things to ARE. Indeed in a number of cases where someone was not formally aware, I've given alerts as a result of an ANI cases and if the problems were minor enough I've suggested perhaps it would be easier to just leave things be for now and take it to ARE if it repeats. I haven't done so since it changed to CT mostly because it's just something I do where I happen to see a case where this might help. In other words, I fully support the idea that often it is better for areas well covered by CT to be simply handled by CT rather than going through normal community discussion.

  However I'd oppose trying to force cases must be treated as CT without very strong evidence that this is the best for the community. And to be clear this includes the soft variant as it also include a degree of force.

  As noted above, there are numerous possible consequences for this e.g. how we handle cban or other sanctions that aren't something CT can impose. Note also that CBANs technically include topic bans even from CT areas. While I am personally not fussed whether an editor is subject to a community topic ban or a CT one, there is always going to be editors who feel a community ones is better since it will require a community consensus to remove. (After all, we even had community site ban of an editor because the community was concerned about an earlier arbcom decision to unban the editor.) There's also how this affect cases that might be better for the community to handle since they are more complicated than the simpler disruption in a certain topic area CT handles best.

  I'd even more oppose it for any specific CT area (instead of all CT areas) without strong evidence there's a reason to treat these as special areas. I'm far from convinced that the two reason cases resulted in this are the worst we've seen at ANI. And concerns over people trying to get rid of opponents covers pretty much all CT areas and frankly anything contentious which isn't CT. E.g. the notability/ARS wars.

  Most importantly though, IMO this is simply a bad idea at this time. To some extent there is an aspect of hard cases make bad law here. But more importantly, emotions are clearly still running high over those two recent cases. I don't think it likely holding this discussion at this time is going to improve that or ensure we make a good decision. Instead we get comments like "who has not actually done anything wrong". Clearly quite a few members of the community do not agree with that for one or both of those editors. This includes many who are not opponents. While a discussion like this is always likely to be contentious and may get controversial comments, the best outcome and least disruption and harm to the community will come if we hold it when editors aren't already affected by two recent controversial cases, cases which resulted in this proposal. Fanning the flames when emotions are still so high is not going to benefit the community.

  To be clear, I'm not suggesting any editor involved in this proposal ill motivations, I have no doubt they're genuinely trying to improve Wikipedia and fix a problem that they feel was highlighted by recent cases. However having good motivations doesn't stop an editor making bad decisions and I feel that's clearly the case here. (Actually part of the reason why they have made such a bad decision is precisely why we should not be doing this. Perhaps they weren't able to see what they may have seen when if it wasn't so soon after those two cases namely that it was a terrible idea to discuss this right at this moment.)

  Nil Einne (talk) 03:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per most of the above, especially SnowRise. Not going to repeat it all. I do think that an "ARBGENSEX2" case is ultimately inevitable, but it will be after the community has failed to be able to resolve the problem without having to defer to ArbCom. And that time is not upon us yet. I agree also especially with Crossroads in observing that AE is not a good venue for establishing long-term patterns of disruption, only short-term "outbursts", because of its strict limits.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - While I recognize that Tamzin's suggestion is entirely a good faith effort to deal with a pressing problem, I believe that SnowRise's analysis of the results that would occur if this were put into effect to be more accurate and representative of the general history of AN and AN/I. Community discussion can result in a CBAN, which requires that the community overturn it. It is therefore a more powerful sanction then an admin-imposed AE indef, which -- like every other admn-imposed sanction -- can be overturned at any time by any individual admin (for whatever reason). We should not lose the potential use of CBANS as an option. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beyond My Ken: I'm fairly sure you're wrong about CT sanctions as alluded to by User:Barkeep49 and maybe others above. As documented at Wikipedia:Contentious topics#Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction, these can't simply be overturned at any time by an individual admin for any reason. That can only happen when it's an indef and was imposed by a single admin and it's been more than a year or the imposing admin is no longer an admin. Otherwise if the imposing admin agrees (including when imposing the sanction) but note this sort of means it's not overturned solely by any admin. Oh and if it's imposed by a single admin, they (but only they) can change or remove it themselves without needing to ask anyone. Maybe more importantly a case which makes it to AE will often result in discussion before sanction is imposed by rough consensus of admins in which case none of this applies and it needs to be appealed either at AE or AN or by arbcom. To be clear, this is only for sanctions imposed under CT. I believe in some cases an admin will just quickly impose a sanction as an ordinary admin action rather than under CT and AE will decide to just leave it at that. (And as noted to some extent even if it is imposed under CT, if by a single admin which I think is another possible outcome of an AE report, this admin could allow it to be treated like a regular sanction and overturned by any admin by saying so when imposing it.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I may be confused about that, I'm not certain, but it *is* certain that if all GENSEX issues are required to be settled at AE, then a CBAN is out of the question, and I still consider a CBAN to be a more powerful sanction, because it comes from the community at large. It may be more cumbersome to *reach* a consensus to CBAN, but the direct consensus of the community is, to my mind, a stronger action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:31, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeAs a general principle leave it to us on the ground to thrash things out. The existing structure can take care of those fairly rare times we can't.Lukewarmbeer (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - I appreciate Tamzin making an effort to find a way to improve our resolution of disputes and to avoid having difficult mega-threads like these two ANIs we just had. However, I am among those who does not believe that AE is better at resolving disputes than ANI (although I do believe in some cases we should make some ANI threads more formal, like AE, to e.g. reduce bludgeoning). I also don't think AN is the right place to decide structural changes to ANI; that should be at the pump; the Administrator's Noticeboard is not an appropriate place for any RFC in my view. Discussions here will attract attention from administrators, and RFCs might bring in FRS, but that's still not a pool representative of the overall community. Ironically, my procedural objection is rooted in the same principle as my substantive objection: fundamentally, if you reduce the pool of decision-makers from "everyone" to "administrators", you don't end up with a better decision. Levivich (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Apparently we're testing the theory. Levivich (talk) 21:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So much for that. Closed promptly with "It is debatable whether ... that would be a matter for AE".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral on the soft proposal, though I think it should be worded to encompass all CT areas, oppose the hard version. I do think AE is a better venue for most CT-related conduct disputes, and I hope our admins feel empowered to strongly suggest that newly filed ANI reports be moved to AE when possible. I would be fine with admins closing such discussions and directing the OPs to AE, though I think all it should take to reopen them is the OP saying "no, I definitely want this to stay at ANI". I oppose the hard proposal as GENSEX doesn't need this treatment over other CT areas, and because I agree with those that are concerned about missing out on some ANI-specific potential remedies. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've placed a notice of this discussion at
  WP:CD ticker: these issues and the proposed solution have implications far too broad to be considered by just those of us here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose - My lead reasoning will remain that our community members are intended to be able to pick their forum, depending on what they think can work best (I suspect GENSEX regulars are likely aware of the options). I oppose revoking that choice. There are more personal reasons someone might have this reason (e.g. So long as I continue to find complex discussions harder to understand in separated discussion than ANI rambling but more continuous format (while many are fiercely the opposite); or someone preferring to have an area settled by the general editing base than a small subset of admins), that encourage them to prefer one format over another. In terms of proposer's request to find alternate solutions, then I believe they may be best off indicating what the most problematic factors are, then mitigations to those can be advised, which may well more be in execution than mechanics. Time? Length of reading? Both no doubt come with negatives, but the flipside is both indicate significant numbers of editors trying to find a solution and struggling. A shift to AE may well resolve on those two aspects, but at the issue of cutting the people participating, or the views & evidence given. In which case, it's not a solution, but a tradeoff. We deal with tradeoffs all the time, but for any tradeoff, the proposal should be noting the negatives that arise and why we should accept their cost. I do not believe those costs are sufficiently covered here, with either option. Nosebagbear (talk) 00:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I've been a bit conflicted on this but I think I'm coming down on the side of weakly supporting the soft version of this proposal.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It is my firm belief that this proposal would not have been made if it had been any other topic area. Gensex editors should not be treated any differently from other editors that wind up at ANI. Gensex editors are not special and exceptional. Wikipedia is not here to coddle any editors, regardless of their editing experience and editor level. Gensex editors must follow the same Wikipedia community policies that affect non-gensex editors, and if one of them pushes an envelope too far, he/she/they must face the same action and consequences faced by editors who have engaged in similar behavior in non-gensex articles. ANI is where issues regarding a user's conduct need to be discussed and determined. Pyxis Solitary (yak yak). Ol' homo. 12:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. For the same reason I opposed making ANI more like AE, there is a need for a place to report issue that has no bar of entry. No matter how low that bar can be made. Maybe taking discussions to AE is a good idea, and could be suggested once a report has been made, but there shouldn't be any formal direction on the matter. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose hard, neutral on soft - AE is too bureaucratic. Allowing an admin to move a discussion to AE puts the bureaucratic responsibility to the admin, not the (possibly new) user who wants to file a complaint. Animal lover |666| 16:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral to support on hard, support on soft - I know this sounds vague, but in this case, any solution is better than no solution. The way I see it, most GENSEX editors have it significantly harder on virtually every level and WP might not be well equipped to handle all of it with its existing administrative structures. @
  WP:WALLOFTEXT to heart. Ppt91^talk 19:10, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose. Cases from all other topic areas can be brought here (can't they?). I don't see how it is helpful to make an exception for GENSEX. Editors should not be curtailed from raising important issues so that the most people can see them. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Does not seem appropriate; cases should be filed where appropriate as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see even from the previous ANI threads that GENSEX topics are unique in a manner that would make AE the only appropriate venue, especially since AE tends to languish in my experience from lack of input. If there's thoughts that ANI itself could be restructured to address issues, that's worth talking about (BilledMammal's suggestions etc.) But I don't actually see how this solves any problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 15:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Actively trying to reduce community involvement in banning people for their problematic behaviour is counter to the core consensus-based approach to community management. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:09, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A plea: Propose a better solution

I don't think I have ever felt truly desperate on Wikipedia before. I have not come here trying to offer a magic bullet to this problem. I have presented two drafts of solutions to a problem that is making a highly sensitive topic area unsafe to edit in. Most people who edit GENSEX have been neutral to supportive of this proposal. It has largely been the "AN(I) regulars" here saying no, we have to continue to stew in this mess—a kind of mess that, no doubt, AN(I) regulars are used to, else they wouldn't be AN(I) regulars. The people in this topic area do not edit so they can have month-long dramaboard threads. We edit because we see issues in Wikipedia's woefully inadequate coverage of gender issues. Inhumane treatment of BLP subjects. Coverage of sociological subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. Coverage of highly sensitive biomedical subjects that is sourced to Tumblr blogs rather than academic papers. All to push both pro- and anti-trans narratives, sometimes in the same sentence.

So I'm begging y'all, please. As a fellow editor. As someone who has poured her heart into writing two GAs in this topic area. This is a request for comment. I am requesting y'all's comments: Propose a better solution. Propose something that does not drive away editors from a topic area desperately in need of them. I still think my ideas work fine or would only nned slight tweaks—in particular "soft", which may oppose !votes haven't really addressed—but if you disagree, I get it. That's how consensus works. But there is a massive problem here. I don't think anyone familiar with the facts disputes that. If you won't support either these solutions, then something else. Please. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The same sort of plea could be made about every

WP:ANI operates, and we all have complaints about how ANI operates, but there isn't a clear consensus on how to improve it. "Carve my preferred topic out of ANI" isn't a solution, and an RfC predicated on that idea isn't going to be the vehicle by which we arrive at ANI reform.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I edit in quite a few CTOP areas. I am not aware of another one that routinely triggers weekslong battles of this sort at AN/I. But if your response to a request for a better proposal is "I acknowledge a systemic problem, oppose a solution, and have no better solution to offer," all right, noted. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of engaging in a petty straw-man argument, try reading what I wrote more carefully. To spell it out: This proposal is basically a poisoned well. If you want to propose ANI reform, do it in a clean proposal in an appropriate venue and there may be enough other editors fed up with ANI for the same reasons to support some changes. (Comment length/frequency limitations are a pretty commonly suggested idea, so that's a likely starting point.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

( Peanut gallery comment) I may be overusing this template, but I really want to make clear that I'm a newbie here. I don't mean to be a bother. In my lowly opinion, the first substantive community response to a new editor's behavioral issue should not be a vicious, humiliating, overlong, utterly unsympathetic ANI case. And if you're just going to hand out a TBAN anyway, you might as well make it policy to slap an editing restriction on anyone with more than one warning in the GENSEX topic area. It would eliminate a lot of the pointless bureaucracy.

In my lowly opinion, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. (Metric friends may substitute '28 grams' and '0.45 kilogram'. /j) If the WP:Adopt-a-user program were reasonably effective I wager you wouldn't find even half as many chronic, intractable behavioral problems in this area. You can try to whip GENSEX into shape all you like, but do you really think that increasing sanctions will entice new users to come edit the area? (I certainly am not enticed. Thank god I stay on the refdesks.) If the broader community were more proactive and less reactive in responding to flawed editing, things would surely not escalate so rapidly.

In any case I don't really have a concrete suggestion. I would greatly like to see increased collegiality between old and new editors with a more developed mentorship program. But anything that gets the community to act before things have escalated to a TBAN is a better solution than what exists presently. Stop punishing people when you veterans haven't even figured out how to solve the underlying problem. In the meantime (I know my comment is unrealistic), I think AE is probably a better place than ANI for things like this. But maybe it would be best to introduce an "AE mode" for use at ANI, so discussions could be more structured yet not as limited in scope and jurisdiction. Just a thought.

I don't mean to be impolite with this comment, just impassioned. If I've been incivil, let me know and I'll strike it. Shells-shells (talk) 00:14, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be all for a radical restructuring of AN/I—perhaps limiting it into actual incidents and creating a separate Administrators' noticeboard/Recurring issues without threaded discussion—but that seems even less likely to happen than fixing the handling of GENSEX discussions. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 00:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption. I don't know what you think AE does, but go observe it for a while, and you'll see that it largely hands out topic bans (and blocks). It is unlikely that either of the GENSEX editors recently sanctioned at ANI would not have been sanctioned at AE.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have read

WP:PUNITIVE, yes, which is why I specifically used the word punishing. With the exception of its first sentence—I would rather say bans should not be "punishment"—I completely agree with your comment. Shells-shells (talk) 01:40, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Shells-shells, topic bans are not "punishment", they are protection of the project from recurrent disruption.

They are both. It's meant to be protective, but it's absolutely a "you did something wrong and now we're taking away your ability to edit here" punishment. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:17, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do think there are some issues with that framing: it's really the low hanging fruit/Wikipedia equivalent of a politician's baby kiss to say ANI is ugly and that we wish the process of dispute resolution could be more collegial--and less dispiriting for newcomers in particular. But nobody is excited when a dispute or issue grows to the point that it lands at ANI, let alone when a CBAN has to be issued, and when I check in at ANI, I fairly regularly see people doing their best to make the process (borrowing upon your wording here) as un-vicious, un-humiliating, and sympathetic as they can, in the circumstances. But let's have a dose of realism and pay at least lip service to some important constraints here: sometimes there are values and priorities of our community and methodology (for providing reliable, neutral, factually-accurate material to serve the needs of our readers) that have to take precedence over encouraging the editing of every contributor, in every area, all the time.

That important caveat said, my overall thoughts are that you've identified a fruitful area here--indeed, maybe one of the few areas that actual stands a chance of improving the situation in question, as it stands. I think you are very much correct that more effort at the front-end, when onboarding volunteers, could pay immense dividends in the long run, in terms of decreased disruption, acrimony, and need to re-set editorial conduct when problematic patterns have already been formed. As you say, mentorship in one form or another is surely an under-exploited potential tool. I think there's a cognitive bias at work here that is not at all uncommon to institutions of governance: we are fixated with and dissuaded by the upfront costs, failing to rationally apply a longterm analysis.

On the other hand, I am not surprised that "adopt-a-user" has failed to catch on: what a patronizing choice of title for such a program. I imagine it has an especially discouraging impact on precisely the type of editors we are talking about here and would most like to reach with such a scheme: those who come here specifically to edit in CTOP areas: some of those editors would be just simply battleground and avoidant of the idea of the need for guidance by nature and others, as a consequence of what their communities have historically had to deal with, are justifiably sensitive to implied condescension. Anyway, that last point is a nitpick observation. I agree the mentorship angle is something this community needs to invest in. Not just to ameliorate the issues being contemplated here today, but for purposes of editor retention and community unity/harmonized outlook.SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may simply be naïve, but I don't think ANI is really as bad as people say. It seems to work pretty well as an ad hoc tribunal, or as a grand jury. But once in a while it gets acrimonious, and the last people who should be subjected to an acrimonious ANI thread are new users. In fact I think there's far too much bureaucracy facing new users anyway (even excepting ANI), but that criticism is also low hanging fruit. There ought to be better options, with lower stakes, in the first place.

I agree completely with your second and third paragraphs. It would be wonderful for a mentorship culture to develop here, and 'Adopt-a-user' may well need a rebranding. Shells-shells (talk) 03:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing this out there: ArbCom. We pay them to deal with problems that are, well, really bad. We haven't actually tried this yet;

WP:GENSEX is not a "real" case. HouseBlaster^talk 00:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I've said before that I think a GENSEX2 case is ultimately inevitable, but why do you think an ArbCom proceeding would be preferable? It would ultimately take several months, dig even deeper into various individuals' editing habits, and probably result in more sanctions, on more editors, that are harder to appeal. Few things drive editors away from a topic area better and faster than

WP:RFARB attention.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't know that I would agree that such a case would be per se a bad thing: if it gets to the point that ArbCom forms a case, presumably it will be a situation where there are at least potentially bad actors needing scrutiny--which would not be a happy occasion but would surely be better than their hiding their heads in the sand. That said, it would all come down to the particulars whether it would be a positive development in the aggregate.

