Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration | Requests

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CodeLyoko (talk | contribs) at 01:53, 1 December 2019 (→Antisemitism in Poland: Motion: enacting motion). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Request name Motions Initiated Votes
Marine 69-71 Motions 26 October 2024 0/0/0
Covert canvassing and proxying in the Israel-Arab conflict topic area   6 November 2024 0/0/0
[edit]
Open cases
Case name Links Evidence due Prop. Dec. due
Backlash to diversity and inclusion (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) 10 Oct 2024 24 Oct 2024
[edit]
Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Request name Motions  Case Posted
Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3 none (orig. case) 24 August 2019
Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons none (orig. case) 3 November 2019
Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland none (orig. case) 14 November 2019
Amendment request: American politics 2 none (orig. case) 18 November 2019
Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland (2) none (orig. case) 19 November 2019
Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland (3) Motion (orig. case) 26 November 2019
Amendment request: The Rambling Man none (orig. case) 28 November 2019

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this page 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).

Submitting a 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.
Clarification and Amendment archives
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129

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.

Guidance on participation and word limits

Unlike many venues on Wikipedia, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.

  • Motivation. Word limits are imposed to promote clarity and focus on the issues at hand and to ensure that arbitrators are able to fully take in submissions. Arbitrators must read a large volume of information across many matters in the course of their service on the Committee, so submissions that exceed word limits may be disregarded. For the sake of fairness and to discourage gamesmanship (i.e., to disincentivize "asking forgiveness rather than permission"), word limits are actively enforced.
  • In general. Most submissions to the Arbitration Committee (including statements in arbitration case requests and ARCAs and evidence submissions in arbitration cases) are limited to 500 words, plus 50 diffs. During the evidence phase of an accepted case, named parties are granted an automatic extension to 1000 words plus 100 diffs.
  • Sectioned discussion. To facilitate review by arbitrators, you should edit only in your own section. Address your submission to arbitrators, not to other participants. If you wish to rebut, clarify, or otherwise refer to another submission for the benefit of arbitrators, you may do so within your own section. (More information.)
  • Requesting an extension. You may request a word limit extension in your submission itself (using the {{@ArbComClerks}} template) or by emailing clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
    • Members of the Committee may also grant extensions when they ask direct questions to facilitate answers to those questions.
  • Refactoring statements. You should write carefully and concisely from the start. It is impermissible to rewrite a statement to shorten it after a significant amount of time has passed or after anyone has responded to it (see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments), so it is often advisable to submit a brief initial statement to leave room to respond to other users if the need arises.
  • Sign submissions. In order for arbitrators and other participants to understand the order of submissions, sign your submission and each addition (using ~~~~).
  • Word limit violations. Submissions that exceed the word limit will generally be "hatted" (collapsed), and arbitrators may opt not to consider them.
  • Counting words. Words are counted on the rendered text (not wikitext) of the statement (i.e., the number of words that you would see by copy-pasting the page section containing your statement into a text editor or word count tool). This internal gadget may also be helpful.
  • Sanctions. Please note that members and clerks of the Committee may impose appropriate sanctions when necessary to promote the effective functioning of the arbitration process.

General guidance

  • Arbitrators and 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.
  • Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Shortcuts:
123456789101112131415161718
192021222324252627282930313233343536
373839404142434445464748495051525354
555657585960616263646566676869707172
737475767778798081828384858687888990
919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108
109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126
127128129

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

Initiated by Zero0000 at 13:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. WP:ARBPIA3#500/30


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request



Information about amendment request
  • Remove ambiguity


Statement by Zero0000

The sentence "Deletion of new articles by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required." literally says that non-extended-confirmed editors may delete new articles. This was certainly not the intention. To remove this ambiguity I suggest the insertion of one word: "Deletion of new articles created by editors who do not meet the criteria is permitted but not required."

