Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Behaviour on this page: This page is for discussing announcements relating to the Arbitration Committee. Editors commenting here are required to act with appropriate decorum. While grievances, complaints, or criticism of arbitration decisions are frequently posted here, you are expected to present them without being rude or hostile. Comments that are uncivil may be removed without warning. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb closed

[edit]
Original announcement

How does Arbcom envision the "are considered a single user" element functioning? If one of them engages in edit warring, do all three get blocked? This would be preposterous, but that seems to be what they're saying; this really should have been written in a different manner. Nyttend (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is the second sentence: The three-revert rule applies to reverts by all three editors and, where they participate in discussions together, they are required to disclose this restriction and their arguments should be treated as though they were advanced by a single user. I hope "don't block editor A because of something editor B did" goes without saying. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but would the responses to the following theoretical situations be correct:
  1. Within 24 hours, Editor A makes 4 reverts on one article. Editors B and C don't make any reverts on the article. Editor A is blocked for edit warring, but not Editors B or C.
  2. Within 24 hours, Editor A makes 2 reverts and Editor B makes 2 more reverts on the same article. Editor C doesn't make any reverts on the article. Editors A and B are blocked but not Editor C.
  3. Within 24 hours, all on the same article, Editor A makes 2 reverts, Editor B and C each make one revert. All three are blocked.
Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 03:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming that blocking (as opposed to, say, a warning or protecting the page) would be appropriate, that sounds correct to me. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would that allow for some mutually assured destruction? In the above scenario 2, editor A hasn't broken any rules yet, but editor B can retroactively cause the reverts to break 3RR, thereby causing editor A to get sanctioned as well. --rchard2scout (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Repeatedly reverting is still edit warring, so editor A has already engaged in misbehavior. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 13:19, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
3RR isn't the only way to edit war, but I don't think it's fair to say from the 2nd and 3rd hypos that A has per se edit warred – making two reverts within 24h is sometimes edit warring, but it isn't always or even most of the time. I think Epicgenius is asking about a scenario like one of these:
  1. Editor A writes a 100-word comment in a discussion limited to 500 words. A week later, editor B writes a 450-word comment; both editors A and B have violated the word limit restriction.
  2. Editors A and B are under a joint balanced editing restriction. Editor A makes 2 edits to the topic area. A week later, editor B makes enough edits in the topic area to put their percentage above 33%. Both A and B have violated the BER.
  3. Editor A reverts an edit to one section of a page. Later in the day, editor B reverts someone else three times in a different section. Both A and B have violated 3RR.
I don't think I'd penalize editor A in any of those scenarios; edits should be judged based on the circumstances at the time the edit was made. If A and B were actively coordinating in any of those scenarios, that'd be a different story, but it'd also just be a policy violation on entirely separate grounds. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:40, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and @HouseBlaster Yeah, essentially that's what I was asking. Would the first editor to make reverts be sanctioned if the 3RR violation was caused by the other editors who jumped in subsequently, even if the first editor has disengaged? Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 01:21, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I could've been more clear that Editor A didn't break 3RR, so I wouldn't sanction them for 3RR violations. What I was trying to say is that, if a warning wouldn't be appropriate, editor A could still be blocked for edit warring, which we all know is more strict than 3RR. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] So if I'm one of these people, and I revert someone on an affected page, how does that work? The other people (even aside from M.Bitton's ban) will be sanctioned if they revert in conditions that would lead to sanctions for me if I reverted? Nyttend (talk) 03:21, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The other people (even aside from M.Bitton's ban) will be sanctioned if they revert in conditions that would lead to sanctions for me if I reverted is correct. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I wasn't joking when I asked about blocking A for B's action. This wording sounds very much like a claim of sockpuppetry (not surprised that Izno referred to a portion of that policy) without explicitly saying that they're sockpuppets. Nyttend (talk) 03:23, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"Considered a single user" is a reference to the last paragraph of WP:SHARE. Izno (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A previous case with a similar remedy would I believe be [1] although only involving two editors not three and enacted by motion. Nil Einne (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Believe that's where we got the idea from, yes. Elli (talk | contribs) 05:42, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I knew this remedy sounded familiar; I just couldn't remember what case it was tried in. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 05:50, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • The decision not to designate a CTOP is unexpected, although I understand the rationales given. While the entire topic area was effectively controlled by a small group for years, it was also true that there was disruption from other individuals with different views. The unfamiliarity with much of the editor base with the region that has been suggested as a reason this situation arose has not been changed. This case strangely coincides (or not strangely, maybe that contributed to editing in some way) with the Western Sahara issue entering a period of activity after being largely frozen for a couple of decades, so if we don't want to end up back here it is perhaps a topic that could use more community eyes. CMD (talk) 07:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I provided evidence of the topic area being subject to off-wiki co-ordination for many years. I don't know why that wasn't taken onboard when considering whether it would be designated a CTOP. TarnishedPathtalk 12:33, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't speak for other arbs but I certainly considered it (Skitash also submitted some off-wiki evidence). I'm just reticent to add yet another CTOP unless we have to. I don't want it to become the default remedy for any problem. But I would be sympathetic to an ARCA request if there's evidence that the problems have continued in a way that can't be dealt with through normal community mechanisms. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:53, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    A problem with adding another CTOP is that it pushes more onto the already overburdened AE system. There are more Arbs than admins regularly working CTOP/AE. It's nice for them to have more tools when dealing with problem topics, but there is a limit to volunteer time to handle that which we're clearly already beyond. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I also considered it. I don't see how a CT would help deal with off-wiki coordination. Admins don't need a CT to semi-protect a page for two weeks while waiting for the Twitter/Reddit outrage machine to move on to bigger and better things. For the more complex cases, admins still can't do off-wiki investigations per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 14:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins don't need a CT to semi-protect a page for two weeks while waiting for the Twitter/Reddit outrage machine to move on to bigger and better things.
