Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement

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

Important information

Shortcuts

Please use this page only to:

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

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of contentious topics restrictions

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

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

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

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

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

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

Changing or revoking a contentious topic restriction

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

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

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

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

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

Standard of review
On community review

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

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

On Arbitration Committee review

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

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

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

Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions

The Arbitration Committee procedures relating to modifications and appeals state:

Appeals by sanctioned editors

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

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

Modifications by administrators

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

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

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

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

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

Important notes:

For a request to succeed, either

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

(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA

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

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

Information for administrators processing requests

Thank you for participating in this area. AE works best if there are a variety of admins bringing their expertise to each case. There is no expectation to comment on every case, and the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) thanks all admins for whatever time they can give.

A couple of reminders:

Before commenting, please familiarise yourself with the referenced ArbCom case. Please also read all the evidence (including diffs) presented in the AE request.
When a request widens to include editors beyond the initial request, these editors must be notified and the notifications recorded in the same way as for the initial editor against whom sanctions were requested. Where some part of the outcome is clear, a partial close may be implemented and noted as "Result concerning X".
Enforcement measures in arbitration cases should be construed liberally to protect Wikipedia and keep it running efficiently. Some of the behaviour described in an enforcement request might not be restricted by ArbCom. However, it may violate other Wikipedia policies and guidelines; you may use administrative discretion to resolve it.
More than one side in a dispute may have ArbCom conduct rulings applicable to them. Please ensure these are investigated.

Closing a thread:

Once an issue is resolved, enclose it between {{hat}} and {{hab}} tags. A bot should archive it in 7 days.
Please consider referring the case to ARCA if the outcome is a recommendation to do so or the issue regards administrator conduct.
You can use the templates {{uw-aeblock}} (for blocks) or {{AE sanction}} (for other contentious topic restrictions) to give notice of sanctions on user talk pages.
Please log sanctions in the Arbitration enforcement log.

Thanks again for helping. If you have any questions, please post on the talk page.

Arbitration enforcement archives

1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40
41	42	43	44	45	46	47	48	49	50	51	52	53	54	55	56	57	58	59	60
61	62	63	64	65	66	67	68	69	70	71	72	73	74	75	76	77	78	79	80
81	82	83	84	85	86	87	88	89	90	91	92	93	94	95	96	97	98	99	100
101	102	103	104	105	106	107	108	109	110	111	112	113	114	115	116	117	118	119	120
121	122	123	124	125	126	127	128	129	130	131	132	133	134	135	136	137	138	139	140
141	142	143	144	145	146	147	148	149	150	151	152	153	154	155	156	157	158	159	160
161	162	163	164	165	166	167	168	169	170	171	172	173	174	175	176	177	178	179	180
181	182	183	184	185	186	187	188	189	190	191	192	193	194	195	196	197	198	199	200
201	202	203	204	205	206	207	208	209	210	211	212	213	214	215	216	217	218	219	220
221	222	223	224	225	226	227	228	229	230	231	232	233	234	235	236	237	238	239	240
241	242	243	244	245	246	247	248	249	250	251	252	253	254	255	256	257	258	259	260
261	262	263	264	265	266	267	268	269	270	271	272	273	274	275	276	277	278	279	280
281	282	283	284	285	286	287	288	289	290	291	292	293	294	295	296	297	298	299	300
301	302	303	304	305	306	307	308	309	310	311	312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320
321	322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340
341	342	343	344

Grandmaster

Closed with advice to both parties. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Request concerning Grandmaster

User who is submitting this request for enforcement: KhndzorUtogh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User against whom enforcement is requested: Grandmaster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Search CT alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3

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

18 March 2023 Grandmaster is placed on indefinite probation, which encourages to impose an indefinite topic ban if the user is found to be edit warring within the area of dispute.
27 January 2024 Grandmaster changes "United Nations in Azerbaijan" to just "United Nations" without a consensus or explaining why, so I restored it.
1 February 2024 Grandmaster reverts "in Azerbaijan" again and 10 minutes later started a talk page discussion, but there was still no consensus to revert this again in the first place.
4 November 2023 Grandmaster missuses a UNHCR source to claim there are no incidents of violence against the Armenian population. The UNHCR source is referring to over a week after the offensive, as explained on the talk page.
3 February 2024 Grandmaster is still making false attributions to UNHCR. Claims the report found no evidence of violence or forceful expulsion, which is a blatant lie contradicted by pages 2 and 17 of the UNHCR report (I will provide quotes below in 'Additional comments').