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: I also doubt there has been actual confusion. I see this only as a little bit of cleanup that should be carried out on the principle that rules should really say what everyone assumes them to say. Zerotalk 18:16, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JJE

Well, has there been actual confusion because of this ambiguity? It doesn't sound likely. And if there was, should this be folded into the pending case on this topic area? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons

Initiated by TonyBallioni at 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by TonyBallioni

Buffs is currently interpreting WP:ECP to state that admins must either declare protection is for disruptive editing, or apply it under DS. He has taken to requesting logging of ECPs on BLPs at WP:AELOG based on the ruling at WP:NEWBLPBAN. I am requesting the committee clarify whether the practice of using the standard Twinkle drop down Violations of the biographies of living persons policy requires logging at WP:AELOG if it is not intended as a discretionary sanction and it complies with the rest of the policy at WP:ECP. The committee could also clarify whether all actions taken to enforce the BLP policy are under DS or whether the current practice of enforcing it as normal admin actions is fine. I'm sorry to bother you all with this, but since all of his user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP, I'd prefer the committee clarify this before it gets any further. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not really sure how this is an end-run around ARBPIA4 (which I’ve ignored.) We have someone saying that using the Twinkle defaults for BLP protection requires logging, and when approached about it maintains that is the position. If Buffs is going to continue policing ECP (he can if he wants), there should be clarity on what is actually the standard outside of ARBPIA. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Buff's. The reason this is at ARCA is because you said While the ECP of Joe Girardi was short-lived, you still need to log your actions here per the ArbCom ruling on BLPs. Please do so. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)} (diff)
You also told Risker If you are invoking protection of the article because it's BLP]], you need to log such actions here. Please do so. (diff)
You are saying that you are fine with this now that we are at ARCA, but the fact is that your most persistent activity of the last few weeks on Wikipedia has been policing the use of ECP. As I said, that's fine. What I have an issue with is you making up a requirement that all BLP protections must be logged, telling admins this, and when it is pointed out to you that you are wrong, you responding that you aren't. You have said on two occasions that ArbCom requires ECP of BLPs to be logged.
When I questioned you on it, you didn't back down and instead said Therefore, it you are citing WP:BLP as your rationale for WP:ECP, it seems to me that you're applying it due to DS, not DE. (diff).
As for your objections: when someone has made it their mission on Wikipedia to enforce policy on something, are incorrect on what the policy says, and invokes ArbCom as a reason for their position when ArbCom has said nothing of the sort, the place you go to ask for clarification is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buffs

Well, that's a terribly biased and misleading interpretation of events.

First of all, to state that "all of [my] user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP" is beyond a stretch of the truth. In the only two specific instances he mentioned to me on my user page, the first had no rationale listed whatsoever. I asked for clarification and reminded him that, if it was under DS, to file it in the appropriate logs (even going so far as to provide a link to make it easier should that be the rationale). He stated that he probably overstepped where the protection needed to be. In the other, I asked for clarification and the Admin apparently felt it WAS under WP:DS and filed it under the logs as he should do so. In both instances, I felt such actions were appropriate and it was handled as it should have been.

Second, yes, I've asked for others to be more clear and, if necessary, to log such actions in accordance with ArbCom directives. In most instances, an admin says "hmm...you have a point there" and it's either clarified, clarified and logged, or any of a number of other actions which amount to  Done. To demonize all such conversations as super-literal policing of the use of ECP is beyond what anyone could objectively say is an accurate summary of events and is quite uncivil, IMNSHO.

Third, it seems quite obvious that the requirements for DS and ArbCom decisions are not being properly logged. You need to look no further than the first page of over 1800 ECP'd pages to see that there are dozens of pages under ArbCom rulings that are not logged anywhere. When notified, most admins go "Gee, you have a point there. I'll fix that!" Some have dug their heels in and said "No, I'm not going to do that". I haven't pursued such actions beyond a one-on-one conversation because of ongoing ArbCom discussion and clarification that's already underway. Bringing this here seems to be an attempt to end-run around that discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this falls under both ArbCom rulings (not just BLP) AND community consensus at WP:ECP. Please keep that in mind in your deliberations/conversations. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Buffs Responses to comments

Statement by Johnuniq

My understanding is that ECP (30/500 protection) can be applied by an admin in either of these cases:

  1. In certain topics specified by Arbcom.
  2. In any topic if certain conditions (other methods are ineffective) are met.

In the first case, another admin must not change the protection as it is a discretionary sanction, and the action should be logged. The second case is a normal admin action which can be changed by another admin, and there is no log but pages are automatically listed at WP:AN. See the ECP RfC. Applying ECP is like any admin action—it might be reasonable to ask an admin why they had taken the action. However, it should be assumed that the first case applies if and only if mentioned in the edit summary. Admins have to take a lot of actions and requiring a discussion should be rare. In the second case, if there is reason to think that page protection should be reduced, ask the admin to do that or make a request at WP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Newyorkbrad

Like the others who have posted, I suggest that Buffs drop this matter. The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG (Editing of Biographies of Living Persons)

Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Buffs appears to want to make it one. No thanks. Guy (help!) 10:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

With respect to my own protection cited here, the Kurdish set of articles had been a haven for socking-based disruption from confirmed accounts for months before I finally had to apply ECP to a set of related articles, to the relief of regular contributors. Anyway, some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all, so the formality of semiprotecting those articles first just so they could be immediately ECP'd seemed redundant to me. El_C 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So why not block the users? You're just pointing out the flaw in your argument here — well, I did, at first, but as I recall, the volume proved to be too great. El_C 03:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some more context is available here — it includes Buffs' objection to my application of ECP as well as a comment from another admin, who supported my applying ECP to several Kurdish-related articles. That aside, that this matter is before the Committee —what purview does it have over this?— surprises me. El_C 03:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Xaosflux

There seems to be some overlap with the items being discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop, to follow up on my comments there: uses of page protection that are not explicitly related to active arbitration should be dealt with in standard community venues. If the use of protection outside of remedies has truly risen through dispute resolution without a solution emerging it should be dealt with as its own case and not shoehorned on to an old case that primarily dealt with behavior over a different issue. — xaosflux Talk 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: your #4 note, as related to any non-arbcom remedy appears to pull in an unknown number of users involved or directly affected without confirmation that all are aware of the request; for example any admin that lowered a full or template protection to ECP for IAR reasons. It also seems that it would tie all those admins to this case - the core of which has nothing to do with applying protection outside of arbitration remedies or the enforcement thereof. It also appears to assume that "their reasoning" is actually lacking or otherwise not already explained. — xaosflux Talk 20:19, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Blackmane

Having been involved in the original discussion (and in fact I was the one that suggested that the WP:AN notification be required. Credit goes to MusikAnimal for the hard work though) on implementing ECP as a discretionary measure I would note that the whole point of the notification list at WP:AN was precisely so that there was a log of all ECP's that were levied, irrespective of what they were levied for. Requiring admins to log it elsewhere _as well as it being automatically logged at AN_ is just a box ticking exercise which adds virtually no value. Blackmane (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by isaacl

@Blackmane: while logging of discretionary sanctions for this situation is a pretty tiny benefit for most instances (how often are these sanctions modified?), due to the rigid rules surrounding arbitration enforcement, it's still welcome. isaacl (talk) 19:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes

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

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I wrote the RFC to expand ECP. Option C, which became the bones of the current policy, states that ECP may be used to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. A bot currently handles that AN notification. I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy, and I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are. If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it, but it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS. (I don't think I've ever done it as a DS, but I could be wrong.) If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me. Katietalk 00:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I broadly agree with Katie above. ECP's usage has expanded far beyond DS over the years, and that RfC was the start. Buffs, that third paragraph deals with the history of ECP, not the current state. I accept that there are a number of rationales which are subpar, however that's not a question for ARCA. It's a question for the admins who placed ECP those rationale - we also have RFPP and AN if it cannot be resolved with the admin in question. For a review of ECP on a wider scale, can I suggest an RfC? At any rate, I'm not seeing the problem that needs to be clarified from an Arbcom perspective. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the current practice would be if an editor does not expressly state ECP is being applied as an arbitration enforcement relating to discretionary sanctions, it would be assumed it is a regular application of ECP. Mkdw talk 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Mkdw. I would also want the parties involved to understand that actions needing to be logged are not made ineffective by a failure to log. The appropriate response in most cases will be to simply WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM – add the log entry yourself. AGK ■ 12:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me the state of affairs here is that 1) ECP may be placed as a discretionary sanction, in which case it needs to be logged at the WP:DSLOG; 2) ECP may alternatively be placed as an admin action if semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, and it is automatically logged to AN; 3) admins who have placed ECP as discretionary sanctions but not logged the actions in the DSLOG should be asked to do so; 4) admins who appear to have placed ECP outside of the scenarios allowed at WP:ECP should be asked to clarify their reasoning and/or modify the protection level; 5) admins who have placed ECP as per the "semi-protection has proven to be ineffective" scenario should not be required to also manually log the action. Does this seem to cover it? GorillaWarfare (talk) 05:50, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Xaosflux: I probably could've wordsmithed a little better here to avoid what you're hearing. To be clear, I'm not suggesting any sort of formal amendment to the case or anything like that—rather, in cases where a user has concerns about an application of ECP they should determine which of the scenarios above apply and determine if an adjustment needs to be made. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:02, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland

Initiated by My very best wishes at 22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by My very best wishes

According to the Article sourcing expectation remedy [81], "The sourcing expectations applied to the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland are expanded and adapted to cover all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions."

The question. Does that sourcing restriction covers only content on the "Polish history during World War II (1933-45)" or it covers any other content that appear on the same page where anything related to the Polish history during World War II was mentioned? For example, there is a page Gas chamber. It includes a section about Nazi Germany that seems to be related to the Polish history during World War II [82]. However, it also includes sections about other countries, such as North Korea [83], USA and Lithuania [84]. Would these sections also be covered by such sourcing restriction? Meaning, should the section about North Korea be removed?

In other words, can content completely unrelated to Poland be removed based on this sourcing restriction, as in this edit (note edit summary)? Note that the page in question is not about Poland, but about Gas chamber. It only includes some content related to Poland.

Why. I am asking because the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies. A lot of subjects are simply not science.

I would also suggest an amendment. I think this sourcing restriction for Poland should be removed for the following reasons:

