Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Proposed decision

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Main case page (Talk) — Preliminary statements (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Target dates: Opened 6 August 2024 • Evidence closes 20 August 2024 • Workshop closes 27 August 2024 • Proposed decision to be posted by 3 September 2024

Scope: Conduct in the topic area of historical elections.

Case clerks: HouseBlaster (Talk) & SilverLocust (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & Aoidh (Talk) & Z1720 (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

After considering /Evidence and discussing proposals with other arbitrators, parties, and editors at /Workshop, arbitrators may make proposals which are ready for voting. Arbitrators will vote for or against each provision, or they may abstain. Only items which are supported by an absolute majority of the active, non-recused arbitrators will pass into the final decision. Conditional votes and abstentions will be denoted as such by the arbitrator, before or after their time-stamped signature. For example, an arbitrator can state that their support vote for one provision only applies if another provision fails to pass (these are denoted as "first" and "second choice" votes). Only arbitrators and clerks may edit this page, but non-arbitrators may comment on the talk page.

For this case there are 8 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0 5
1–2 4
3–4 3

If observing editors notice any discrepancies between the arbitrators' tallies and the final decision or the #Implementation notes, you should post to the clerk talk page. Similarly, arbitrators may request clerk assistance via the same method, or via the clerks' mailing list.

Proposed motions

Arbitrators may place proposed motions affecting the case in this section for voting. Typical motions might be to close or dismiss a case without a full decision (a reason should normally be given). Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Motions require an absolute majority of all active, unrecused arbitrators (same as the final decision). See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Motions to dismiss.

Template

1) {text of proposed motion}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed temporary injunctions

A temporary injunction is a directive from the Arbitration Committee that parties to the case, or other editors notified of the injunction, do or refrain from doing something while the case is pending. It can also be used to impose temporary sanctions (such as discretionary sanctions) or restrictions on an article or topic. Suggestions by the parties or other non-arbitrators for motions or other requests should be placed on the /Workshop page for consideration and discussion.

Four net "support" votes needed to pass (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support")
24 hours from the first vote is normally the fastest an injunction will be imposed, unless there are at least four votes to implement immediately. See Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Passing of temporary injunctions.

Template

1) {text of proposed orders}

Support:
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content online encyclopedia. This is best achieved in an atmosphere of collegiality, camaraderie, and mutual respect among contributors.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Off-wiki communication

2) While discussion of Wikipedia and editing in channels outside of Wikipedia itself (such as IRC, mailing lists, or web forums) is unavoidable and generally appropriate, using external channels for coordination of activities that, on-wiki, would be inappropriate is also improper.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Presumption of coordination

3) When a group of editors consistently and repeatedly participate in the same discussions to support the same point of view — especially when many or most of the members of that group had little or no prior participation in the underlying dispute — it is reasonable to presume that they could be coordinating their actions. Evaluation of consensus in particularly divisive or controversial cases needs to carefully weigh the possibility and avoid ascribing too much weight to the number of participants in a discussion — especially when policy enforcement or sanctions are considered.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Ownership of content

4) Wikipedia pages and topic areas do not have owners that control content or edits to them, inclusive of both individual editors and groups of enthusiasts about a topic. Instead, content is determined by the community at-large and governed by community consensus.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Consensus

5) Wikipedia relies on consensus as its fundamental editorial process. Consensus develops from agreement of the parties involved. To ensure transparency, consensus cannot be formed except on Wikipedia discussion pages. "Off-wiki" discussions, such as those taking place on other websites, on web forums, or on IRC, are not taken into account when determining consensus. Further, a consensus among a limited group of editors does not override wider community consensus.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Edit warring

6) Edit warring is disruptive and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Support:
  1. Cabayi (talk) 12:00, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The three-revert rule is one of the most commonly misinterpreted policy sections Wikipedia has, together with the definition of "vandalism" and the magic "status quo". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:59, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed findings of fact

Area of conflict

1) The area of conflict that this case centers on is the results of contemporary and historic elections and how they are displayed in tables, infoboxes, and prose on the English Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Election Twitter (background)

2) Election Twitter is a community of dedicated enthusiasts interested in the area of conflict that mostly communicates with each other on X. Some, but not all, of the regular posters also edit the English Wikipedia.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I did not know this until this case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Election Twitter (ownership)