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

18 February 2022 indefinitely topic-banned from AA2

If contentious topics restrictions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:CTOP#Awareness of contentious topics)

Previously given a discretionary sanction or contentious topic restriction or warned for conduct in the area of conflict on 18 February 2022 by Rosguill (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

On page 2 of the UNHCR Observations on the Human Rights Situation report (which Grandmaster keeps referring to as a "fact-finding mission" despite it never using that phrase), it is stated: "the security and stability in and around the Karabakh region, including the human rights situation of its population, were continuously undermined ... The recent tragic mass displacement of Karabakh Armenians following Azerbaijan’s military action of 19 and 20 September 2023 should be seen in this context." And page 17 states: "the number of wounded civilians exceeded 40 persons, including 13 children, while there were 10 confirmed civilian deaths, including 5 children as of September 20. However, the Ombuds noted that information about casualties was difficult to obtain because of the paralysis of the de facto authorities at that time. The Ombuds also referred to alleged violence and signs of torture/mutilation among the reported 14 dead bodies that were transferred to Armenia".

But somehow Grandmaster is using this source to deny that the Armenian population were victims of violence and forcefully expelled. Since this is not the first time Grandmaster has quoted this source out of context to POV push false claims, as previously pointed out to them, this appears to be intentional, or at least Grandmaster does not read/understand the source states, which is also very disruptive. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 00:49, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScottishFinnishRadish: There have now been multiple incidents of Grandmaster breaking NPOV with just this UNHCR source alone. Another example, here is how Grandmaster interpreted the source:

The Commissioner also stated that all displaced persons have the right to return to their homes, regardless of whether they have been displaced internally or across borders

Here is what the source actually stated:

The Commissioner stressed that recently-displaced Karabakh Armenians in Armenia should be given the possibility of returning in safety and dignity – even if it seems hypothetical for most at the moment

This isn't just a content dispute, it is the deliberate manipulation of sources to publish false information.

And is the removal of this sourced content also POV pushing? Grandmaster removed an accredited peer reviewed academic journal because there was "no consensus among the sources", but did not provide any reliable secondary sources with opposing views. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 23:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see Grandmaster is pointing to different sentence, but the full context of the UNHCR source is the commissioner was speaking hypothetically. Grandmaster nitpicked the source to imply something completely different. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers In earlier incidents of Grandmaster misusing sources to deny the Armenian population was victim of violence, I did not open a case, I just brought it to Grandmaster's attention.[1][2] This was the same with other users who also noticed Grandmaster citing UN sources out of context.[3] Even though it was brought to Grandmaster's attention several times that the sources weren't being accurately reflected, the POV pushing to deny the atrocities did not stop. --KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[4]

Discussion concerning Grandmaster

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Grandmaster

This was my first edit, which was partially reverted by KhndzorUtogh, who said that there was no explanation for it. I rolled it back with an explanation in the edit summary, and I also started a discussion at talk. [5] As one could see from that discussion, we agreed to leave it at "UN in Azerbaijan", and I made no further reverts. So I don't think this is something worth escalating to an AE report, it was just a content dispute that was resolved at talk.

Point 4, I only quoted the UNHCR representative who literally said: "there were no recorded incidents or cases of mistreatment against people on the move". I don't see how accurately quoting a source could be a violation. Btw, this information was removed by KhndzorUtogh [6] without a consensus, despite an RFC on a related page resulting in an overwhelming support for inclusion of the information from the UN. I started another RFC on that page to resolve the dispute. [7]

Point 5, about this comment, indeed, neither the UN, nor CoE Commissioner confirmed any violence against civilian population. KhndzorUtogh selectively quotes the CoE source, trying to present it as something written in the CoE voice, while in reality the CoE commissioner only conveys the information provided by the Ombuds of Armenia, but makes no assessment of the veracity of those claims. KhndzorUtogh omitted the beginning of the sentence, which starts with "She (Ombuds of Armenia) reported that the number of"... The CoE commissioner came to a conclusion that Karabakh Armenian population left because they "found themselves abandoned without any reliable security or protection guarantees by any party". One can see from the discussion on renaming the article that my opinion on the proposed title was shared by other editors as well, as the discussion ended with no consensus on changing the article title to "ethnic cleansing", as KhndzorUtogh proposed. In any case, this was also a content dispute that was resolved at talk. My understanding of the outcome of the recent AE case on KhndzorUtogh is that users are advised against taking every minor disagreement to the AE.

