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

===Result concerning Riposte97===
:''This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.''
<!-- When closing this request use {{hat|Result}} / {{hab}}, inform the user on their talk page if they are being sanctioned (eg with {{AE sanction}} or {{uw-aeblock}} and note it in the discretionary sanctions log. -->
* Riposte, regardless of what -isms those comments might be described as, can you explain what your thought process was in deciding that those comments were constructive before posting them? (From Feb. 18 onward, to be clear. The other edits have already been considered.) [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 03:56, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
*:{{yo|Riposte97}} It's certainly one of the bolder strategies i've seen to – at an AE where you're accused of being incivil to people you disagree with – accuse every editor who disagrees with you of being in a conspiracy against you in which you compare yourself to the Roman Empire and do not provide evidence. and, re the word extension: no, you are not getting one preemptively, and even if you <em>did</em> have actual text to respond to, I'm not exactly inclined to have you contribute more to the discourse in considering what your contributions have been so far. I still think that the edits from previous AEs aren't <em>live</em> controversies, but I agree with Arcticocean that they should be examined here as part of the pattern of conduct. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 03:46, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
* While Riposte97's edits before 18 February were reviewed in the previous AE report, the edits are still relevant now. Enforcing admins previously (including me) then regarded the breaches of decorum as trivial, but the breaches are continuing to mount up. With the benefit of a longer period of analysis, I think it is also becoming apparent that the breaches are invariably directed at users with opposing editorial views and taking place within live discussions of BLP controversy. I think this is rising to the level of topic ban to prevent further disruption. I'd like to hear the view of other enforcing admins. [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">Arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 09:49, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
*: Repeated warnings are highly unusual and [[WP:CT#Dismissing an enforcement request|not generally encouraged under CTOP]]. In my view, another warning would be an inappropriate outcome from this enforcement request. Enforcing admins have broadly agreed that there has been misconduct and battleground editing. Unless another admins objects or raises a new concern, I will impose a topic ban as the enforcement request outcome. [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">Arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 22:20, 13 March 2026 (UTC)
*::As Toadspike has now objected, I am going to wait a few days for further comment from other admins. We don't by any means require unanimity here, and indeed only one admin appears to think a warning is the maximum justified sanction, but leaving more time for admin discussion cannot hurt. [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">Arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 17:16, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
* The first diff was not really an appropriate response to what came before it, but considering what came before it was a comment comparing another editor's views to failure to condemn the Holocaust followed by a frustrated rant, I don't think Riposte is responsible for derailing that conversation. The comments on nationality (diffs 2 and 3) were in poor taste, especially the second one (diff 3). However, since Riposte apologized for these and struck the offending term, and since Simon says he "wasn't personally very offended", I don't think any action is warranted. 
: In my view, the evidence supporting the accusations of racism is not clear enough to be sanctionable, and similarly the two diffs linked in Simon's first reply do not seem sanctionable. To sanction an editor for expressing a point of view, that point of view must be so extreme that it is disruptive. The points of view expressed here have not, in my view, reached that high bar. 
: MjolnirPants's first diff shows Riposte speculating on other editors' motivations, which is basically never appropriate and might warrant a warning about personal attacks. I have not reviewed all the diffs linked in MjolnirPants's ANI comment [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=1338191323#MjolnirPants_CIV_issues], which argues that there is a broader pattern of disruptive talk page conduct. That ANI thread was closed with a recommendation to take complaints against Riposte to AE, but it doesn't look like that was done or that these diffs have been reviewed here, so we may want to review them. The argument that Riposte is deliberately provoking other editors in an effort to get them sanctioned may also warrant investigation. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 14:34, 3 March 2026 (UTC)
::After reviewing the comments made by my colleagues' and others since my last post, I remain undecided. Riposte's behavior has not been exemplary, but neither has the behavior of several others here, not least the repeated and in my view spurious accusations of racism in this very thread. I fear hewing strictly to the two-party rule and letting a lot of concerning behavior slide will be seen as an endorsement of that behavior and will not be the best outcome we can get for the project. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 00:20, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Toadspike|Toadspike]]: I think you're right that there's more to do here, but it might make more sense to start with a fresh thread on one or more of the people we also want to look at. Doesn't have to be a super-detailed filing, just "follow-up on this thread, concerns that were raised include x y z". This thread is already pretty big and I worry that expanding the scope now would be unwieldy. [[user:theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • she/her) 06:35, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::I've reviewed all the diffs in the ANI comment linked by MjolnirPants, as well as the others they linked. The only two I found possibly actionable are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Donald_Trump&diff=prev&oldid=1336265821] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Imane_Khelif&diff=prev&oldid=1337707060]. The former seems to be implying that [[Naomi Klein]]'s political views make her book unreliable for a sentence on Trump's communication style, which was also supported by other sources. The latter is just a really insensitive statement to make. I'm not impressed by how many of the MjolnirPants's descriptions of diffs in their ANI comment are inaccurate at best. I also don't like how many of them are effectively arguing that an editor expressing their opinion on a talk page is some kind of behavioral violation. Users are allowed to express their opinion about sources and blocks, even if those opinions are wrong. 
::Riposte has since dumped three dozen diffs of alleged personal attacks by MjolnirPants. Several of these are obviously not personal attacks, which reflects poorly on him. Many may be, but that is out of the scope of this thread and should be reviewed in a separate filing. As an aside, I strongly recommend that MjolnirPants stop threatening other editors with admin action; it is generally sufficient and more polite to call out misbehavior without explicitly spelling out the potential consequences. 