  1. In many cases, the "non-academic" RS, such as news or popular articles published by historians for general public, tell essentially the same story as the academic RS, but they provide a number of additional important details. I do not see why they should not be used. Excluding such sources makes the coverage of the subject less complete and contradicts the WP:NPOV because the "non-academic sources" frequently simply elaborate the "majority view", but in more detail.
  2. The inclusion of reliably sourced content on the subject is generally allowed per policy. Should individual admins and Arbcom modify the policy (WP:RS)? Is not it something for community to decide, as it was for WP:MEDRS? Also note that WP:MEDRS is only a guideline, not a policy. The decision by Arbcom (which is immediately enforceable on WP:AE) makes this an alternative policy, one where WP:NEWSORG is no longer valid. It means all claims sourced to something like The Guardian (this publication used on the page) must be removed. Personally, I do not care if the article in Guardian was about Poland, North Korea or another country. Would such removal of content improve the encyclopedia?
  3. I do not see this editing restriction to be used on any specific pages after closing the arbitration case; it was used before only on one page noted in the Arbcom decision.
  4. (added later). A contributor just was blocked for violating this restriction. According to blocking admin, [85], "Rzeczpospolita (newspaper) is, judging from its article, a leading mainstream Polish newspaper and therefore a "reputable institution" in the sense of the remedy". OK, that sounds reasonable, but completely unexpected to me. What exactly represents a "reputable institution" or an "academically focused book" is not obvious for participants. It is one thing when people are debating this on RSN or talk page, but it is quite another when they are receiving sanctions for potentially misunderstanding such things (although probably not in this case, when the participant did clearly violate the remedy).
  • The scope of this request. This is a general question and suggestion that I think need to be resolved, regardless to any specific page or a dispute, such as Gas van or discussions on RSNB. The gas chamber is only an illustration.
  • A clarification. I am not talking about Questionable and self-published sources as defined in the policy. Those are already disallowed by the policy and no clarification is required about them. I am talking about sources that clearly qualify as WP:RS, for example per WP:NEWSORG, such as the article in The Guardian about North Korea in the example above. If one looks in Perennial sources there is a consensus that The Guardian is "generally reliable".
Responses
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Paul Siebert Paul wants to make this removal. In this edit Paul removes everything referenced to works by historian Nikita Petrov (a publication in Novaya Gazeta), to Nobel Prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, to historian Lydia Golovkova, to a book by Mikhail Schreider who was an important witness to the crimes by the Soviet NKVD, to a book by Petro Grigorenko who was one of the founders of the Soviet dissident movement, and to publications in Kommersant which is arguably an RS. These so called "non-scholarly sources" tell essentially the same as "scholarly sources" (ones that remain on the page after his edit), however they provide some additional important details and corroborate the entire story.

@JzG Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? That would be any reasonable person, because we have WP:NEWSORG as a part of WP:RS for a very good reason. And that depends on which articles and sections. If subject X has been covered in a huge number of sources, including academic ones (or this is a purely scientific subject, rather than magic), then such restriction might work OK, even though excluding journalistic sources could violate the balance and work against WP:NPOV. However, consider one of sub-subjects related to Human rights in North Korea, let's say Kang Chol-hwan or Lee Soon-ok (I would like to stick to the same example). There are no sources about them beyond publications in good journalistic sources like BBC and a couple of human rights reports. Personally, I prefer good journalistic sources. Or consider a notable movie covered only in multiple journalistic sources and Rotten tomatoes.

@Assayer. Discussing "whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented" is normal process. RSN did not "fail to settle these questions". It worked just fine, as it should, and provided some advice from the participants and uninivoled contributors.

@Worm. Enforcing WP:RS would be great, but you want it in WP:AE setting to sanction people. Therefore, you need to establish very clear rules which would be obvious for everyone. This is nearly impossible. Even something as simple as 1RR/3RR causes a lot of confusion. A more complex "consensus required" remedy caused more harm than good in AP area. But this is even a more complex restriction. A lot of sources are not inherently reliable or unreliable. Their usage should be discussed on a case to case basis and be decided per WP:Consensus. In other words, to impose such restriction you should answer the following questions:

  1. Is it required for admins to post this editing restriction on specific pages to apply sanctions to contributors, as described in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions?
  2. Do you really exclude all WP:NEWSORG? If your answer is "yes", this will negatively affect coverage of all low-significance subjects, and quite obviously, is not an enforcement, but a change of WP:RS.
  3. In your current version, what does it mean "recognized institutions"? Please see comments by Piotrus in his request below. Yes, one should exclude all "predatory publishing" and self-publishing. Enforcing that would be fine as indeed an enforcement of WP:RS. But other than that, there is no bright line.
  4. What does it mean "recognized academics"? Someone with a PhD from Harvard? Someone who published a couple of books in history? This is all debatable. Someone can be an authority, even after graduating from a provincial College. Someone with degree in another area can be an excellent scholar in History, etc. Also note that usage of original publications in "peer-reviewed scholarly journals" is explicitly discouraged by WP:MEDRS, and for a good reason.