Regarding this edit, KhndzorUtogh actually cites a wrong part of the text, and then accuses me of "deliberate manipulation". The part that I quoted is this:

the Commissioner wishes to reiterate that all persons displaced by the long-lasting conflict have the right to return to their homes or places of habitual residence, regardless of whether they have been displaced internally or across borders. Both Armenia and Azerbaijan have the obligation to ensure that any return is voluntary and that they are carried out under conditions of safety and dignity. See Clause 46 [8]

Regarding this single revert, as was discussed here, there is no consensus among the reliable sources to call this event an ethnic cleansing. It should be demonstrated that "ethnic cleansing" is what the event is generally referred to by the majority of reliable sources to claim it as a fact in the infobox. Grandmaster 08:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KU cites as evidence of my misbehavior his and another user's objections to inclusion of a UN mission report. I started 2 RFCs, where the community disagreed with their arguments. [9] [10] Grandmaster 23:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This situation was actually discussed here: [11] I brought up the issue of stonewalling by KU (and some admins agreed that there was stonewalling), and when FFF asked about my revert, I provided my explanation. I will repeat it here. Some users objected to inclusion of UN mission reports on a related page Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians. I started an RFC on whether the UN information should be included, and the overwhelming community consensus was it should be. Since Flight of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians and 2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh are pretty much the same article split in 2, I believe consensus applies to both articles. When I included the UN info in the second article, it was reverted by BM who stated in his edit summary that its place implies that it serves as a rebuttal to the claim by Manasyan, but its date is wrong for it to do so. As one can see my edit summary, I put all the sources in chronological order, added date to UNHCR report, thinking that it would address his concerns. But when the same user removed the content second time [12], I continued the discussion at talk.

The discussion was stale when I restored the content on 21 December 2023, as no one responded for about a week. The last comment by BM before my revert was on 12 December 2023, and by KU on 15 December 2023. KU claimed that the info was "dated", and when asked which Wikipedia rule requires to use only "up to date" info, KU referred to MOS:DATED, which in fact is not a rule, but a guidance on how to format articles, and it says quite the opposite, that the information needs to be dated precisely. I will leave it to admins to decide whether it was a WP:CIR situation or something else. After he was explained that MOS does not apply here, KU disappears for 7 days. On 20 December 2023 I asked if there were any objections to inclusion of the content. [13] I waited another day, no one responded, and only then I restored the content. Then on 22 December 2023 KU reappears, reverts me and states that he was objecting. In order to resolve the dispute I started a second RFC on the same source that awaits closure. [14] I believe 1 week is a reasonable time to assume that the inclusion of the content gets no objections, and I asked on talk before restoring it. Moreover, I started 2 RFCs to resolve the disputes, despite obvious stonewalling by KU. If 1 week is not sufficient to assume that my edit is not disputed, then what is the advised wait time? Grandmaster 09:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by (username)

Clerk notes

Grandmaster, your comment added here took you over the word limit. Since no one has responded, I removed it. Please feel free to restore a shortened version that stays under the limit, or to request a word limit extension (with an explanation of why it's needed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I trimmed my response to 500 words, if I counted correctly. I hope this resolves the problem. Thank you. Grandmaster 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, and thank you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added a short comment, I hope it won't be a problem if it exceeds my word limit by a few words. Grandmaster 23:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm granting Grandmaster an additional 200 words to respond to the additional diffs I brought up below. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I will provide my explanation for the diffs that you presented soon. Please wait with the decision until I do. Grandmaster 08:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Result concerning Grandmaster

