Editing Eurovision Wiki:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (section)

====Statement by Kingsindian====
I will begin with a disclosure: I voted in the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imane_Khelif#RfC:_SRY_gene recent RfC] on the Imane Khelif article, and I have written about this matter on Wikipediocracy. I have not edited the article itself. I note that none of the other participants in this discussion appear to have made the equivalent disclosure, despite the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Decorum requirement] that {{tq|Editors participating in enforcement cases must disclose fully their involvement with parties (if any).}} That omission is worth noting, given that most of the commenters here are in active content disputes with {{u|Riposte97}}, including on the RfC above, which did not go their way.

The original filing contained three diffs showing talk page comments, for which {{u|Riposte97}} has already apologized and which {{u|Toadspike}} has found not sanctionable -- noting that the first diff came in response to another editor comparing a viewpoint to failure to condemn the Holocaust. In my view, the original filing was thin. What followed was a series of additional allegations made by several parties. The current approach -- assessing each charge in turn and moving on when it proves unactionable -- is procedurally inadequate, because it provides no disincentive whatsoever to bad-faith filing. It structurally rewards a "throw mud and see what sticks" strategy, whether or not that is anyone's intention here. From the perspective of someone casting a wide net, the downside is zero.

The racism allegation illustrates this problem directly. {{u|Toadspike}} has found it unactionable, stating that the evidence {{tq|is not clear enough to be sanctionable.}} But that finding raises a follow-up question this discussion has so far avoided: does making an unsubstantiated allegation of racism against a fellow editor constitute [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contentious_topics#Decorum casting aspersions]? That is explicitly prohibited in enforcement discussions: {{tq|Insults and personal attacks, soapboxing and casting aspersions are as unacceptable in enforcement discussions as elsewhere on Wikipedia}}. "Not actionable against the subject" and "appropriate to have said" are not the same standard, and treating them as equivalent lets the conduct pass without examination.

These are experienced editors familiar with AE procedures. They should be aware that {{tq|The scope of a discussion is limited to the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported.}} If they believe there is a genuine case, they should file their own focused request with specific evidence, with the understanding that their own conduct would then be in scope. The current proceeding, as conducted, rewards exactly the behavior the policy is designed to deter. [[User:Kingsindian|Kingsindian]]&nbsp;[[User Talk: Kingsindian|&#9821;]]&nbsp;[[Special:Contributions/Kingsindian|&#9818;]] 11:39, 10 March 2026 (UTC)