Awwright

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia's norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have an expanded level of powers and discretion in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practices;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures, you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement topic ban

The following topic ban now applies to you:

You are topic banned from the Southern Poverty Law Center, broadly construed

You have been sanctioned for WP:IDHT, refusal to drop the stick, and WP:CIR

This topic ban is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the contentious topics procedure. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. Please read WP:TBAN to understand what a topic ban is. If you do not comply with this topic ban, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this topic ban using the appeal process and the arbitration enforcement appeals template. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this topic ban, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything above is unclear to you. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Do not violate your topic ban as you did here or you will be blocked from editing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

April 2026

To enforce an arbitration decision, and for topic ban violations, you have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of 31 hours. You are welcome to edit once the block expires; however, please note that the repetition of similar behavior may result in a longer block or other sanctions.

If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing blocks (specifically this section) before appealing. Place the following on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Please copy my appeal to the [[WP:AE|arbitration enforcement noticeboard]] or [[WP:AN|administrators' noticeboard]]. Your reason here OR place the reason below this template. ~~~~}}. If you intend to appeal on the arbitration enforcement noticeboard, I suggest you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template on your talk page so it can be copied over easily. You may also appeal directly to me (by email), before or instead of appealing on your talk page. 

ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:24, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

---

Reminder to administrators: In May 2014, ArbCom adopted the following procedure instructing administrators regarding Arbitration Enforcement blocks: "No administrator may modify 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"). Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped."

Unblock request

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Awwright (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The cited arbitration decision does not appear to be relevant, it's not material to how I'm supposed to write a proposal for a Noticeboard; especially one where we are bringing forward new information likely to be of interest to readers, whereas this arbitration was published 10 years ago. Awwright (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

A topic ban means that you are not permitted to edit any article or page on Wikipedia related to the topic, with the only exception being legitimate and necessary dispute resolution related to the ban itself(like appealing, modifying, or asking questions about the ban itself) or reporting obvious vandalism. Creating a proposal to offer at a noticeboard falls within the scope of your ban. I am declining your request. 331dot (talk) 08:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Arbitration findings and rulings remain active unless and until revoked. While you are topic-banned -- and six months is likely the timeframe an unblock even becomes plausible -- you may not make edits about the SPLC or related to the SPLC in any way, on any page on Wikipedia. The only exceptions are the minimum necessary for discussing your block or reporting obvious vandalism. The bar for the latter is very, very high.

As for writing a proposal for a Noticeboard or bringing forward new information likely to be of interest to readers, if these actions are about the SPLC or related to the SPLC, you cannot be undertaking them while you are topic-banned. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

What you are describing is exactly what I am appealing. There is no rule against editing pages about SPLC. The Arbitration Committee page doesn't mention it at all, and even if it did, there's no plausible way I could have known about it, nobody linked me to that page, it wasn't cited in any of the previous discussions. This rationale was invented after I made the post. --Awwright (talk) 20:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The notice on this page of your topic ban states You are topic banned from the Southern Poverty Law Center, broadly construed. It then states Please read WP:TBAN which clearly states that a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic, as encapsulated in the phrase "broadly construed". This is the standard topic ban rule. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Apologies if this was not very clear: This is what I am appealing. The previous notice before that says no wrongdoing was alleged. Awwright (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

At 18:45, 24 April 2026, you received a advisory message (with links) about the special conditions for contentious topics. Then at 20:05, 24 April 2026, you were topic banned under those conditions. That means that from that point on there was indeed a 'rule against editing pages about SPLC'. You then proceeded to comment on the discussion about SLPC another 4 times, hence the block. MrOllie (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

That notice about the "special conditions for contentious topics" says there was no wrongdoing. It just pointed at the existing rules that I was, apparently, following. I am trying to appeal the block on the grounds no wrongdoing was alleged. Awwright (talk) 21:08, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