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

I see a lot of daylight between no edit warring probation and a single revert days after the initial edit. This is edit warring probation, not 0RR. The rest looks like a content dispute that should be handled through the normal channels, unless there is much stronger evidence of NPOV violations not presented. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also not seeing a violation here. One single revert is not edit warring. Discussion is happening on the talkpage, and the rest is a content dispute. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's concerning to see KU bring an editing restriction violation case like this. Very recently, a similar case against KU was closed with no sanction, since we generally ask that editors who notice editing restriction violations request a self-reversion. I should hope that KU would extend the grace that has recently been extended to him. I would feel differently if GM had a pattern of violations, but we have not presented with evidence of that. I may have more thoughts later, still digging through some diffs. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:10, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've almost finished digging and have some evidence I'd like to present soon. Should be up within 9 hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree fully with FFF above. I am slightly confused as to why neither GM's 2022 TBAN nor its lifting can be found in the AE log, but I assume that if that TBAN was still in place someone would have mentioned it. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing a series of actions by GM that concern me.
1. 09:45, 4 November: GM adds a statement from a UNHCR official
2. 11:11, 4 November: GM restores the info, it having been reverted an hour earlier by another editor (this is KU's fourth diff, btw)
3. Soon after #2, the other editor starts Talk:2023 Azerbaijani offensive in Nagorno-Karabakh/Archive 3#United Nations Refugee Agency statement to discuss the disputed content, and multiple editors—including GM—participate over the next several weeks
4. 09:58, 21 December 2023: GM restores the content with the edit summary "Restoring per talk"
The talk page discussion as of #4 looked like this. Two editors (including GM) supported the content, and two opposed it, so it's not clear that consensus supported the addition. Therefore, I have some questions for the other responding admins:
1. Is this edit warring?
2. If so, is it too stale to enact ArbCom's suggested sanction?
3. If so, is any other action warranted to discourage this conduct in the future?
I'm at A) yes, B) not sure, and C) I have some ideas about if we say yes to B. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will note this comment from 20 December, where Grandmaster stated that they were going to restore the content. The user waited about a day, and nobody objected. I'm not persuaded that this is edit warring in the sense of trying to change the page through sheer number of edits, and I don't think the ArbCom suggested sanction is applicable here as such. With respect to FireFangledFeathers's question is any other action warranted to discourage this conduct in the future, I think that some cordial advice along the lines of what we gave KU in the prior thread might be the way to go. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:53, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok! My thought is to give advice along the lines of "Reverting more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, can be considered edit warring. Given the heavy penalty that awaits any finding of edit warring, such actions are best done when consensus is clearly in your favor." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds ok, though I do have some tweaks as follows:
When your edits in this topic area are challenged, you should continue to open up discussions on the talk page to resolve non-trivial disputes. When those discussions do not clearly attain consensus one way or the other, please be mindful that you should not make edits to enforce your preferred version, as this can be considered edit warring even when some time has passed since a discussion's start. Given the heavy penalty that awaits you following any finding of edit warring, you are advised to not make reverts that restore your preferred version in these sorts of situations, except when consensus among discussion participants is clearly in your favor.
How does this sound to you?
— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I also plan to give KU advice along the lines of "it would be great not to see you around AE anytime soon". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we not get into Arbcom-style statement crafting, please? I think "don't restore an edit until there's consensus" will get the same point across. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine too. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both proposals actually go a bit further than I had intended. I think it's fine for GM to boldly add or remove content, and I think it's permissible (though not great) for him to revert once when it's challenged. It's the second revert that makes it seem edit warry to me, implicating the "a series of back-and-forth reverts" and "repeatedly override each other's contributions" parts of the policy. If we're looking for brevity, I could shorten my proposal to
Don't revert more than once to your preferred version of content, even if some time has passed, unless you have clear consensus.
Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:47, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GM's most recent response (which doubly exceeded the allotted words), does not change my view here. Pinging The Wordsmith and Vanamonde93 to see if they have further thoughts, and to see if they would be okay with an "advice only" close. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:12, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still works for me. I'm not convinced that either party is doing the best they could to hash things out on the talk page, but it's difficult to fault someone for being bolder than they ought when their opposite number isn't engaging. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:51, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also comfortable with an advisory closure here, and I'd prefer it include advice for the filer as well per your earlier statement. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 04:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal request by GoodDay

Appeal request by GoodDay (talk)

Statement by GoodDay

I understand the mistakes I made & certainly recognise that the topic-in-general is indeed contentious. Should administrators chose to lift my t-ban from GenSex? I can easily promise, it's a topic area I will not be combative in (editing pages & posting at talkpages) & would refrain from commenting on other editors. If any questions, please feel free to ping me. GoodDay (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal request by GoodDay

Statement by (uninvolved editor 1)

Statement by (uninvolved editor 2)

Result of the appeal request by GoodDay

[1] The administrator may indicate consent at any time before, during, or after imposition of the restriction.

[2] This criterion does not apply if the original action was imposed as a result of rough consensus at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, as there would be no single enforcing administrator.

[a]

[b]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards