Wikipedia Arbitration
About arbitration Talk Arbitration policy (CU/OS) Guide to arbitration Noticeboard + Talk Search archived proceedings Ban appeals Report
Open proceedings All open requests Case requests Clarification and Amendment requests Arbitrator motion requests Enforcement requests
Active sanctions Contentious topics (Log) General sanctions Editor sanctions
Arbitration Committee Discuss + Contact Members Procedures Elections Talk History Clerks + Talk Clerk procedures Conflict of interest reports
Audit Talk Statistics Talk Reports (pre-2016)
Track related changes
v t e

Case opened on 23:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Case closed on 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

This case is closed. No edits should be made to this page except by clerks or arbitrators. Any violations of the remedies passed in the case should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Specific requests for amendment or clarification about the decision should be raised at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment. General questions can be raised at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee. Actions taken to enforce remedies authorised in the case (if applicable) are to be logged at the centralised arbitration enforcement log.

• Anonymousioss (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• BigCapt45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• CroatiaElects (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• DemocraticLuntz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mcleanm302 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Number 57 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Talleyrand6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VosleCap (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

None

Preliminary statements given in the case request stage may be found at /Preliminary statements.

Enacted - HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 23:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Majority reference

Abstentions	Support votes needed for majority
0	6
1–2	5
3–4	4

Support:

1. Support in principle. I think Number 57 raises three excellent broad questions where we can definitely be of use. I'm mildly in favour of trimming the parties list to experienced editors only per my comment below, but that doesn't affect my support of opening the case. Maxim (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2. Primefac (talk) 16:05, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
4. Aoidh (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
6. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 19:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7. Cabayi (talk) 21:12, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose:

Abstain:

Proposing --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 19:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I've boldly changed the proposed case to "Historical elections", which solves the problem that we already have a case by basically that name, and also clarified that the scope is focused on completed elections, going quite far back in history, and not super focused on current elections. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:12, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• And now, for a comment on the merits. This case is what another Arb intelligently described as "hybrid." There's not so much private information that we can't hear it in public. But there is so much private information that we can't hear it as fully public as we usually would. This case rather much reminds me of the WPTC case. For the moment, we're obviously being a bit coy about what the private parts are; but I do hope that we can lay them out a little more completely at some point. As for the on-wiki parts, that's where the public part of the case comes in. We're looking for indications of broader issues in the realm of articles on historical elections, including the on-wiki/off-wiki interface. If you're an editor in the election articles area, your thoughts, commentary, and feedback are welcome. If you have been named as a party, we want to hear that as well, but beware that you've probably been listed because you have been involved in a dispute in the elections area or are suspected of off-wiki misbehavior. As for the peanut gallery (i.e. you haven't edited in the historical election articles area but would still like to chime in), if you have comments about how the WPTC case did or didn't work well, or other suggestions for hybrid cases, this would be a good time to mention that so we can take those lessons to heart before we do another hybrid case. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 22:49, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The more I sat with my above message, I feel like it didn't quite do justice for describing the process, since this isn't how we usually do things. If you've been named as a party, I imagine that feels pretty scary. And I won't lie: yes, this could have repercussions to your editing career. At the end of the day, we ask for your honesty and cooperation. I would treat this as we usually would a case request at WP:ARC. We're not deciding the merits of the case here; we're just deciding if we need to take the case and do the whole nine yards of collecting evidence, workshopping, and proposing a decision. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The lack of commentary, including by the editors at issue here, makes me wonder if there is actually a significant public facing issue here. I'm not sure we ought drag the community through a hybrid case if there's nothing to be done of it in public. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Directly voting on blocks for some of the accounts named above may be more expedient. Primefac (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Should Anonymousioss (51 edits) and BigCapt45 (29 edits) be formal parties? Even with evidence of their material involvement in the matter at hand, I'm not sure it's fair to designate editors with this little experience as parties. A talkpage message along the liens of "please review our policies and don't do this again" may be more appropriate (alternatively, a block if the conduct is egregious enough to warrant it). Maxim (talk) 15:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support removing editors with few edits from the list of parties. If they need to be added back in, it can be done later. Z1720 (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not a fan of adding parties later during the case, as this prolongs the case for everyone else and creates an imbalance in the amount of time people have had the chance to provide statements before the decision is made. It may lead to chaotic situations or perceived, perhaps actual, unfairness. So if parties are removed from the list, let's please keep them removed. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

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.

Passed 5 to 3 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 8 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 5 to 3 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 7 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 6 to 1 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 5 to 1 with 1 abstention at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

Passed 6 to 0 at 18:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.