3) Actions by many participants in Election Twitter show a pattern of attempting to enforce ownership over the area of conflict.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. While you're welcome to join the Wikipedia community and share your ideas on articles you're interested in, you don't get to bludgeon your preferences in. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per HJ; there's nothing wrong with an offsite group interested in a topic with a presence on site, the problem comes when trying to force changes. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Locus of the dispute

4) Beginning in 2023, several Wikipedia editors have made edits to historical election results that participants of Election Twitter disagree with. Since then, Election Twitter has responded to such edits in the area of conflict with rounds of harassment, canvasing of discussions, and group edit warring.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Talleyrand6

5) Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs) was blocked by Guerillero on 17 June 2024 for "Disruptive editing, edit warring, and off-site canvasing" related to the area of conflict. The block was assumed by the Arbitration Committee on 22 June.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While I am named in the FoF as the blocking CU, I don't disagree with any part of this. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 11:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yep... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Anonymousioss

6) Anonymousioss (talk · contribs) participated in off-site harassment and improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is well supported by the evidence. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. More on the offsite coordination side-- lots of evidence about trying to "win" disputes". Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

CroatiaElects

7) CroatiaElects (talk · contribs) participated in improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is a milder finding than above because the conduct is less severe, or at least less personally targeted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

CroatiaElects (alternative finding)

7b) CroatiaElects (talk · contribs) participated in off-site harassment and improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Their X account is disclosed on their userpage, too-- think this finding is more accurate but I don't have a preference. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice to 7 above. - Aoidh (talk) 15:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I don't think the evidence shows harassment. Z1720 (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't feel the conduct reaches thew high bar to be discribed as harassment --Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:58, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

DemocraticLuntz

8) DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs) participated in improper off-site coordination and edit warred at San Bernardino County, California.

Support:
  1. The off-site coordination referred to here is not the same discussion DemocraticLuntz mentioned during the evidence phase. - Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Aoidh. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Mcleanm302

9) Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs) participated in improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC) Second choice to 9b.Aoidh (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice to 9b. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. The most clearcut improper conduct and personal attacks, from what I saw. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
After reviewing the evidence again, I think I should have added harassment here --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and I (strongly) believe we should describe harassment as such, especially if we do so for the other parties' conduct. Not doing so could easily be interpreted as a statement saying "this party's conduct is improper, but not harassment". ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mcleanm302 (alternative finding)

9b) Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs) participated in off-site harassment and improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. First choice. - Aoidh (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. First choice --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, this should have been added from the start. Z1720 (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No preference between this and the other. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:
Adding this per Moneytrees and Guerillero in proposed finding 9) above. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Contentious topic

1.1) The results of any national or sub-national election are a Contentious Topic.

Support:
  1. We received evidence that at least a half dozen additional individuals were involved in one of the several rounds of coordination. Some edited the project and others did not. CT will allow for admins to better respond to future coordinated disruption within the topic area. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:03, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Given the nature of the issues presented in the evidence we have received, the restrictions afforded by a CTOP designation would not be effective enough in dealing with those issues to warrant making election results a contentious topic, should those issues continue. - Aoidh (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This would probably not have prevented anything that led to bans in this case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this is reasonable, but Aoidh and Tbf make good points as why this isn't needed. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. More thoughts in 1.2. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. prefer the sunset version. Cabayi (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:
I think this is too broad. This must be thousands, if not tens of thousands, of articles, most of which have no problems. I'd support something that perhaps allowed admins to declare individual articles or groups of articles contentious (subject to ArbCom review) or some other way of triggering restrictions in a more targeted manner. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HJ Mitchell: I would point out that the CT being just for the results of elections is much more narrow than the topic bans proposed below -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contentious topic (with sunset)

1.2) The results of any national or sub-national election are a Contentious Topic. Starting in 2026 and checked yearly afterwards, this designation expires on 1 January if no sanctions have been logged in the preceding 2 years.

Support:
  1. I like the idea of CTs having sunset clauses, to help automate the removal of CTs when no longer necessary. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. We received evidence that at least a half dozen additional individuals were involved in one of the several rounds of coordination. Some edited the project and others did not. CT will allow for admins to better respond to future coordinated disruption within the topic area. The sunset clause would address some of the worry that the committee is passing along technical debit to future committees by disabling itself without a motion. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this is a better approach for "testing" this out. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The longer I am on the Committee the more I feel that we sometimes hedge our bets too much, mainly because of the long-lasting impact DS/CTOP have on the community. This area is a mildly contentious topic now, and we need to empower admins with the tools to deal with it, but the Committee should not need to be repealing this in (for example) five years time when it has not been needed for three of those years. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Cabayi (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Per my oppose in 1.1. - Aoidh (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Aoidh. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I prefer the sunset version but I just feel this is too draconian. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Election Twitter reminded

