Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive 7

Hey, could someone take a look at that? FortunateSons (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:Do you mean Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive332#Makeandtoss and M.Bitton? It looks like the last comment in that discussion was on 28 May so the discussion is probably done and it just hasn't been closed. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 21:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

::I do, thank you for linking to it. My reading of that is that there is not sufficient consensus for a close in either direction, and was left open for further participation which has not (yet) occurred. FortunateSons (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:::Ah, I haven't really read through it. I just scanned the dates. If no one has added anything in over a week, to a discussion started almost a month ago on 10 May, I think it's unlikely there's going to be further input. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

::::It needs administrative closure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, I realise that. I was meaning I think that the discussion probably is "done", not that it didn't still need closing. Adam Black ^{talk • contribs} 22:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I am indefinitely topic-banned from the Israel-Palestine conflict area. Does this mean I'm not allowed to participate in discussions on article talk pages related to this topic? ☆SuperNinja2☆ TALK! 20:50, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:To the best of my knowledge, it includes everything everywhere on en.wiki. FortunateSons (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Super ninja2}} That is correct; however, it was implemented on 8 January and is appealable (at WP:AN) after 6 months, so you would be able to do that on 8 July. Black Kite (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

A few years ago Lugnuts repeatedly violated a topic ban, but no one noticed because he was such a prolific editor and because the editors he violated them in disputes with weren't aware of the sanctions. I've considered how to address this a few times over the years, and I've settled on creating a tool that lists such sanctions similar to how page bans are listed when "Strike out usernames that have been blocked" is shown.

However, including AE sanctions doesn't seem viable given the structure of Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, as there would be too many false negatives and false positives. I was hoping admins might be willing to start logging relevant sanctions at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as well as the log? I would be willing to go through the logs and transfer any relevant and still active past sanctions over.

If it would help/bribe, I would also be willing to create a tool that assists in closing AE discussions? It would log all actions at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, and for relevant sanctions log them at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Arbitration enforcement log. If it would be helpful, and not overlap with other existing tools such as Twinkle, it could also support making and logging discretionary enforcement actions? BilledMammal (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

:My understanding is that we keep the AE log separately (but include a link to it) because the editing restrictions page would be too long otherwise. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Say you have a case of WP:GAMING, but the only way to show it is to present a lengthy discussion, then what? I'm not sure how to go forward with this, I was thinking of showing some screenshots and highlighting them for practically, but dunno. HistoryofIran (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

:You can ask for an extension (including ahead of filing). My suggestion is to sandbox it and then ask for permission to post that. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

::Got it, thanks Barkeep49! HistoryofIran (talk) 16:01, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I am making this comment on the Talk page because it is not directly part of either the cases on {{u|Void if removed}} or {{u|Colin}}. But since I am involved as the person against whom the comment was addressed, I feel I ought to comment.

{{yo|Raladic}} I saw your original comment to me: {{tq|promoting transphobic views as protected in a country condemned by the Council of Europe[1] isn't the flex you think it is and Wikipedia is not the platform to promote it. }} [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&diff=prev&oldid=1243869439] I deny this accusation, which is unspecific and evidence-free. I did not respond at the time because you subsequently changed the wording of your response to me, but you have never explained your bizarre accusation against me, nor apologised for it. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)  

:I didn't make an accusation against you, or at least didn't mean to, which is also why I pre-emptively reworded it to the live comment a few minutes after I wrote the initial response, to ensure it wasn't perceived as such after re-reading the initial comment, which I felt could be misinterpreted wrongly - which is basically what appears you are saying here, hence I reworded it pre-emptively to ensure that no such misinterpretation occurs and we can continue to edit civilly, even if we may disagree on certain topics.

:The comment I made, was specifically directed at this part of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-Sweet6970-20240903203300-Statement_by_Sweet6970 your statement]: {{tq|...In fact, ‘gender critical’ views are protected in the UK under the Equality Act 2010, and several people have successfully made legal claims for discrimination on the grounds of this philosophical belief.}}

:My reply to you, and more precisely, the reworded (to avoid above said potential misinterpretation) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#c-Raladic-20240903211700-Request_concerning_Void_if_removed live] comment I made in response to your statement of the fact that such views such philosophical beliefs are protected in the UK (which I don't dispute), but as my comment explained - {{tq|@Sweet6970, Wikipedia has a higher standard against the WP:PROMOTION of hateful transphobic views than the UK (see WP:HID/WP:NQP).}}, which is a simple true statement. On Wikipedia, editors are free to not be barred from editing while potentially holding such beliefs, as long as they don't affect their editing. But the line that we draw on Wikipedia is expressing such views, which are not protected on Wikipedia, as they run afoul of our civil editing policies, with the linked essays on why hate is disruptive (HID) and the more topic specific NQP essay explaining this.

