Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Wbm1058's concerns about ToBeFree

I'm confused by this wording under Important information>Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions:

"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)."

What kinds of non-CTOP individual admin actions require explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator to modify? I mean, I default to at least pinging the blocking admin, can't remember when I've ever not at least done that, and if they completely object, I'm done unless it looks like a clear case for XRV, but I didn't know there were non-CTOP blocks placed by an individual admin that I needed explicit prior affirmative consent. Valereee (talk) 13:53, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:NM, I think I've figured it out. This is for non-CTOPs arbcom remedies, which confusingly enough includes ARBPIA5, which I would have assumed fell under Arab-Israeli conflict, a CTOP, but which is something different and subject to a whole different set of rules. Yow, this shit's complicated. Valereee (talk) 15:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

::Anyone have an objection to me changing "Appeals and administrator modifications of non-contentious topics sanctions" to "Appeals and administrator modifications of other arbcom sanctions" to make this less confusing? Valereee (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I've made that change. Valereee (talk) 15:33, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

{{hat|1={{nobold|1=Asked and answered. Let's keep this from duplicating the noticeboard thread. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:59, 23 March 2025 (UTC)}}}}

Is sexual assault covered by WP:GENSEX? In Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#FMSky, the opening statement covers both. Daisy Blue (talk) 08:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:To the extent that it is related to gender-related disputes or controversies, yes. Most modern high-profile sexual assaults are at least adjacent to that topic, and if they get any coverage beyond true-crime stuff, there will usually be a gender-dispute aspect to it. The only thing that comes to mind that usually won't be GENSEX is, like, a historical sexual assault that isn't really discussed through the lens of gender politics. But as with a lot of things on the edge of GENSEX, whether it's in or out will depend primarily on what the exact content is. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 09:03, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. In that case, I'll make a "statement" just so the community is at least aware of the relevant edits. Daisy Blue (talk) 09:30, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{ping|Daisy Blue}} Hello, I never had a GENSEX topic ban at any point. It was a ban for transgender related issues which has since expired --FMSky (talk) 09:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

{{hab}}

This is an issue I've asked about in passing, but I'm hoping for a more concrete answer now that WP:ARBPIA5 has concluded. One of the primary challenges around contentious topics, including ARBPIA but also a few other CTOP/GS areas like AMPOL and RUSUKR, is that editors who frequent the area will engage in long-term WP:CPUSH. Editors who are openly hostile are easily dealt with, but it's still ambiguous as to how we address subtle POV pushing besides opening arbcom cases.

I was concerned that the committee was discouraging discretionary topic bans at AE, but {{u|Moneytrees}} provided a response saying that arbcom is "explicitly not" against such sanctions and that admins are not interpreting it otherwise.

My question is twofold. First, what is the general opinion of admins (active at AE or otherwise) on the subject of sanctions for editors who edit or !vote in a way that consistently favors one ideological position in a CTOP? Second, what is the standard of evidence or the type of diffs necessary to open an AE request for such editing? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 22:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)

Yesterday, I filled out an AE form for the first time, and in the section titled "Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it," for the evidence that came from talk page comments, I gave comment links rather than diffs, with the thought that it enabled people to more easily see the comment in context, whereas with a diff it's not possible to see subsequent responses without extra work. Another editor asked me to replace all of the comment links with diffs, which I did. I totally understand why we should give diffs for article edits. But I'm still wondering why it must be a diff for talk comments, when (as I see it) a link to the comment provides more information. Would someone mind explaining the reason? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:22, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

:The point is at least partially so that reviewing admins don't need to verify that the comment is genuine and hasn't since been changed. JensonSL (SilverLocust) 22:33, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm confused. At this point several admins have indicated they haven't come to a decision. Are they awaiting further mitigating remarks from me, or for further admins to respond. If the former, it would be useful to know what they are looking for. -- Colin°^Talk 13:41, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:AE decisions happen by rough consensus, so we're waiting for that to form. The parties have given us all the shape of the conflict by now, and made clear their positions, so unless there's late-breaking evidence there's not much for you or others to say at this time. If a sanctions proposal is put on the table (which it's not yet clear will happen), there might be more room for your participation, e.g. to say you'd be amenable to a specific sanction or to propose a counter-offer; in that eventuality I'd be fine with giving you a limited extension to reply on that front. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 13:54, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks. -- Colin°^Talk 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Tamzin! Could I have a small extension? Since everyone is discussing different options for resolution, I had a small one I wanted to propose that just came to mind. Snokalok (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Tamzin. If Loki's rather late post has any bearing on a admin's decisions, I would like a chance to respond to it. Otherwise I take your earlier point about largely ignoring them. -- Colin°^Talk 19:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I do not think it will, since it does not cite any evidence. If an admin responds to it favorably, I'd be inclined to grant an extension.

:P.S., I've written a new essay, User:Tamzin/Arbspace word limits. Bit late for this thread, but maybe of use for the future. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have obviously responded to that point. As of now it hasn't changed my thinking, but I have opened the door to further comments. If in response to my request there's something that causes me to consider changing my suggested outcome I will grant you an extension. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

::User:Tamzin It's late here. Either you've misread my text or I've misread your reaction. I've replied. I'm off to bed. -- Colin°^Talk 22:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

I have started a discussion here that watchers of this page may be interested in. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)