First, that's a form letter. Everyone gets exactly the same text. It was not a specific statement about you personally, and it did not indicate that you were following the rules. You also got that second message where you were topic banned, that one did indicate specifically that there were problems with what you were doing and that you should stop - and you commented another 4 times anyway. MrOllie (talk) 21:12, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I am the one who posted the standard notification but I am not an administrator, I did not topic ban you, nor, despite misgivings about your editing, did I ask for you to be topic banned. The standard notice is, as such, entirely unrelated to your topic ban. I hope you listen to the good advice others have given you so this can be a brief episode and you can return to participation with WP. Simonm223 (talk) 22:18, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply Simonm223; I'm not accusing you of anything, I understand that's a standard message. I'm emphasizing that the topic ban was sudden and capacious, and not related to the rules listed in that message. Awwright (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Objective3000 is correct. A topic ban covers the "topic", and that includes even discussing the topic anywhere at Wikipedia. The only situation where you can mention it is in appeals to lift the topic ban. So, for example, if someone comes to your talk page and tries to get you talking about the SPLC, tell them you can't discuss it, and then close the thread. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:01, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Did you see my reply to Objective3000? I am appealing this block. There is no rule that suggests I would have to follow this, nobody else mentioned this rule, nobody else is apparently following this rule. The Arbitration Requests page that the notice links to doesn't contain any statements for editors regarding what I should have done differently. Awwright (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Nobody else was topic banned. MrOllie (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

I am not asking for clarification, I am appealing. That topic ban should not exist.　There is no implication I should have done anything differently. The arbitration page doesn't remark on it. There is no rule that allows for it. The previous notice says there was no wrongdoing. Awwright (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

The previous notice says there was no wrongdoing. Actually, it only says that particular template does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. But, you should follow the links in that template. It's a boilerplate template given to most anyone who edits related to a contentious topic and that sentence was added because issues do not always exist before the template is added to an editor's talk page. (Although often the template is posted because it looks like issues are building.) The later topic ban template provides the reasons for the T-Ban. You were previously warned to WP:DROPTHESTICK.

If you wish to have the T-Ban rescinded, you are going about it incorrectly. Not likely to happen until you realize the problems with your editing and explain that you will avoid such in future. Also, you should edit in non-contentious areas for a lengthy period before asking for the ban to be lifted. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, this comment has useful information, thank you.

"But, you should follow the links in that template" I did; it just says follow all of the same rules that already exists, and links to them.

"You were previously warned to WP:DROPTHESTICK." First, WP:DROPTHESTICK is not one of the rules linked to in the contentious edits policy. Second, it was an unfounded accusation that anyone can make. (If I told you to DROPTHESTICK right now, could someone to ban you?) The discussion was still open, other editors were asking legitimate questions and making points, to which I was answering. Third, the arbitration decision in question was not even being discussed; there wasn't even a stick to drop. What are you suggesting I should have done differently to make the same point? Awwright (talk) 22:24, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

What are you suggesting I should have done differently to make the same point? Well, that's easy. Your point was incorrect as other editors had repeatedly pointed out. But you kept pushing the same beliefs without listening to multiple, experienced editors. Which is why you were sanctioned for WP:DROPTHESTICK, WP:IDHT, and WP:CIR. Other experienced editors tried repeatedly to explain this and you just did not listen. Look, you dove into the deep end of the pool, contentious topics, without understanding how collaboration works here. At this point, read Law of holes. Last I'm posting here. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:39, 25 April 2026 (UTC)

So it still seems to me I have legitimate points: First, DROPTHESTICK/IDHT/CIR are essays, not rules linked to by the contentious topics policy. Second, random accusations are not in line with the contentious topics policy. Third, an arbitration decision was the cited reason, not anything related to the topic we were discussing.

And with respect to your point, no; my point was factually correct according to Wikipedia's own articles and sources. The discussion was closed with the snide remark "Wikipedia is not beholden to the Trump" but I never mentioned the Trump administration, this shows a willful misrepresentation of my point. My point is that multiple Reliable Sources reported the facts as well as a independent Grand Jury, that requires no trust in any politicians. It would be well within Wikipedia's editorial guidelines for an article, never mind a discussion page. Bringing politics into the discussion where it's not relevant should be a violation of WP:CIR, if that's going to be on the table.

Finally, when several other editors ask questions, honestly answering these questions does not violate DROPTHESTICK. If five editors ask the same variation of a question or point five times, am I not entitled to answer them? Awwright (talk) 00:37, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

WP:IDHT is not an essay, and the other two are universally applied essays that go into details the specific aspects of WP:DE they represent. Your interpretation of what arbitration rulings on Wikipedia mean continues to be incorrect. The block has already expired; the only thing that could possibly result at this point by refusing to WP:DROPTHESTICK is to earn another, longer one.

If you make productive edits for six months on topics unrelated to your topic ban, which means nearly every topic in existence, there's a very good chance that your request to lift the topic ban will be lifted. How you proceed from here is up to you; the way you're currently approaching things is not likely to get you the results you want. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 08:09, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

- There is no IDHT violation. The close reason was listed as "Wikipedia is not beholden to the Trump" but at no point did I cite the Trump administration or rely on any assertions from them. Other editors deliberately misconstruing my point and then banning this straw man is not my fault; that is the other editor failing to get the point. I am asking this to be reviewed.

- The page it is found in, Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing, is primarily for editing articles, not discussions. And it is primarily aimed at old disputes; to the extent IDHT applies to discussions, my point is extremely new and didn't relate to any material older than a few days (except in one answer, which was necessary to respond to a question).

- Before I stepped into the conversation, the official reasons from previous editors were "Noone supports this" and that there were no reliable sources. Therefore, if I and others support it, and find reliable sources, this is sufficient to re-examine the conversation. So I provided this information. The rest of the discussion was answering questions about this new information.

- Then what is the point of linking to an arbitration ruling if nobody can explain what it is or how it impacts the discussion?

- So is the ban gone or not? Awwright (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The topic ban remains in effect. What the arbitration ruling did was authorize the contentious topics procedure, which can be applied by any admin to halt what they consider to be disruption in this topic area. It was linked to indicate what authority was employed to place the topic ban.

I second the excellent advice given to you by CoffeeCrumbs, which represents your best chance to get the topic ban overturned. MrOllie (talk) 21:48, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

So it sounds like it was a mistake to link to the Arbitration Committee in the ban reason, is that right? I can forgive that. Awwright (talk) 21:54, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Not quite right. The Arbitration Committee is who authorized admins to hand out topic bans. Think of it as someone saying 'By the authority invested in me by...' MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The arbitration process only permits arbiters to settle disputes "that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved". It even says the Committee "does not exist to subvert community consensus, to adjudicate matters of article content (Wikipedia has no "content committee"), or to decide matters of editorial or site policy." So what is the dispute that the arbitration committee resolved that is relevant here? Why can't I get a clean answer? Awwright (talk) 22:00, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The dispute was Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, which was a fairly wide ranging one from the runup to the 2016 election. It left the Wikipedia community (and the Arbitration Committee) so tired of political disruption that they authorized admins in advance to keep anything like that from happening again. MrOllie (talk) 22:03, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Ok, so was that a dispute between... administrators? That page is completely incomprehensible and it seems like that's not the page anyone actually wants to be linking to.

Contrast to a court briefing, when any court publishes an opinion, they post the summary of the dispute, then the summary of the ruling, then the opinion of the court, then additional supporting opinions or dissents if any. Is there no page like this? It reads like a court stenographer was teleported into the middle of a brawl.

The problem is still that the Arbitration Committee does not have "authority" to vest in others.

This decision should have been written into the real rules. The only time someone should be linked to this arbitration ruling is if that editor wants to, say, move the cutoff by a few years, that is when I would expect someone to be linked to that dispute. Not randos like me. Awwright (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee absolutely does. Your topic ban is not new or novel, this has been the system for like a decade. MrOllie (talk) 22:16, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Earlier I cited the Wikipedia:Arbitration page which specifically says it only resolves disputes and does not "dictate site policy".

Do you think this wording is misleading? Awwright (talk) 22:21, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

They mean content policy, which is clear in context. But that's irrelevant at the moment - another way that Wikipedia is unlike a court is that pointing out contradictions or technicalities in the policies won't sway decision making most of the time, see WP:LAWYER. MrOllie (talk) 22:28, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

That's not relevant to my question. I doubt we want Wikipedia rule pages to be a self-contradictory assortment of gobbledygook that new users have no hope of interpreting, that is the purpose of my question. It's not a trick question.

Reading the page, I would understand the Arbitration Committee is the final authority on disputes between two parties, but I've never had to escalate anything that far. And when they come to a conclusion, those parties are obligated to change the article or site-wide rules, but the only way it impacts third parties like me is indirectly, either because the site rules are edited, or because the two parties are now compelled to agree on some matter.

So for the sake of us editors, what part of the Wikipedia guidelines suggest your interpretation? Awwright (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

It isn't just my interpretation, I'm just telling you how things are done around here. If you want to deny that is in fact how things are done you have at it - but what you've been doing so far has clearly not been working. MrOllie (talk) 23:24, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Admins deal with behavior, not content. Your behavior here is the same as that which resulted in your sanctions. You will never get the TBan removed until you understand this and modify your behavior. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has been able to actually identify something that I did wrong. Every response to that question ends up being some variation of "you had the wrong opinion, even though it was being solicited".

All of the contributions I made were (1) not to articles, nobody was obligated to pay them any attention; (2) in response to some sort of solicitation, be it for an interested party, or a desire for reporting from a reliable source, or answering an actual question aimed at me. Awwright (talk) 22:17, 26 April 2026 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Awwright (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log) • SI)

---

Request reason:

The previous decline reason appears to believe that the the topic ban pre-dated my post on the notice board. In fact, it was applied well after, and with no prior notice. First, a standard introduction was placed on my user page at 18:45 which overviews the rules for editors, and even says it does not imply wrongdoing. All of those rules were followed. Then, suddenly and capaciously, a topic ban was added, citing arbitration decisions that were never relevant to the discussion, and essays not referenced by the contentious topics policy (inclusive of WP:AIM, WP:PG, or WP:GAMING). Also note that user page edits do not create alerts while using the in-line reply functionality; the alert bell is hidden, and only edits to the same page are shown.

Second, the site-wide ban was instituted by the same person, who at this point was an involved party.

As noted, DROPTHESTICK is not a rule listed in the contentious topics policy. However, there was no violation of this essay either:

- Suppose I edit the Cat article, remarking “Well MY cat has CARETAKERS” and changing all of the wording from 'owner' to 'caretaker,' knowing that this was settled in previous arbitration, that would be an obvious violation of DROPTHESTICK.

- If someone removes a paragraph in an article with the reason “I don’t trust the lying presidential administration!” And then I come in and say “well you don’t have to take them at their word“ and add it back plus three Reliable Sources, that is clearly not a violation of DROPTHESTICK. If there is an arbitration decision purpose in removing the paragraph, that ought to have been stated to begin with.

- If the discussion is attracting legitimate questions, to which you can provide a favorable answer, and to which multiple people agree, responding to these is not DROPTHESTICK.

Please re-review #Unblock_request with this understanding. Awwright (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Decline reason:

This is moot since the block has expired, however I doubt it would have been accepted anyway. Among other problems (not a complete review):

• the topic ban notice was placed at 20:05, and you continued making edits to the topic area as late as 20:22. Regardless of what interface you use to edit, you are responsible for seeing edits to your talk page, and ignorance is not an excuse
• Second, the site-wide ban was instituted by the same person, who at this point was an involved party. -> That's not how WP:INVOLVED works. One important caveat is that an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role [...] is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Placing a topic ban is considered to be an administrative role, hence there's not an INVOLVED issue with the block.
• As noted, DROPTHESTICK is not a rule listed in the contentious topics policy - The list of rules in the contentions topics policy is not exhaustive.
• {{unblock}} is not an allowed venue for appealing a topic ban; you have to follow the Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Procedures#Appeals_and_modifications_of_enforcement_actions process to do that. Hence I as reviewing admin lack jurisdiction to decide whether or not the topic ban was justified and all of your arguments on that completely miss the point.

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:52, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Grand juries

With no reference to any particular case, it's really weird to see someone describe an American grand jury handing out an indictment as anything but routine. It's a famous statement that a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich. Sesquilinear (talk) 02:59, 27 April 2026 (UTC)