:So I do apologize to you that my pre-reworded statement may have been subject to misinterpretation, as it wasn't directed at you personally, but at the fact that the protection of such views in the UK deviate from the protection of such views on Wikipedia, but also that I didn't intend any misinterpretation, which is why I reworded it myself a few minutes after to the live statement to ensure we can all edit civilly on this contentious topic area. Raladic (talk) 20:52, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

::to Raladic: Thank you for your explanation and apology (though I do not agree with your comments about a ‘higher standard’ etc). If it is technically possible, and procedurally permissible, I would like you to strike your original comment. Sweet6970 (talk) 21:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:::That discussion is closed, so it should not be edited from a technical standpoint. The live comment in the closed section is not factually incorrect, but I will concede to you that I could have used a less strong word and used "different standard" instead of "higher", so please consider it understood as that we have "a different standard on Wikipedia..." :) Raladic (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

:: Can I just point out that only gender-critical philosophical beliefs (i.e. that sex is immutable), not opinions or views, were ruled to be protected under EA2010. Transphobic views are absolutely not protected - part of the ruling said {{tq|"(this) does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can misgender trans persons with impunity” and noted that acts of discrimination against trans people are also prohibited by the Equality Act.}} Black Kite (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

::: Thanks for that helpful clarification, so I guess technically even in the UK, those views are not actually protected, which helps refute it in the future, just the philosophical belief as you quoted might be. I have struck and used your quote of philosophical beliefs to address the point I was trying to make. Raladic (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

It's going to be some time before I'm able to access a computer with a keyboard, so I would be exceedingly appreciative if someone could copy over [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIdanST&diff=1253718690&oldid=1253576635 this appeal] and handle all the templates. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

:No problem, I copied it over, hope I did it correctly. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:55, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

::Thank you very much. If it's messed up I'm sure someone will fix it, but it doesn't look messed up at a glance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A new editor, {{userlinks|Martian Manhunter 1776}} has been, in my opinion, whitewashing the article on McEntee. He made a bunch of edits I thought were wrong, I reverted him. I informed him the article was a contentious topic [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martian_Manhunter_1776&oldid=1252732761]. He carried on. I just reverted him again. Do with this what you will.Dan Murphy (talk) 01:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:It looks like there were no edits after the notification. I've watchlisted the page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:{{u|Dan Murphy}}, pinging because I moved this section. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

:Indeffed them and their sock. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

While there is an ARCA request that these may be in the scope of, I'm opening enforcement requests here for three reasons:

• It remains unclear whether the ARCA request will turn into a case, and even if it does due to the length of time it has taken I will no longer be available to participate. (If a case does proceed with me as a party, I will provide details to ArbCom to demonstrate that it is not ANI flu)
• One of the editors is not being considered as a party for that case
• I believe the evidence here is sufficiently straightforward that AE may be able to deal with it; if they can, that should simplify any potential ArbCom case

BilledMammal (talk) 04:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Something that has been on my mind for quite a while is that other than the shit show I've just started there's no way for admins working arbitration enforcement to get input from other admins without either discussing off-wiki or starting this kind of clusterfuck. While there are some admins that I chat with off-wiki that leads to a selection bias, and still provides a narrow point of view. I've boiled my noodle off and on for months about this, and I can't come up with a solution that doesn't pose it's own issues.

Looking for input in a public forum leads to exactly what we're seeing now, but at least there's transparency. It doesn't make it easy for admins to have frank discussions about behavior and interpretations. It also turns into yet another forum for people to argue.

A limited access mailing list is one way, but having a big admin-only off-wiki mailing list isn't going to make anyone more comfortable with admins and would be vulnerable to leaks. An IRC or discord channel has the same issue. Might as well just throw on a robe and start a cabal.

I don't know if there's any solution, or if the way it is now it's the best we can do with our system. I just figured I'd share some of my thoughts and see what others think. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:The simple solution would be to have discussions initiated by admins in their role as an uninvolved admin be designated as "admin-only", with the only regular editors being allowed to contribute being those whose behavior is being discussed. BilledMammal (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

:Ways to get admin input without an AE filing:

:* asking "is this a policy vio?" at Talk:AE

:* asking "is this a policy vio?" at WP:AN

:* asking "is this a policy vio?" at WP:ARCA

:* asking "is this a policy vio?" at the relevant policy talk page

:* saying "I think this is a a policy vio" at the editor's user talk page, or on the page where the policy vio happened (in this case, article talk page)

:* waiting to see if someone else raises it

:Levivich (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

If an editor is under ArbCom sanctions and gets into trouble on a different WikiMedia project for similar behavior, is it appropriate to draw attention to that behavior by posting a section at WP:AE? The purpose would not be to ask for additional sanctions on this project, but to be sure it is in the record for future consideration in case the editor asks to have restrictions reduced or lifted. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Symphony Regalia is currently evading ArbCom sanctions on pages related to Yasuke using multiple socks, a new SPI has been opened with more evidence. ぼーしー (talk) 07:20, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