2) The regular posters on X who associate with Election Twitter are reminded that there is no ownership of articles on the English Wikipedia. They are encouraged to seek consensus on the article talk page, use dispute resolution when they encounter disagreements and refrain from off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Absolutely. Make your case, concisely and civilly. Sometimes you'll win, sometimes you lose but in the long term you'll get further than with brute force. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No hate or anything though, it's just how the site works... don't be underhanded in trying to get what you want. It's a lesson a lot of internet communities have learned over the last few decades. I also understand that the behavioral expectations on Twitter/X are a lot different than Wikipedia's; I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, but when it comes to Wikipedia, what might be expected or innocuous on Twitter becomes a problem. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Cabayi (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Talleyrand6 (site ban)

3) The Arbitration Committee block of Talleyrand6 is converted to an indefinite ban from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Doesn't make much of a difference but might as well. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Anonymousioss (admonish)

4.1) Anonymousioss is admonished for off-site harassment and improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. Second choice to the topic ban (4.2). - Aoidh (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not completely sold on a ban but I want more than a Tban, so I'll support this. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice (support if no ban passes). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Second choice to 4.2. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Too weak for the improper off-site coordination evidence presented to the community. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Insufficient --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Anonymousioss (topic ban)

4.2) Anonymousioss is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. At a minimum --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Easy to support unfortunately, given the several instances of offsite canvassing. Criticizing article content and such is one thing, but canvassing is another. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Anonymousioss (site ban)

4.3) Anonymousioss is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The use of harassment to win content disputes is a severe behavioral issue that is unlikely to be restricted to one specific topic area, even if we have yet only seen it happen in one topic area. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per TBF. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 09:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. The conduct is just short of this for me for now. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I only saw evidence of disruption in one topic area, therefore I think a topic ban will solve the problem. If disruption continues in other areas, I would be more likely to support a site ban proposal in the future. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TBAN seems sufficient. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

CroatiaElects (admonish)

5.1) CroatiaElects is admonished for participating in improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. Second choice to 5.2. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to the topic ban (5.2). - Aoidh (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice (support if no ban passes). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Similar to 4.1: too weak. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too weak I think. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Insufficient --Guerillero Parlez Moi 08:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Insufficient. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

CroatiaElects (topic ban)

5.2) CroatiaElects is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Would've been a straightforward ANI discussion if this was all on wiki, I would guess. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

CroatiaElects (site ban)

5.3) CroatiaElects is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Given the uncivil conduct and poor editing, I'm inclined to support unfortunately. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. I only saw evidence of disruption in one topic area, therefore I think a topic ban will solve the problem. If disruption continues in other areas, I would be more likely to support a site ban proposal in the future. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

DemocraticLuntz (admonish)

6.1) DemocraticLuntz is admonished participating in improper off-site coordination and edit warring.

Support:
  1. Second choice to 6.2. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to the topic ban (6.2). - Aoidh (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. How I'm feeling at this time; conduct doesn't raise to a Tban from what I've seen, but deserves a warning. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Similar to 4.1: too weak. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Too weak --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

DemocraticLuntz (topic ban)

6.2) DemocraticLuntz is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:50, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 06:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Z below Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. Feels a bit excessive; I could support one of six months maybe, but 12 feels too much. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
  1. I understand why this ban might be a desirable response to off-wiki canvassing and joining an edit war in coordination. The amount of time and work needed to deal with such behavior might justify sanctions that would otherwise seem excessive when someone is caught. To me personally, the evidence is insufficient for supporting a topic ban. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comments:

DemocraticLuntz (site ban)

6.3) DemocraticLuntz is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
Oppose:
  1. While the editor engaged in canvassing via improper off-wiki coordination, I don't believe a site ban is a proportional response to the evidence. - Aoidh (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This would clearly be excessive. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Way too harsh. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per those above. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I only saw evidence of disruption in one topic area, therefore I think a topic ban will solve the problem. If disruption continues in other areas, I would be more likely to support a site ban proposal in the future. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TBAN seems adequate, Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Mcleanm302 (admonish)

7.1) Mcleanm302 is admonished for participating in improper off-site coordination.