Those caveats made, I agree with your central point: I don't see how such a case would really remedy the systemic issues being contemplated here. For all its overriding authority, ArbComs remedies in a situation like this are rather limited. They can make a subject CTOP (and this one already is), they can sanction individual editors, sometimes they publically hold harmless someone who got pulled into a dispute through no disruptive fault of their own, and they can take steps to protect individuals from harassment. All vital work, such as it goes, but making substantial changes to our community structures and processes, at least in this context, is largely outside of their remit. To the extent we want to reform ANI or any of our other community processes, it's just not something we can pass to their shoulders. The buck stops here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 01:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what the issue is? If the issue is certain editors who cannot behave in the topic area, but the issue becomes too obfuscated in ANI discussions for the community at large to get involved, then ArbCom would be a good venue to deal with it. DS I don't think dealt with these problems too well either, and ArbCom directly does I think. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry T. I do feel bad about opposing one of your remedies without proposing an alternative. The thing I keep hoping for in GENSEX is a group of three to five admins that hang around. It's the main difference I see between GENSEX and American Politics or Pseudoscience. The early intervention of an admin warning is little seen in GENSEX. I'm looking for things like "If you continue to bludgeon discussions/to misgender the article subject/to rely on evidently unreliable sources/to skirt the bounds of civility, I will block you." They'll have been witness to the patterns of editing that might eventually prove to have been problematic. The only other suggestion I have is stricter enforcement and clerking at AE. If we're counting on that as the good option, let's tune it up.

Though I do think there are deep problems in GENSEX, I don't share the view that it's at the top of the CT/general sanctions problem pile. Within the past year, we've had knock-down-drag-outs tied to Armenia-Azerbaijan, Russia-Ukraine, AmPol, and Palestine-Israel. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:59, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there were no sanctions imposed, would you be making your proposal or this plea? Arkon (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Two out of three sanctions proposals went "my way", including one that I literally proposed, and the third one I only weakly opposed, so... -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 01:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't feel like an answer. There was literally nothing different in these reports than the thousands of reports before it, other than the accused throwing out so many bytes of text without reprimand. If your concern is separate from the results, you may want to wait and propose in isolation. I think divorcing your concern from the results may be helpful to your cause. Arkon (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have not framed this thread as an objection to the outcome of the TT thread. I've framed it as what it is: about that thread, and several others, being "shitshow"s. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 02:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tamzin here is clearly frustrated with the manner in which

WP:ANI operates generally in these sorts of cases, and I don't think that this is purely some reaction to being dissatisfied with a single closing statement. She is being extremely candid in this thread, and, while I disagree with her proposal above, I do share her sentiment that there are certain topics and situations where ANI is not capable of handling disputes without consuming an inordinate amount of community time in exchange for at most marginal benefit to the community. She's being sincere here regarding her motives, and I don't think it drives the conversation forward to insinuate otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

For three months, trial structured discussion at ANI:

1. ANI reports are to be titled using the format "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption". For example "BilledMammal, Platypus, Disruptive cite-tagging"
2. Editors wishing to make a statement on the report should create a fourth level section (====) titled using the format "Statement by editor name". There is no word or diff limit, but editors are advised that the longer it is the less likely it is to be read.
3. Editors may edit their statement as required;
   normal requirements to ensure that replies are not deprived of context
   are waived, and editors making replies are advised to quote any relevant sections.
4. Editors may reply to no more than five statements; there are no limits to the number of replies they may make to those statements. Editors may additionally reply to any statement that discusses their behavior. Replies should not introduce new information, and should instead seek to clarify or discuss the information raised in the editors statement.
5. Statements should remain closely related to the initial topic raised. If additional behavioral issues need to be raised, including behavioral issues related to the editor who opened the discussion, editors should create a third level section (===) using the same format of "Editor name(s), topic area(s), type(s) of disruption".
6. To propose community sanctions, editors should create a fourth level section (====) titled "Proposed sanctions on Editor name(s)".
7. Editors !voting on community sanctions proposals should keep their !vote concise and reference their statement for more detailed arguments and evidence. Editors may not reply to other editors community sanction !votes.

The intent of this suggestion is to keep discussions on topic, to prevent bludgeoning and impenetrable walls of text, and to try to introduce a level of neutrality into the opening of the discussions. It also attempts to keep things less structured and limited than AE, as I don't believe that level of structure is appropriate here.

Issues I see are that the structure will be excessive for some discussions (for example,

WP:ANI#IP range from Poland, trouble with one article - although I do believe the proposed title format of "Polish IP range, Weedkiller (album), edit warring" would be more informative than the existing title), that it will make boomerangs more difficult, and that the structure will be difficult for editors to enforce. However, if editors are interested in attempting to apply structure to ANI, I hope that making a proposal - even an awful one - will at least spark a discussion on what that structure could look like. BilledMammal (talk) 02:24, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Bill, I know it's a big ask, but I think a rudimentary mock-up in a sandbox might be helpful here: perhaps it's just me, but I am having a bit of difficulty visualizing the overarching format of how these pieces fit together. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 03:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Snow Rise: See here; I hope it manages to make it more clear. BilledMammal (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely helps. Was close to what I had in mind when I originally !voted "Let ArbCom (or delegate) sort it out in a more structured way" because of the mess of accusations and counter-accusations threaded together. Lizthegrey (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reading sectioned discussion is always a massive pain to try and understand any lengthy discussion - I've never seen a good explanation of how to easily read replies and replies to replies in a smooth fashion in such a discussion, as well as seeing how the discussion tone in general changes as it runs. So on that basis alone, I'd be against any such trial - but especially as a general ANI structure. I believe points 1, 4, 6 do have serious potential value to them, and point 5 could be used in certain circumstances/categories of discussion, although I'd like to see a clarification on how it worked with threads that raised multiple behavioural issues initially. Would each need its own section? Nosebagbear (talk) 16:54, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First Law of Wikipedia Reform: Calls to reform a page, made on the page to be reformed, will result in no reforms. Levivich (talk) 06:48, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (idea_lab)#Allow administrators to enforce structured discussions in CT/GS to workshop a possible proposal. I feel that keeping it separate from this discussion may help keep it focused. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Closed by Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity. the wub "?!" 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC at

Regards, The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 01:31, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Might be best for someone to hat the discussion while a closer or closers are found - I took a look at the page history and it looks like another ~15 comments were added yesterday which continues to make the job even more laborious. 104.247.245.249 (talk) 11:10, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May I urge that this be closed as soon as possible? Discussion is devolving into attacks. I get that this is a mammoth RFC, and that a good many people have weighed in and are inelligible to close it, but this has become an open sore, and leaving this as an open sore on our encyclopedia is not a good thing. schetm (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on RFCLOSE, I am uninvolved and can be part of a panel close if needed. Multiple people have expressed that they would like an administrator to help close, so if any admin could volunteer that would be great. — Ingenuity (talk • contribs) 00:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Belato has come to the task! Aaron Liu (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Closed by Isabelle Belato and Ingenuity. the wub "?!" 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The big discussion

I spent half an hour drawing up a closing rationale. Then I realised I'd opposed at the RfC so had to bin the whole lot. If anyone wants to take my notes, drop me a line. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:17, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked the RFC as doing. If you want to email me what you wrote down, Ritchie333, I'd appreciate it. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 18:52, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: thank you for having the courage to tackle this close! :) Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 19:57, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And, likewise, have the courage to subsequently watch the WMF override the entire discussion whichever way it falls, and impose it as an Office Action... 😄 SN54129 20:35, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

🙃. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the WMF, but I guess we can keep this section open for a closure challenge. Independently of what the closure says. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to challenge the closure regardless of what it says.^{[just kidding]} Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Isabelle! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isabelle Belato: Ingenuity previously expressed interest in helping close this as well. Could you two work together on the close? Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Important Extra Note: Discussion was originally started at
  talk) 01:22, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. From what I can gather, this is a dispute among the members of the same project about an article within the scope of that project that implicates a possible
  MOS:PRECOLLAPSE. This should have been addressed in a dialogue about: (1) whether objectively there is a discrepancy; (2) how to resolve the ostensible discrepancy, probably within Template:Storm path. Has there been a significant discussion about the appropriateness of collapsing? The underlying cause for this appearing on a noticeboard is how the RfC starter was talked to prior to starting the RfC: "no consensus", "works fine", "no reason to change" (ignoring the stated reason). So maybe something needs to be done to help these editors move along, and ANI definitely didn't seem like the right environment for that. But I'm not sure if I'm correct on all the facts; I prefer not making any further comments in this discussion. —Alalch E. 02:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Partially correct. The main reason I brought this to the noticeboard wasn’t more of the

talk) 02:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• This is getting out of hand. What do we need to do in order to curb these ongoing incidents? Is it now necessary, as
  contentious topics?--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:31, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Some topics are

  battleground editing because they are regions of the world that have been historical battlegrounds where people have died. Tropical storms also tragically cause human deaths. Does that in turn mean that tropical storms are subjects of battleground editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I don't think in this case it is because of people who have died, but for some reason the Wikiprojects around weather-related topics seem to have become a hotbed of

  WP:GENSEX was created. Community-level General Sanctions could also be another option. Additionally, it might be a good idea to hold a Community-wide RFC to discuss CONLEVEL and the role of WikiProjects versus local talkpages in determining consensus, since it might need to be updated or clarified. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 16:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  nationalistic editing, because the subject matter is inherently contentious, and those that are contentious because one or more editors are just stubborn. And you know that I was aware of an ArbCom case in which I provided evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Exactly I saw that you had posted evidence on the case, so I made a note indicating that my summary was more for other editors who hadn't seen the history. And noted on the sarcasm, it can sometimes be hard to pick up on in a place like this. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 19:37, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At the moment, the biggest problem with the Weather/Tropical Cyclone projects at is that we have just updated the general colour scheme, which is/was expected to cause a lot of disruption, as this is a big and major change that several people who use our maps don't like and want RV'd but were needed for us to meet Wikipedia's standards around accessibility criteria. I will note that during the various discussions surrounding the colours, an RFC was held that went over the track maps in detail and noone brought up using the NHC maps. Probably because it creates problems around what maps to use in other basins, where we are not able to use maps from the RSMC/TCWC for various reasons, including them not being generated or being allowed on Wikipedia for copyright reasons.Jason Rees (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems odd. Per the closing remarks in the RfC I started about NHC maps, Jasper Deng eluded to it already being discussed, saying “We will not be using the NHC-made maps” while calling the discussion, “innapropriate and disruptive”. But on the noticeboard discussion, you point blank just said it was never brought up? So what,

  talk) 20:23, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

@

Elijahandskip: My best advise for this whole issue, drop the stick. - FlightTime (open channel) 20:50, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

@

Elijahandskip: I feel that you are overreacting here and trying to open Pandoras Box just for the sake of opening it here, as it almost certainly has been discussed somewhere on Wiki over the last 20 years, but I only looked at the Colour RFC, rather than the 50+ archives of WPTC/WPWX. If it hasn't its probably because its obvious that it would cause problems with what maps to use in other basins, where we are not able to use maps from the RSMC/TCWC/JTWC becasue they are not generated or allowed on Wikipedia because of copyright.Jason Rees (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Definitely. I'm frustrated with the way WikiProject has become, and I think a community solution to handle this WikiProject (or making weather a contentious topic) is urgently needed to put a stop the drama that had consumed the WikiProject for some years, maybe ever since 2016-17. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I note the topic is already mentioned on
  Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  LOL. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I will say that it is highly embarrassing to have yet another noticeboard incident out of this Wikiproject, and it is sad that this project is quickly becoming known to many editors as one of the biggest problem areas across the whole encyclopedia. United States Man (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's making weather-interested users to look bad by this point. MarioJump83 (talk) 07:24, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There is nothing procedurally improper about an uninvolved editor closing an RfC early as "inappropriate and disruptive". It is not inherently non-neutral to describe a discussion as such. If there is no dispute that the discussion itself should remain closed, I would also endorse the idea of
  moving on. Mz7 (talk) 07:23, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well, hopefully they give me a permanent and indefinite blockade just like in the Spanish Wikipedia. I'm tired of trying to contribute here and then being persecuted by users like you who know how to point out other people's mistakes but can't recognize their own. I retired for two years, I tried to start editing here again but I see that this will never change. Now if I withdraw permanently and I myself ask for my definitive block, thank you very much. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 20:49, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to have to keep having conflict here, but the persistent editing tactics you have been previously been blocked over makes it hard to. You left for a period of time, yes, but you essentially just kept doing what was the cause of many an editors frustrations. We wouldn't be here if that stopped but it unfortunately has not. Rusted AutoParts 20:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the one who requested that editions that contributed little or nothing to the draft that I create years ago be recovered was you, and you did that only so that I also did not appear as the creator of the article just because you were not satisfied with the decision that I take the administrator. In addition, you are the one who spends time looking at my edition history and looking for the slightest error on my part to come and report it. But now I don't care exactly about the decision that is made here, I myself ask again that they block me permanently so as not to return even from here at a time in case I want to return. I, Bruno Rene Vargas, request my permanent block on the day of the date. Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 21:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This thread is about the Untitled Quentin Tarantino film draft edits. Rusted AutoParts 21:05, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this 🖕🏽? Bruno Vargas _{Eñe'ẽ avec moi} 21:08, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you two have some sort of interaction ban? You've been at each other at ANI and elsewhere for so many years i can't believe that's not in place. DeCausa (talk) 21:11, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One was discussed but never came to fruition. I think he had either left the site for a period of time or the matter died down. Rusted AutoParts 21:20, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Without looking into the topic ban itself, I've blocked Bruno Rene Vargas for 48 hours for the above comment. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:14, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Isabelle Belato See the ANI here 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:2992:69E4:7BD:B2A5 (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I would have been willing to remind Bruno Rene Vargas that he has a topic ban and that he must not violate it moving forward. A simple, "oh, OK," might have sufficed. However, the explosively inappropriate response here leaves me cold. Perhaps extending the block to one week as a firmer reminder of the topic ban and of the conduct issues is needed. The IBAN between Rusted AutoParts and Vargas is needed as well. Assuming Vargas does not wind up indeffed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It looks like per this users page, User:Bruno Rene Vargas has permanently retired. I’m assuming a heat of the moment retirement. 2600:8801:CA05:EF00:2992:69E4:7BD:B2A5 (talk) 09:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, we may as well just unblock him and get on with our day. Yes, retirement after a sanction is most often regarded as an effort to avoid further sanctions by making other users think that the disruption has stopped for good. However, Wiki-retirement is not binding in any sense, and some editors will claim to be "fully retired" while still participating in discussions or article editing. In this case, it's likely an off-shoot of

  WP:ANIFLU.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I have to fully agree. Perhaps an indef block as a going away present? When they are willing to participate in a civil manner, we could consider unblocking. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I've made it an indef block, rationale (and path to lifting it) explained [1] on the user's talk page. Courcelles (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The blocking admin passed away last year and I don't know where else to take this. Is there a reason this IP is blocked indefinitely? I thought it was standard practice not to block IP addresses forever. Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard practice has evolved over the years. I've lifted the block. Honestly, I don't expect it to last that way for very long, but hopefully the next one won't be indef. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that so much vandalism comes from schools? Someone who's wrong on the internet (talk) 03:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of people with a lot of time. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:25, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And students are paired 1 to 1 with devices and use Google (which feeds to enwp) to look up stuff. Pair that with teachers being very overwhelmed and not able to monitor everything students do on those devices, and what we get is sort of inevitable. Courcelles (talk) 14:29, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I usually like to put it down as "a bored schoolkid", altho school IPs don't only vandalize, it's just that usually they do because you can have thousands of kids on 1 IP (or 1 range of IPs). ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually a teacher, so have experienced daily the struggle of keeping children on task and not doing... other things. I often fail at this goal... Courcelles (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I've added the Shared IP template to the talk page. You'd think that by the time they get to college they would stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Guess not. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is every year, a fresh batch of bored people go into the computer lab and experiment. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Courcelles: I know what you mean. Even in adult classes for work, the mind sometimes wanders. Boredom sets in . . . . -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Other things are fine. We all need "brain breaks". We just want those not to be destructive to other's property or peace. Either in the physical classroom or cyberspace. Courcelles (talk) 18:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We will never be free of this. — Trey Maturin™ 18:19, 10789 September 1993 (UTC)

"Don't let these shakes go on! // It's time we had a break from it,"-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Товболатов (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hello, my violation of

@

problem solving 15:08, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

I have a few concerns here. One is that I stand by my prior assessment that copy-pasting the same block of contentious text across half a dozen articles as part of a prior dispute with another editor is clearly tendentious editing, to such a degree that simply saying that they didn't know it wasn't OK stretches the boundaries of AGF, especially as it came after days of informal warnings for a variety of different bad behaviors (see

WP:SPA in a contentious topic area, rather than to build an encyclopedia. Finally, there is also an unresolved sockpuppet investigation where a CU has found some evidence of sockpuppetry but it has yet to be closed. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:23, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse and maintain Topic Ban. I see no indication the TBAN is no longer needed.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• • Thanks for the reply, I don't want to edit in contentious topics. sockpuppet investigation It's not me. --Товболатов (talk) 18:34, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I understand, but I will say one thing if I had a goal to argue, I would not create a doll. And I would have done as they do, changed the ip-address and provider and continued to edit. A new participant cannot immediately rule well on controversial topics. But I won't do this. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dzurdzuketi/Archive. I'm sorry, but I couldn't resist saying this.--Товболатов (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the Reiner_Gavriel link. Rosguill Yes, you invited me to discuss this topic (argument) when Reiner Gavriel stopped responding. It shows that my opponents justify me at the beginning and say that I am not needed in the dispute. Then 2 days passed abruptly on their part, attacks began on my two new articles that were not in dispute. They did violations on kickbacks, for some reason you did not notice their violations. Later, after that, they redid all the contentious articles without discussion and are still making changes there. But that's their business, I'm not going to argue there anymore.--Товболатов (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As loath as I am to ask for this and prolong the process again, I would like a review of this closure by Vanamonde93, because I don't think the result can reasonably follow from either the close or the discussion:

• First, regarding the moratorium: I'm not too fussed about my imposition of a moratorium being overturned, but I would ask admins to keep an eye on the talk page of the article to prevent any sort of disruptive gaming of the system.
• Most – not all, but definitely a strong majority – of people who wished to see the close overturned predicated their arguments entirely on the
  RMCI definition of INVOLVED. This was rather contentious, both within and outwith the move review (see VPP and WT:RM
  discussions on the subject), and Vanamonde described the argument as "somewhat weak", which I agree with. I cannot, then, see how a consensus can be formed from those arguments.
• However, they also made the assertion that there was consensus "that the closure did not reflect the substance of the discussion" as reason to overturn the RM anyway, and on their talk page, Vanamonde seemed to argue that the only parts of the RM-MRV-RM-MRV-RM merry-go-round this article that should've been considered was the last RM ("RM3"). There are several problems with this:
  • This goes against how we generally determine consensus; generally discussions tend to have a precedential value for a not insignificant amount of time. Certainly, the consensus in an RM doesn't become spent after a only few weeks, let alone an hour (if we're assuming "MRV2" as an extension of "RM2").
  • This would leave us unable to effectively deal with disruptive abuse of process; I don't think one can seriously argue that the opening of RM3 (less than an hour after MRV2 closed) wasn't disruptive. Typically, discussion closers tend to be given a decent amount of latitude to side-step abuse of process.
  • Of the few people who brought up the substance of the close (as opposed to the process), there was no consensus that the closure was incorrect on this basis, and arguably a consensus that the closure was within discretion.

For these reasons, I don't think the result follows the arguments of the either the discussion or the close, and as such, I think the result should be overturned to endorse the closure (but with a decent amount of trout-slapping all around, including to myself). Sceptre (talk) 21:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I provided my reasoning in considerable detail at both the MRV and on my talk page, so I'll try to keep my comments brief. Sceptre is mistaken on several counts. If there is a disruptive move request, it needs to be handled as such at a dedicated forum. Otherwise, it needs to be handled on its merits, which Sceptre has essentially admitted they did not do. Also, the moratorium they imposed was completely out of process. Also, there is considerable irony in the extent to which they are prolonging this process, given their previous complaints about how the RM process was drawn out. Finally, I said the RMCI argument was weak, but the totality of Sceptre's behavior above makes it clear they have strong feelings here, and should not be closing: as a contentious discussion this should have gotten an admin closure in any case. There's simply no way that discussion could have been closed as "endorse".
  Stepping back from the minutiae for a moment; all my close does is establish that the RM should be reclosed. Why is that worth contesting so hard? Vanamonde (Talk) 21:14, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For somebody who claims to have no interest in the outcome you seem awfully attached to your no consensus close, first attempting to impose a year long ban on any challenge to your judgment, and now instead of just allowing an uninvolved admin, who has already signed up to the task, to close the discussion challenging the very clear consensus at MRV. Wee bit odd. nableezy - 21:17, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The only investment I have in my close is to ensure that disruptive editing isn't rewarded, which I fear is what this closure does. After all,

sea-lions should be free to swim in our oceans and not cooped up in the aquarium which is Wikipedia. Sceptre (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

The only disruption that occured was your close. I agree it should not be rewarded. Perhaps a ban on performing closures? nableezy - 21:30, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, you have on your user page a userbox complaining about "political correctness" of editors who think controversial userboxes are a bad idea. I thought the boxen wars were settled back three POTUSes ago, and yet... Sceptre (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the two of you should take a break and let others participate? Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 21:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse <I commented in the October MR but am otherwise uninvolved.> I might have given a bit more weight to the RMCI-based involvement concerns (since
  "the mere fact that the closer was not an admin is never sufficient reason to reverse a closure"), but the outcome of the MR seems quite right to me (and, at the absolute minimum, within discretion). The overturn !voters had reasonable arguments based on both substance and process, and while the current RfC might shed some more light on how INVOLVED and RMCI apply in the RM context, until then I don't see a strong basis for discounting their !votes. I also agree that there was a consensus that the moratorium was out-of-process, as explained by Vanamonde93. Thankfully an uninvolved admin has agreed to reclose the RM—here's hoping that we can finally bring this Jarndyce-esque saga to an end. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm going to note that I've re-closed the requested move as moved. Galobtter (pingó mió) 23:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll undo this closure if this review of the MRV overturns the result to "Endorse", to avoid any further confusion. I also have to say I agree with Vanamonde that I don't understand why Sceptre is so opposed to the discussion being closed by someone else. Galobtter (pingó mió) 02:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as disruptive abuse of process (involved in one of the original RFCS) (non-admin comment) Andre🚐 02:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Please elaborate, Andrevan, as at the moment you appear to be accusing me of "disruptive abuse of process". Vanamonde (Talk) 03:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize Vanamonde, what I meant was that continuing to file more RMs and move reviews when there was no consensus, until the desired result is obtained, is a disruptive abuse of process. I am not specifically commenting on the close itself since the close should have never happened, the abusive repetitive RMs should have been procedurally closed. Andre🚐 03:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well then, you should take issue not with my closure, which is what is being discussed here, but with Galobtter's, which isn't yet but I fully expect to be. Nothing you've said impinges on the consensus at MRV. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:47, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess I am opining to overturn Galobtter's closure but I think the MRV should also be overturned inasmuch as an MRV should consider the entire history and not just the last RM, though it is not an abuse of process or in any way improper in terms of being against policy and may be within discretion, but I still overall think that the move and the reopening to be reclosed should all be overturned. However, I suppose, if there's a separate thread I could move this comment there; this however, does seem to be the thread, so I'm inclined to let my comment stand, nuanced as it is, and not an indictment of you Vanamonde. Andre🚐 04:09, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - obviously, and I take issue with the incredibly absurd claim of an abuse of process. As with the silly sea-lioning claim. Nobody has ever once confused me with a civil POV-pusher, that is certainly a new attack. But the only abuse of process here has been the attempt at maintaining the status quo through filibustering. On the process and the on the merits Sceptre's close was improper, as nearly every single one of the oppose votes, including Andre's, was uniformly poor. Andre objected to a title that included expulsion and flight with the reasoning not everybody was expelled. I do not quite understand how anybody could repeatedly ignore what the proposal was and still feel that their argument against it was sound. That was the case for nearly every single unsubstantiated vote. The abuse of process comes when claiming that prior no consensus outcomes precludes further discussion. The abuse of process comes when claiming that a prior no consensus outcome somehow means the consensus in an RM doesn't become spent after a only few weeks, let alone an hour (if we're assuming "MRV2" as an extension of "RM2"). How much more basic can it get, no consensus does not mean there is a consensus in an RM. No consensus means, and has always meant on Wikipedia, continue discussion and attempt to draw in a wider audience so that a committed set of editors are not able to maintain their preferred version through filibustering any change through no consensus. In any number of disputes over the years, if there is a consensus against my position I have no problem stfu'ing and moving on. But the idea that one can filibuster their way to forever maintaining a NPOV violation in our articles is, to me at least, the only abuse of process in this entire mess. This should have been closed move in the past move request, Sceptre's closure there was likewise poorly substantiated and the only reason it was maintained was that there was not a consensus to overturn it. Finally, there is zero reading of the move review that supports anything other than an overturn result, and this review of the review is just one more attempt at filibustering. And it should be ignored. The entire argument here is that following a no consensus move review of a no consensus move request that further discussion should be banned. That is the literal antithesis of our entire DR process. nableezy - 04:14, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No consensus means keep discussing but it doesn't mean keep proposing something which failed to achieve consensus absent new arguments. That is what I consider an abuse of process. Opinions were split. You can say some arguments were bad. But it was fairly closed and the close reviewed. It's process abuse to reopen the RM proposal absent new arguments or new facts or information to discuss, and keep doing that until you find that enough people have tired of the process and another closer is willing to weigh the arguments in a certain different way given that reasonable minds might reasonably differ. The status quo has precedence if there's no consensus for a move, and