{{archive top|This is not the appropriate place to discuss AE requests. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC) }}

I was going to ask to be able to add more evidence, especially since a lot has happened since I opened the request. However, there I saw that there was a SPI into EE and it both casts a new light on to the evidence given, but also could make giving new evidence redundant.[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Symphony_Regalia] I think all the Admins involved in this case should be aware of it. @Nil Einne @Simonm223 @Seraphimblade @Red-tailed hawk @Ealdgyth @Barkeep49 Tinynanorobots (talk) 17:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

:With respect they should be aware of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Tinynanorobots your behavior] and your battleground misuse of this talk page despite the big warning at the top. EEpic (talk) 19:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

{{archive bottom}}

Does the PIA5 remedy apply to cases that pre-date the decision? I thought the answer was no, but I'm less sure now. FortunateSons (talk) 11:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

:{{yo|FortunateSons}} which PIA5 remedy? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

:If you're asking about the two-party limit here at Arbitration Enforcement, you're allowed to comment in an AE request even if you aren't one of the two parties (the filer and the person reported) even for future AE requests. It's a limit on whose conduct is under review, not a limit on who can comment. SilverLocust 💬 04:24, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

::Ah, shit, that wasn’t very bright of me, my apologies. Thank you to you both! FortunateSons (talk) 06:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

{{moved from|Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#AE updates (two party limit, balanced editing restriction, and thanks from ArbCom)|HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:14, 17 February 2025 (UTC)}}

This post should probably go on the talk page, but I am posting here for visibility. In WP:PIA5, the Arbitration Committee has decided to limit all reports at AE to two parties: the filer and the reported party. To reiterate, this is not limited to the PIA topic area. If additional editors are to be reported, separate AE reports must be opened for each. AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so.

In the PIA area, a balanced editing restriction (shortcut: {{-r|WP:BER}}) has been added to your toolbox, as part of the standard set of restrictions. The details of the restriction can be found at the link, but the short version is it requires editors to make no more than a third of their edits in mainspace, draftspace, and their respective talk spaces in the PIA5 area. Editors subject to BER are also topic banned from PIA outside of those namespaces.

Finally, the Committee has unanimously decided to formally thank administrators for volunteering at AE, especially in the PIA topic area. Keep being awesome :)

Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:51, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

:I think separate threads for qualitatively different reports is a very good idea. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

So, I didn't understand

{{xt|In WP:PIA5, the Arbitration Committee has decided to limit all reports at AE to two parties: the filer and the reported party.}}

to mean that no one else's related behavior should be commented on by workers in an AE report. But the people who disagreed with me are people who are much more familiar with the thinking of the committee, so I thought I'd bring up whether that was how others are interpreting this too. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

:I believe that this is a continuation of the exchange at "Result concerning TommyKirchhoff", where you recognised a concern with a third user's conduct, but other admins considered that that was out of scope. For me, I recognise that it is counterintuitive to be told 'we can't talk about that' when you raise disruptive conduct on a noticeboard about disruptive conduct. I do agree with the other admins, however, that there has to be a clear boundary for these reports. The two-user rule has been introduced because AE threads were becoming increasingly complicated. The solution has been to limit them to two users. There is nothing to stop an editor bringing a separate report on a third user, but that absolutely has to be done under a separate thread. Were the rule not to apply to patrolling admins as well, the same underlying problem (noticeboard threads becoming too complicated) would continue arising. Don't forget that the rule provides that {{!xt|AE admins may waive this rule if the particular issue warrants doing so}}, but I do not think that the mere existence of other disruption is sufficient reason to bring additional users onto the report. Better reasons would be, for instance, tag-teaming or canvassing. (Point of housekeeping: this sub-thread and the original post should move to the talk page.) arcticocean ■ 09:40, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz, I'm going to be activating the enforcer for a week. If I'm interpreting this correctly, editors think I might want to edit the article again?

If that's the case, they can block me indefinitely- I'm not going back to the article again. It's not my article. It's not my server, it's not my problem. I don't know why my reading of sources gave way to that slip... and the user page catharsis was my first thought? I don't know. Tags? Trying to interpret thoughts over and over again, and screwing it up?

Well, this is the best idea I can think of. I could wait six months, but it's super unpleasant, given what I know about MediaWiki, you know?