Support:
  1. Second choice to 7.2. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
  1. This is not a sufficient remedy for the nature of the off-site coordination that took place. - Aoidh (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Similar to 4.1: too weak. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Not needed I think. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too weak --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I find myself on the TBAN/BAN remedies. Cabayi (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain:
Comments:

Mcleanm302 (topic ban)

7.2) Mcleanm302 is topic banned from national and sub-national elections. This restriction may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Primefac (talk) 20:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Z1720 (talk) 17:49, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. At a minimum --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:
Abstain:
Comments:

Mcleanm302 (site ban)

7.3) Mcleanm302 is indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. This ban may be appealed twelve months after the enactment of this remedy, and every twelve months thereafter.

Support:
  1. Aoidh (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If this was all said and done on wiki, I think an individual admin could have indefinitely blocked uncontroversially-- pretty unnecessary attacks, directed at more than one editor, along with blatant canvassing. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Primefac (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The personal attacks I saw in the evidence warrant this solution, even if it was in response to one topic area. Z1720 (talk) 18:28, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:


Abstain:
Comments:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  2. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  3. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  4. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Discussion by Arbitrators

General

Motion to close

Implementation notes

Clerks and Arbitrators should use this section to clarify their understanding of the final decision—at a minimum, a list of items that have passed. Additionally, a list of which remedies are conditional on others (for instance a ban that should only be implemented if a mentorship should fail), and so on. Arbitrators should not pass the motion to close the case until they are satisfied with the implementation notes.

These notes were last updated by automatic template check; the last edit to this page was on 18:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC) by HouseBlaster.

Proposed Principles
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Purpose of Wikipedia 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Off-wiki communication 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Presumption of coordination 8 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Ownership of content 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Consensus 8 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Edit warring 8 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Findings of Fact
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1 Area of conflict 8 0 0 PASSING ·
2 Election Twitter (background) 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Election Twitter (ownership) 8 0 0 PASSING ·
4 Locus of the dispute 8 0 0 PASSING ·
5 Talleyrand6 8 0 0 PASSING ·
6 Anonymousioss 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7 CroatiaElects 8 0 0 PASSING ·
7b CroatiaElects (alternative finding) 4 3 0 NOT PASSING 1
8 DemocraticLuntz 8 0 0 PASSING ·
9 Mcleanm302 8 0 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass Cannot pass because a competing proposal is passing
9b Mcleanm302 (alternative finding) 6 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Remedies
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
1.1 Contentious topic 1 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
1.2 Contentious topic (with sunset) 5 3 0 PASSING ·
2 Election Twitter reminded 8 0 0 PASSING ·
3 Talleyrand6 (site ban) 8 0 0 PASSING ·
4.1 Anonymousioss (admonish) 4 3 0 NOT PASSING 1 Cannot pass because a competing proposal is passing
4.2 Anonymousioss (topic ban) 7 0 0 PASSING ·
4.3 Anonymousioss (site ban) 5 3 0 PASSING ·
5.1 CroatiaElects (admonish) 3 4 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
5.2 CroatiaElects (topic ban) 7 0 0 PASSING ·
5.3 CroatiaElects (site ban) 6 1 0 PASSING ·
6.1 DemocraticLuntz (admonish) 4 3 0 NOT PASSING 1 Cannot pass because a competing proposal is passing
6.2 DemocraticLuntz (topic ban) 5 1 1 PASSING ·
6.3 DemocraticLuntz (site ban) 0 7 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7.1 Mcleanm302 (admonish) 1 5 0 NOT PASSING Cannot pass
7.2 Mcleanm302 (topic ban) 6 0 0 PASSING ·
7.3 Mcleanm302 (site ban) 6 0 0 PASSING ·
Proposed Enforcement
Number Proposal Name Support Oppose Abstain Status Support needed Notes
0 Enforcement of restrictions 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
0 Appeals and modifications 0 0 0 PASSING · Passes by default
Notes


Vote

Important: Please ask the case clerk to author the implementation notes before initiating a motion to close, so that the final decision is clear.

Four net "support" votes (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support") or an absolute majority are needed to close the case. The arbitration clerks will close the case 24 hours after the fourth net support vote has been cast, or faster if an absolute majority of arbitrators vote to fast-track the close.

Support
  1. It looks like 7b is still up in the air but since 7a is passing we might as well start moving towards a close. Primefac (talk) 10:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aoidh (talk) 15:08, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 15:32, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Z1720 (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cabayi (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Comments
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical_elections/Proposed_decision&oldid=1245561489"