    I provided links to discussions going back 4 or 5 years to actors who were stating that they were actively engaged in edit warring. TarnishedPathtalk 14:12, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Those would fall under the more complex cases that, under BLOCKEVIDENCE, can't be addressed by admins (regardless of whether there is a CT). Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:10, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    One thing I would note is that when it comes to WP:RFPP there doesn't seem to be a persistent pattern of protection requests due to disruption in the Maghreb topic area. (There was a brief surge for disruption in West Central Africa around the start of the case, but that seems to have subsided). That said, Arbcom isn't the only means of imposing sanctions; if there's continual ongoing disruption, the community can impose its own general sanctions (as was done at WP:GS/ACAS and WP:GS/WX recently). - The Bushranger One ping only 00:05, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I already said my piece at the Workshop, but I don't think such a remedy was merited, and if it turns out this is wrong and a CTOP designation really is necessary, it can be added later easily and speedily. Lots of topics have new editors making questionable edits, nationalists or POV-pushers, sockpuppets, etc. That's just business-as-usual on Wikipedia. What made the Maghreb topic tough was certain very active editors being bad actors and likely making bad behavior worse via aggressively chasing off potentially well-meaning, good faith editors with aggressive reverting and edit wars leading to desperation from some that this is how Wikipedia works. If we had 2-3 very active editors in some different domain with similar bad behavior (say some sport), then we might see a lot of havoc there, but all that needs to happen are bans / topic bans to be handed out. It doesn't mean that the topic itself is poisoned. SnowFire (talk) 18:00, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    This strikes me as similar to the reinstatement of LGV's contentious topic regime after it had been rescinded. WP:WikiProject World's Oldest People went right back to disruption after it was rescinded, forcing ArbCom to put it back in force after the better part of a year. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 19:04, 29 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would you choose "WP:RBK" instead of using the actual name of the thing, "rollback"... That's a shortcut I've never seen before and it seems a poor choice for a formal announcement. Toadspike [Talk] 08:00, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this, especially since the actual remedy pipes the link to say "rollback". SuperPianoMan9167 (talk) 12:29, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how that happened. I wrote it with the piped link. I've piped it on the noticeboard. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:46, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yaaay more fuckups woooooooo. I had to reword the sentence to make {{user}} behave with the apostrophe so I missed that on my proofread. Apologies for the unprofessionalism. Pennecaster (Chat with Senne) 22:11, 28 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/2026 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Cases/All still uses "WP:RBK". GiftedIceCream 13:29, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    GiftedIceCream 14:33, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat closed

[edit]
Original announcement
There's currently still a section Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat#Final decision (none_yet) on the case page. William Avery (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved. DatGuyTalkContribs 14:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I genuinely don't know how the square the votes on the respective indefs without coming to the conclusion that Being Right and Focusing On Content is enough. Parabolist (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My read (as a recused arb, so looking in from the outside rather than explaining from the inside) is that the various restrictions are intended to refocus SC on his content work, which we want to keep, and guard against the conduct we don't want. And that a substantial but time-limited ban makes it clear that there are consequences that can't be avoided by waiting a few days or a friendly admin unblocking you and that the restrictions that will be in force when he returns are a last-chance saloon. It's unfortunate for Dronebogus that he got caught in the crossfire but I don't think a fifth restriction would have turned him into a productive editor. YMMV. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:20, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes. The fact that one party gets "restrictions [...] intended to refocus SC on his content work", to me, indicates that Focusing On Content Is Enough (to get you bespoke restrictions instead of an indef.) By their own admission, some arbs seemed to think the chance of recidivism by both parties was incredibly high, enough to be nearly inevitable, but worked much harder to make sure the prolific content editor had a way to stay onsite. I attach no moral valence to this, and it's certainly not a defense of Dronebogus, it just seems to fly in the face of the principles they simultaneously voted on. Parabolist (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, we're a goal-oriented community. I would hope that ArbCom and the community would work to keep someone doing good work that supports our goal while curbing disruption they cause (this of course requires the problem editor to want to curb the disruption, as I hope SC does). Dronebogus was not a troll or a vandal here to tear down everything we've built, but if we boxed him into a corner where he wasn't getting into silly fights he still (in my opinion) was not going to meaningfully contribute to our goal.