  WP:COMMONNAME is indeed an argument - the idea that NPOV means that "exodus" is less NPOV than "expulsion and flight" and therefore COMMONNAME doesn't apply doesn't hold up. Andre🚐 04:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Andre, there wasnt even consensus for a no consensus close there. Jfc. nableezy - 04:22, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And maybe there won't be any consensus on this thread, but usually when there isn't a consensus, things stay the way they are. Andre🚐 04:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And in that case any editor is free to continue to attempt to find consensus. Hey look, it happened! nableezy - 04:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural close as an excess of process. I have no opinion about the merits of the move discussion, the move review or its closure, but at some point one has to stop contesting everything. We have had two admins assess community consensus in a move discussion and a move review. That's quite enough. A third layer of review should be allowed by the community only in the case of obvious and serious errors, which as far as I can tell are not alleged here. As an aside, I find Nableezy's aggressive conduct in this discussion inappropriate and perhaps worthy of discretionary sanctions, or whatever the current term is. Sandstein 07:21, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sandstein: Glad I'm not the only one bewildered by this DS Contentious Topics stuff. Good Lord, I've gone cross-eyed, but agree in principle with procedural close. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I havent been aggressive. Sceptre has made claims of disruptive and tendentious editing against me across a range of pages without evidence (I believe we call that

  WP:ASPERSIONS), eg here, here, and on this board here. For challenging a close that was both overturned by consensus and participating in a move request that was closed consensus to move. I have done nothing disruptive, nor have I been aggressive. nableezy - 15:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Nableezy:Did not say you were. Just said this needs closing, cause wow. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, was responding to Sandsteins "aside". nableezy - 15:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Close this is a request to review the closure of a request to review the closure of a request to move a page, which was a sequel to another request to move the page which was itself the subject of two requests to review its closure. I agree with Sandstein that this level of process is only justified in exceptional cases. This isn't one of them. It clearly isn't the case that not acting here would leave us unable to effectively deal with disruptive abuse of process as claimed. Hut 8.5 11:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like an admin to provide me with the content of this deleted page - draft, because I'd like to create the page again, adding reliable sources and links. Thank you. Lynxavier (talk) 08:42, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lynxavier: Morning. Did you ask @Ymblanter:, the deleting admin? Best.-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:56, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal to enable global abuse filters managed on the meta-wiki is being discussed. Should it pass, local projects would need to opt-out if they want to only continue to use their local edit filters. Links and local discussion are open for comment at our edit filter noticeboard. We can pre-opt-out if there is a local showing of support. Thank you, — xaosflux ^Talk 09:53, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was reported to me that

I am not trying to hide that I am H-influenzae and I have been avoiding the pages where I was having conflict with specific users. The issue was not the topics that I was editing, it was that I did not understand the social norms of Wikipedia, nor did I understand the specific social norms of the pages I was editing before. I would prefer to quietly make pages about music and fashion very far away from the users I was having conflict with as they made me feel very intimidated. The fact that there is a little overlap is simply because that is what I am knowledgeable about. Thank you Computer-ergonomics (talk) 17:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that you can find on my original page (which I cleaned because it looked ugly, not to hide) that users were asking me to come back and continue editing long after I went to full clean start so the idea that I am disobeying social sanctions seems a little like some mixed messages are being sent. Computer-ergonomics (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case about the conduct of editors in the Armenia-Azerbaijan topic area has now closed. The final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Abrvagl (talk · contribs)
  • is
    topic banned
    from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make
    only 1 revert on any page
    in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely
    prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, ZaniGiovanni
    anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Dallavid (talk · contribs)
  • is
    topic banned
    from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make
    only 1 revert on any page
    in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• Olympian (talk · contribs)
  • is
    topic banned
    from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make
    only 1 revert on any page
    in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• ZaniGiovanni (talk · contribs)
  • is
    topic banned
    from pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • may make
    only 1 revert on any page
    in any given 24 hour period. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
  • is indefinitely
    prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on, Abrvagl
    anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions). This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.
• topic banned
  from all pages about Armenia, Azerbaijan, and related ethnic conflicts, broadly construed. Topic bans imposed via this remedy may only be appealed to the Arbitration Committee. For a topic ban imposed under this remedy, an editor may make their first appeal at any time; further appeals may be made every twelve months after an unsuccessful appeal.
• When deciding on whether or not to issue an Arbitration Enforcement sanction, Administrators are encouraged to consider all behavior, including the seriousness of the violation and the possible recidivism of the editor in question. For instance, users who do not heed warnings or who engage in sustained, low-level misconduct should be sanctioned rather than re-warned. Where editor conduct frequently results in enforcement requests that are dismissed or closed with warnings, administrators are encouraged to impose robust restrictions on editors.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Armenia-Azerbaijan 3: Arbitration case closed