The bottom line (in my opinion). Arbcom and admins should not change the "five pillars". That restriction changes rather than just enforces WP:RS policy (and adversely affects the WP:NPOV by default). My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm. In addition, the already existing procedure tells "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict page protection, revert restrictions, prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists), or any other reasonable measure that the enforcing administrator believes is necessary and proportionate for the smooth running of the project." Based on that, any uninvolved admin can post a sourcing restriction on any page already (exactly as NeilN did). Therefore, this editing restriction by Arbcom is simply unnecessary. On the other hand, I still believe this restriction should never be used because the problem is never the source(s), but always the user(s). So, I think you need to establish as a clear set of standard discretionary sanctions. Just saying "any reasonable measure" is not good enough, as the request just below shows [86]. My very best wishes (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you absolutely want to keep some restriction, I think Nick-D get it almost right (I omit only his first phrase as too ambiguous):

"Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available."

Statement by Paul Siebert

It seems the request was inspired mostly by this.

Briefly, My Very Best Wishes' edits of the Gas van article are heavily dependent on questionable primary sources (an RSN discussion of one of key sources used by MVBW can be found here). The "Soviet Gas Van" topic is based literally on few sentences taken from one tabloid article, which were reproduced by several secondary sources, and handful of testimonies, part of them state that "Soviet gas van" was used to incapacitate victims before execution, not to kill them, and some of them say that NKVD documents the whole story is based upon cannot be trusted. For comparison, this article about Holocaust in Yugoslavia performs detailed analysis of real and perceived cases of gas van usage in Holocaust, and concludes that some witness testimonies should be treated with great cautions, and usage of gas vans to kill non-Jews is, most likely, a post-WWII myth. As compared with that article, the sources telling about Soviet gas van look like a school student essay.

A comparison of sources that tell about Nazi and Soviet gas vans demonstrates that the level of fact checking and accuracy are incomparable. In my opinion, combining poor sources telling about Soviet gas van and good sources telling about Nazi gas van is tantamount to combining articles from Physical Review Letters and popular schientific journal for kids in the article about Uncertainty principle: the level of sources should be more or less uniform in articles, otherwise we just discredit Wikipedia.

Second, I found the MVBW's rationale (the subjects related to other countries often have only a limited coverage in RS and were not subjects of significant scholarly studies) very odd, because he is literally advocating inclusion of questionable sources to support some exceptional claim (the claim that gas vans were invented and used in the USSR is exceptional) because this claim is not covered by multiple mainstream sources. In other words, the argument against inclusion of this material is used to support inclusion of poor sources.

Third, during the discussion of the Collaboration in Poland Arbitration Case I already proposed (01:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)) sourcing restriction as an almost universal solution for conflicts in EE area. It already has had positive effect in Holocaust in Poland area, and I am 100% sure expansion of sourcing expectaions on whole EE area will quench lion's share of conflicts. At least, the long lasting conflict around the Gas van story will immediately stop is this criteria will be applied to that article. Importantly, in contrast to various topic bans or 1RRs, which are totally palliative measures, more stringent sourcing criteria really improve quality of articles and quench conflicts.

"The level of sources used in a discussion has an enormous influence on the level of the discussion. It is hard to have a low level discussion when both parties are using high quality sources. In contrast, poor sources are seeds of various conflicts. Among the features of marginally acceptable sources are wague logic, lousy facts and poor wording, so the disputs around such sources are inevitably more hot. Therefore, it would be correct if ArbCom added "sourcing expectations" clause at least to the ARBEE case as whole, because such a restriction is a very efficient quencher of many conflicts."