Anyways, I'm out. ⸺(Random)staplers 03:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd like to make an extension request of 111 characters to respond to Simonm's response in my AE case, which itself came from a granted extension; I think their response is misleading, or specifically, the [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARepublican_Party_%28United_States%29&diff=1271081451&oldid=1271080868 diff they provided] doesn't actually back up the claim they made. Toa Nidhiki05 17:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Toa Nidhiki05 you can have 150 extra words. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

::Hey {{ping|Barkeep49}}, Warrenmck just posted a [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AArbitration%2FRequests%2FEnforcement&diff=1276176833&oldid=1276172309 massive wall of text] on top of their already very, very, very lengthy statement. Is there any way I can get an extension to... at least close out a response, I guess? I can't really respond to most of Warrenmck's, because there are zero diffs, but their comments are outrageously long at this point. Toa Nidhiki05 13:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I've just reverted their comment, which I think is the more appropriate course of action here given the length, content, and timing of the comment. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 15:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Thank you! Toa Nidhiki05 15:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• The fact that Warrenmck has evidently made good on their threat to brick that account, even despite the fact that the discussion was essentially going their way beside a slap on the wrist, makes me think that the {{tq|massive wall of text}} diff identified above was likely a show of intentional brinksmanship and they will in all likelihood return with a sockpuppet account. Something to bear in mind in case we do see uncannily similar accounts pop up in the future. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 20:16, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

I was looking at some older AE cases from around 2017-2018 due to a current case at ANI right now and these cases are distantly related to the current dispute. But what I question is that in all of the cases I'm looking at in the AE archives mention that the first infraction that an editor is found responsible for regarding violating Arbitration restrictions is punishable by a month's suspension. From my limited experience at AE right now, the blocks and topic bans currently imposed on editors are much longer these days. I just wonder when this "standard" changed because I can't find any guide to sanctions like this in the instructions included on the AE page. Thanks for any additional information experienced admins can relay about the history of adminning at AE. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

: This observation is correct and the trend has been going on even longer than that. Offenses that would have resulted in a 48-hour block in the early days are now likely to trigger a topic ban. It would be interesting but difficult to do an objective survey. One outcome of this escalation of penalties is the loss of people who just need a slap to turn them into valuable editors. A reset is badly needed but I don't have my hopes up. Zero^talk 08:24, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

:There is literal AE enforcement - the enforcement of an arbitration decision. These remedies are limited to a 1 month length for a first time block - at least they are if the case uses the standard enforcement mechanisms. Then there are contentious topic (and its predecessor discretionary sanction) actions. Many of these CT/DS actions are taken through discussion at the venue of AE but they have their own set of rules different than the enforcement rules which can be set for each case (though mostly use the standard set linked above). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

::@Barkeep49, sorry to ping you to a month-old discussion...as I work more at AE I'm discovering more I should know, and I'm trying to compile what I need to know (User:Valereee/Individual admin actions) and this is something I didn't know: a first time AE remedy should be no more than a 1-month timed block? The reason I ask is that I've seen multiple indefs/1 year then convert to individual admin block. Am I conflating something? I apologize if I'm just being stupid here. Valereee (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:::@Valereee for literal arbitration enforcement, almost all cases have the standard enforcement provision which says the first block for violating a case should be no more than a month. Most of what happens at the AE noticeboard isn't actual arbitration enforcement. Instead most of what happens there is enforcement of the contentious topic procedures. Those procedures don't have this limitation. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Got it, thanks! Valereee (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

:I share the impression that this is a trend, but I do not necessarily it as a problem. Some admins - myself among them - have always been opposed to time-limited sanctions for POV editing, and I believe this attitude has become more common. Also, there is the advent of partial blocks - where previously a short site-wide block may have been the most proportional remedy, long-term page- or namespace-blocks are options that still allow editors to edit productively elsewhere, and have become commonly used. Vanamonde93 (talk) 00:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

:My perception of arbitration enforcement is that the penalties are less severe today than they used to be. For context, I have been involved in enforcement essentially since a couple of years after the first discretionary sanctions remedy, which created administrative discretion as we now know it. (Arbitration enforcement existed before then, but authorised only for specific users or pages.) In those 15–20 years, at various times I've been an enforcing administrator and an arbitrator (and co-draftsperson of the last version of discretionary sanctions). Seen over that range of time, administrators today are handing down less severe penalties. There is greater use of warnings, short blocks, and time-limited topic bans. Going back around ten years, the prevailing concern was administrator heavy-handedness and that led to development of the 'awareness' requirements. For a number of years afterwards, while non-aware users were protected from sanctioning, administrators were still tending to give very heavy sanctions for any contravention, provided the awareness notice had been issued. Only in the past few years has the pendulum swung back and administrators started to use shorter or narrower restrictions. I do think this reflected a general trend in the community towards shorter or narrower sanctions, probably linked to the introduction of partial blocking, as Vanamonde93 says, or also reflected in it. Probably, the trend is related to the departure of a critical mass of the 'hanging judge' admins who used to be active at AE. Like everyone else, I don't have quantitative data to support my view, but it is curious that the three of us are viewing things so differently… arcticocean ■ 13:49, 11 February 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}}

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)