::Reviewing M.Bitton's comment, the only parts that seem actionable are Riposte's speculation on other editors' motivations (e.g. "People feel their personal credibility is at stake"), which I already covered in my first comment. 
::I think that covers most of the evidence here. I would '''support a warning for Riposte97''', primarily on grounds of [[WP:CIV|civility]]. I '''oppose a topic ban''' as the previous warning was for different issues ("Riposte97 is warned to be more mindful of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV" [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Riposte97&diff=prev&oldid=1338346073#Arbitration_enforcement_warning]) and I do not see the violations here as sufficient to justify a topic ban, especially in relation to the vast quantity and severity of accusations made. More broadly, we should not refuse to issue a second warning simply because we have issued a previous warning in the same topic area. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 13:04, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::<small>{{reply|Toadspike}}</small> To issue a warning at AE, [[WP:CT#Dismissing an enforcement request|I think we have to conclude]] that either 'no actual violation occurred' or 'exceptional circumstances are present, which would make the imposition of a sanction inappropriate'. If I may ask, are you viewing the receipt of a previous warning for disrupting the topic area as an exceptional circumstance? Or is it the possible tit-for-tat conduct that you regard as exceptional? [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">Arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 13:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
::::That's not how I understand the quoted bit. A logged warning is an editing restriction. We are allowed to issue warnings even if a violation occurred. 
::::Re: "tit-for-tat" – the high proportion of irrelevant diffs and unsupported accusations here makes clear to me that we have two camps of editors here going after each other primarily because of their content disputes. In CTOPs this is not "exceptional", but on the project as a whole it is. I took this into consideration as I don't want to reward this kind of behavior. '''[[User:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">Toadspike</span>]] [[User talk:Toadspike|<span style="color:#21a81e;font-variant:small-caps">[Talk]</span>]]''' 13:56, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I understand your position better now. Thanks for responding. [[User:Arcticocean|<span style="color:#5A4FCF">Arctic'''ocean'''&nbsp;■</span>]] 17:13, 14 March 2026 (UTC)
* <del>I support a logged warning of Riposte97</del> for persistent [[WP:BATTLE|battleground conduct]] (including violations of the [[WP:PA|policy against personal attacks]]), which would be Riposte97's second logged warning in the [[WP:CT/GG]] (gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them) contentious topic. It is already rare for an editor to receive two logged warnings for the same topic area instead of a topic ban, so if Riposte97 does not improve their conduct in this contentious topic, their next reported policy violation in [[WP:CT/GG]] is likely to result in a topic ban (instead of a third logged warning) even if it is of similar severity to the ones reported here. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 12:10, 9 March 2026 (UTC); edited to strike superseded position 11:41, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
*:If you are thinking about a second warning, you should probably bite the bullet and issue a topic ban instead -- [[User:Guerillero|Guerillero]] <sup>[[User_talk:Guerillero|<span style="color: green;">Parlez Moi</span>]]</sup> 07:05, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
*:: That is certainly one of the rules of thumb that have been used on this noticeboard. With Riposte97 continuing to engage in battleground editing in this enforcement request itself (e.g. [[Special:Diff/1341588355]]), I would not support closing this enforcement request without some kind of action for Riposte97, and I am looking for a remedy that would curb this conduct issue in a proportionate manner. Riposte97 appears to apply different behavioral standards for other editors than they do for themself, as seen in the list of diffs they allege to be personal attacks in [[Special:Diff/1342638113]], which suggests that Riposte97 is behaving in the [[WP:CT/GG]] contentious topic in a manner that they already understand to be below Wikipedia's conduct standards. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 13:00, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
*:::{{re|Riposte97}} Speculating about another editor's motivations based on what you assumed their nationality is ([[Special:Diff/1339082921]]) and then telling the editor that they should stop acting like a person of that nationality after they stated their nationality is different than what you had assumed ([[Special:Diff/1339091605]]) are both instances of battleground conduct. Unless an editor cites their own nationality in the discussion, there is no valid justification for bringing it into the conversation as part of your argument. While Simonm223 did not take serious offense, that does <ins>not</ins> make your comments about their nationality acceptable.{{pb}}Please note that you have exceeded your word limit here to post additional accusations against editors who are not even within the scope of this enforcement request ({{xt|"the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"}}), despite having been [[#c-Theleekycauldron-20260310034600-Theleekycauldron-20260302035600|denied a word extension]] due to the quality of your participation here, which is yet another example of battleground conduct.{{pb}}Based on Riposte97's behavior in this enforcement request and the fact that Riposte97 had already received a logged warning in [[WP:CT/GG]], I agree with Guerillero that a logged warning for Riposte97 would be insufficient, and I would support an indefinite topic ban of Riposte97 from [[WP:CT/GG]] for persistent battleground conduct, although I would also support a lesser remedy if there is one that can adequately moderate Riposte97's talk page behavior. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 10:53, 11 March 2026 (UTC); edited to add missing word 14:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
* I have applied the [[WP:AEPR|AE participation restriction]] to this enforcement request, as editors are continuing to make arguments that are outside the scope of this request ({{xt|"the conduct of two parties: the filer and the user being reported"}}). Anyone who wants to post a complaint about any other editor's conduct may file a new report. —&nbsp;'''''[[User:Newslinger|<span style="color:#536267;">Newslinger</span>]]'''&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Newslinger#top|<span style="color:#708090;">talk</span>]]</small>'' 11:13, 11 March 2026 (UTC)