These are actually good examples of opposite problems that goal-oriented communities face—what do with members who a) don't contribute to the goal but aren't (intentionally) harming it or b) contribute heavily to the goal but cause problems. This won't be the last case like this that ArbCom has to wrestle with. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Harry, I had been awaiting your comments at the PD talk page. Well, the outcome, i.e. final decisions, was hardly surprising, considering the nature and other aspects of the whole case.
Well, hardly surprised that stuff regarding drive-by filings weren't addressed. Considering that Maghreb case was also ongoing and the filing party's apology in the Evidence talk page, I guess that's understandable.
What's more surprising, Harry, was your (implicit?) silence-is-golden approach there... Probably not that "surprising", but... (don't know how else to describe this except... "subtle"?). Anyways, can't help wonder what the odds of drive-by requests → full case have been... and drive-by requests → motion (in lieu of full case) and how both cases scenarios will be after this. George Ho (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2026 (UTC); modified, 19:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Even as someone who supports his indef, I think describing Dronebogus as an editor who could not "meaningfully contribute to our goal" is why you were unable to see the problem with Schrocats edits, respectfully. He wasn't as prolific or as decorated, but denying that Dronebogus' gnoming wasn't contributing to the goal of the wiki is the kind of arrogance that drove a lot of the sanctionable conduct from the other parties. And that's really all I have to say on that front. Parabolist (talk) 00:20, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is a view that is, to a greater or lesser extent, held by quite a lot of featured content writers that writing good or featured content is the pinnacle of contribution to the encyclopaedia and those who engage in it are the elite class (for want of a better term). As an arb and vandal fighter as well as featured content writer, Harry is well aware that featured content is not the only way to add value to the project but there is still sometimes a slight hint of "content writers are more valuable than gnomes". Thryduulf (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As the Arbs noted, Dronebogus had a habit of taking their show to a wider audience when they got topic-banned. Much like with BHG, Ryulong, and Δ, recidivism is a very good way to get ArbCom to consider 86'ing you off the site. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 18:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Ryulong is a good example of that, since that case was Arbcom actively supporting harassment of Wikipedia editors by outside groups and then, after the fact, having some arbs say "well, we can't really consider off-wiki evidence" and other arbs saying "wait, what are you talking about, of course we do". And then Arbcom largely as a whole blaming the community for not preventing the harassment themselves or being able to psychically tell what private evidence has been sent to them. The Gamergate case remains the perfect example even over a decade later of the absolute failings of Arbcom as an institution. But at least the community was able to after the fact, no thanks to Arbcom, deal with the articles in question despite ongoing heavy harassment and doxing. SilverserenC 18:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Ryulong did actually have a prior case which centred around doxxing, both him and a rival doing it towards each other. Just because he's only in the hock for stealing bread instead of murder in GG doesn't make him completely faultless. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 18:37, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I was there so I can say with absolute confidence that SS's comment is a huge oversimplification. Ryulong suffered some awful harassment that I wouldn't for a moment want to diminish (I did a lot of oversighting back then, for the record). But he was also belligerent, uncommunicative and incapable of distinguishing good-faith criticism from harassment. Given his history, which included a temporary siteban from a previous case, a ban was inevitable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:03, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the real world impact of that case's decision was it showing the GGers that their harassment of editors off-wiki, combined with using the sealion strategy on-wiki, and causing the editors to get angry and upset about it on-wiki is a successful strategy. And their immediate response to the case result was to draw up plans for harassing the other main editors in the topic area, which I also pointed out in the discussion back then. And the response, as usual, was "but it's off-wiki". SilverserenC 19:11, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm.... Gamergate case and SchroCat case: tag-teaming and civility. Difference? Very, very huge circus (not to mention media) and huge gender gapping displayed (Gamergate); single user and certain several individuals involved with him (SchroCat). Perhaps I may have understood Silverseren's (implicit?) bitterness toward ArbCom. George Ho (talk) 19:24, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, the Ryulong siteban was far and away the most criticised aspect of GG. I even thought that Ryulong got screwed back then. But since I started my Arbitration-related projects and had a good look at Ryulong's prior case, I've concluded the only thing inappropriate about Ryulong's siteban in GG is the optics. Yes, he was harassed, but there were serious issues with Ryulong's conduct in RL (centred on WP:WikiProject Tokusatsu) that continued into GG (centred on gender-related disputes), and given the locus of GG looks very similar to the locus of RL there was no chance Ryulong was coming out the other side of GG with anything less than a siteban. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 04:53, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Parabolist I raised a similar sentiment and TLC left a thoughtful reply on why, for her, it's not sending those messages. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it depends on whether you think "Focusing on Content is enough" and "Focusing on Content is not enough" are the only two options. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking that, as a matter of conduct, being right is not enough, and that's independent of one's content abilities. But it's not only reasonable, but appropriate, to consider the potential for benefit to content building when deciding on sanctions. So I can agree with the decision that a more limited sanction makes sense for someone who does very good content work and has a plausible likelihood of improving conduct, whereas a stronger sanction makes sense for someone who has a somewhat lesser likelihood of better content, even if the potential exists, when it's unlikely that we could gain that much in terms of content improvement. "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit" has been a catchy slogan, but as a practical reality it falls short, relative to Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's kind of a shame that BRIE has come to replace principles like WP:A/I/P#Sanctions and circumstances, which made it clear that positive contributions don't excuse misbehavior while still being honest about the fact that they do ultimately play a role in the sanctions calculus. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree. It may not have been the intention, but this decision creates the perception that there are different rules for different people. That perception is precisely why the community was unable to address the problem in the first place. When I recommended bringing this issue to ArbCom, I had hoped it would rise above that apparent double standard. Instead, at nearly every stage, there seemed to be a reluctance to actually resolve the issue. Reviewing the editor's most recent comments, it is difficult to see any outcome other than the inevitable one. Unfortunately, it appears that more of the community's time will be wasted getting there. I wonder how many more editors will be discouraged or driven away before it gets to that point. Nemov (talk) 02:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, @Parabolist, here's the thing: if Dronebogus abides by his (non-ban) restrictions, history teaches us we well get some new problem, one that will take quite a lot of community time and effort to attempt to mitigate. Meanwhile, if SchroCat abides by his restrictions, the SchroCat problem is solved. History teaches us that outcome is unlikely, it's true. But if he'll take the Hail Mary, it's his. If he doesn't - if, given the choice between being an asshole and contributing to Wikipedia, he picks the former - Twinkle makes AE blocks very convenient, these days. -- asilvering (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Half of the cases that reach you come from AE being unable to resolve problems. Arbcom going "AE can solve this" seems directly counter to the world as it is observed. Basically: I'll believe it when I see it. Parabolist (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"AE blocks" doesn't mean "the WP:AE noticeboard handled it". It is a kind of block that is made to enforce an arbitration decision, and it cannot be reversed unilaterally. -- asilvering (talk) 09:09, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. AE blocks and other discretionary sanctions can be made at AN(/I) as well provided there is cause to. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v MUSHROOM 04:45, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Or by any admin who spots AE-blockable behaviour in the wild. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I, a gnome, find it discouraging that we gnomes seem to have been handed a different rope. I confess myself unable to comprehend the key differences between DB’s and SC’s recidivism. Incivility is incivility is incivility. Wikipedia might not be a democracy, but maybe we might recognize contributions to the project that aren’t flashy. Iseult Δx talk to me 18:55, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's unfortunate that any editors are banned :( GoodDay (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FIM is further banned from involving himself in any disputes between other editors Does this basically mean that FIM may not get involved as a third party? Imagine a multilateral dispute, e.g. FIM and one other editor wanted one thing, another editor wanted something else, and a dispute arose. Would it be all right for FIM to engage in normal process (since he's already a party), or does this prohibit him from involvement in anything involving other people, plural? I hope it's the former (seems much simpler), but perhaps Arbcom concluded that he's been disruptive in any interactions with multiple other people, and they don't think he should be involved at all where there's more than one other person.

Also, does This restriction may be appealed six months after the enactment of this remedy, and every six months thereafter apply to the entire bullet (no user-conduct enforcement noticeboards, plus "further banned"), or just to the latter? This should have been clearer. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The former—FIM may not get involved as a third party. The appeal framework applies to the entire remedy. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:25, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@HouseBlaster or any other arb, follow-up question. If FIM is banned from user conduct noticeboards, does this include threads where he is a party (i.e. if he were reported at ANI, would he be disallowed from responding)? Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 02:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It would not per WP:BANEX. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I forgot about that momentarily. D'oh! Thanks though. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 14:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard&oldid=1352872455"