Comments on MVBW's comments

  1. When some reputable scholar publishes some data in non-peer-reviewed media, current sourcing restrictions do not prevent usage of that information. However, a proof should be presented that that author is reputable;
  2. Universally imposed sourcing restriction is not more ruling of content that universally imposed 1RR;
  3. No comments;
  4. This

--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:05, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Brief reply to comment by Paul Siebert below, a comparison with my most recent proposal demonstrates MVBW's statement is FALSE: I do not propose to remove Solzhenitsyn. Other two sources are primary, and per WP:REDFLAG they cannot be used for such exceptional claims, and the newspaper article just briefly repeats what other sources say. In general, editorial style of MVBW can be characterized as manipulation with poor sources to push certain POVs. A typical example is this edit, where MVBW added one primary source and one newspaper article, each of which provide the identical text. Although the latter may formally be considered as a secondary source (more precisely, op-ed, per NEWSORG), the author does not comment on the cited memoirs, so there is no analysis, evaluation or synthesis (which are necessary traits of any secondary source). In other words, MVBW uses a primary source to advance some exceptional claim, and he duplicates the source to create a false impression of wider coverage of this topic.

I think this behaviour deserves more detailed analysis of ArbCom, and I am going to prepare and submit full scale case, because the discussions on talk pages and various noticeboards aimed to convince MVBW to abandon this type behaviour lead just to repetition of the same arguments, which MVBW ignores.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Assayer: RSN has failed to settle these questions, actually, as our ongoing discussion at WP:V talk page with SarahSV demonstrated, the burden of proof rests with the user who adds a source, and that includes the proof that the source is reliable. That means consensus is needed not to remove a source, but to keep it. Actually, no consensus was achieved to keep that source during the RSN discussion you refer to, so that source can be removed. That can be done even if without additional restrictions, but applying such restriction would facilitate that process dramatically.--Paul Siebert (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@François Robere: In the case of newspapers, per WP:NEWSORG, one has to discriminate news, editorials, and op-eds. If sourcing restrictions allow reliable primary sources, then editorials are ok.--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

This question was already posed at WP:AE#Gas_Van_and_sourcing_requirements — I closed it with (nominal) consensus that restrictions in topical articles do cover untopical sections therein. Mind you, the question became moot with the article having been split into topical and untopical entries. El_C 01:58, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nug

This is a thorny issue. If the presence of the section Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany requires the entire article Gas_chamber to be subject to the same strict Antisemitism-in-Poland sourcing expectation, then the section Gas_chamber#North_Korea would have to be deleted, as is it entirely sourced from newspapers and first hand witness accounts. Alternately Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany would have to be split out into a separate article Nazi gas chambers (which currently redirects to Gas_chamber#Nazi_Germany). --Nug (talk) 05:35, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • The flip side to François Robere's concern is the concern over possible gaming of the sourcing restrictions intended for WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland on essentially unrelated topics. --Nug (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • JzG's suggested abundance of sources does not exists in all areas. A large volume of high quality sources on the Holocaust and WW2 in Poland exist due to the fact that archives of original Nazi documents have been open for decades, eye witness accounts systematically documented, war crimes investigations documented, etc, making it a rich area for academic study. That just isn't the case with the Soviet Union, archives in Russia remain restricted for many controversial aspects of that regime. And even more so with highly secretive regimes like North Korea, where most of the topics like Hoeryong concentration camp are sourced from news agencies, many of them local South Korean newspapers, as well as eye witness accounts, rather than academic sources. If we were to adopt JzG's approach, we would have to delete or gut most articles on North Korea. --Nug (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assayer claims that having a section about a topic of the Great Purge in an article on a Holocaust topic is legitimate because of Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism. However Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is about ideology, totalitarianism and personality cults, not execution technology. No Holocaust scholar makes reference to, let alone compares, Soviet gas vans when discussing Nazi gas vans. There is no connection, they were independently invented. This demonstrates how disruptive gaming the Poland-in-WW2 restriction is, two topics that would normally be split is being artificially kept together to take advantage of the stricter sourcing requirement introduced by one of the topics.
In fact Paul Siebert essentially admits to gaming the Poland-in-WW2 sourcing restriction, in offering a quid pro quo: "Actually, if you agree with that (the sourcing restrictions), and you agree that Nazi gas van is a primary topic, I do not insist on merging the articles." If they desire stricter sourcing requirements for all articles on the topic of the Soviet Union, using the back door of the Poland-in-WW2 case is not the right approach. --Nug (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

I've not been involved in the particular discussion mentioned here, though I have been involved in the topic area and the ArbCom case that resulted in the sourcing restrictions subject of this ARCA request. The discussions span four articles: Gas chamber, Gas van, Nazi gas van and Soviet gas van. Two of these were split[87][88] from the main article[89][90] - splits which may or may not be justified on content grounds, but which were done during an ongoing discussion on sourcing, raising the concern that they were done to avoid the sourcing restrictions placed on the main article. I've reverted all of them while discussion is ongoing,[91][92][93] and asked for clarifications on the main TP.[94] François Robere (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG

The core argument here seems to be that because something is covered only in questionable sources, we should relax the sourcing requirement to allow it to be included from those questionable sources. I think I'm reading that right.

I don't think it needs ArbCom to tell us that's a terrible idea.

What are the restrictions, you ask?

  • Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals and academically focused books by reputable publishers. English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones when available and of equal quality and relevance.
  • Anyone found to be misrepresenting a source, either in the article or on the talk page, will be subject to escalating topic bans.

Who thinks it would be a bad thing if this were applied over more articles or sections? Given the abundance of excellent sources covering these topics and this timeframe, anything that does not appear in sources of this quality is very likely to be WP:UNDUE even if it's not POV-pushing. Guy (help!) 00:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re Antisemitism in Poland)

I think the pragmatic thing to do here would be to apply the sourcing restrictions to (i) content regarding Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland; and (ii) sections of articles which relate exclusively or primarily to Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland.

This would mean that on the Gas chamber article, the restrictions would apply to the whole of the Nazi Germany section (as that section is primarily related to Polish history during WWII), but not other sections of that article. Thryduulf (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Assayer

The Antisemitism in Poland case found, that much of the evidence and thus much of the dispute, centered on disputed sourcing and use of low-quality sources, specifically, whether a particular source was reliable, whether a particular author was qualified, and whether a source is being misunderstood or misrepresented. The dispute which fuels My very best wishes’ clarification request is very much of the same kind. RSN has failed to settle these questions, in part because the sources are largely written in Russian and there are few uninvolved editors able to read them. The sourcing restrictions imposed on the article Collaboration in German-occupied Poland have been found to have had a positive effect by stabilizing the article and limiting disputes. Since the Comparison of Nazism and Stalinism is a highly controversial and a much disputed field, content on Stalinism that is raised and connected to Nazism within an article largely dealing with the Holocaust in Poland should not be exempted from these restrictions, and these restrictions should certainly not be removed altogether.

I may note that not only is the article gas chamber, which should provide some sort of overview, an ill-conceived example for the urgent need of detailed information. The way My very best wishes expanded [100] the article basically by copying huge chunks of text including notes from the stand-alone article - all the while knowing that the “invention” of gas vans was disputed[101] - is quite revealing as is the way they put the sections “in a chronological order”[102], effectively ignoring the Nevada gas chamber of 1924. Nevertheless, quick research turns up better sources for Lithuania and North Korea, sources which would meet the high-quality sourcing restrictions. Thus, the use of better sources would improve the encyclopedia.--Assayer (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The contradictory comments by My very best wishes and Paul Siebert on the power of RSN illustrate my point. I agree that restrictions would facilitate the process. Otherwise I do not see a good reason, why My very best wishes would bother to request a clarification, if their sources were vetted as being as perfect as they claim.--Assayer (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug One of the contentions during the Historikerstreit was the notion that the Soviet terror and the Gulag preceded the concentration camps and was even “more original” (E. Nolte). One of the main arguments against this notion was that in the Gulag there were no gas chambers, i.e. the Gulag was not about extermination. Thus, to speak of Nazi and Soviet gas vans as being essentially the same and to conceive of Soviet gas vans as "mobile gas chambers" for mass killings, is an exceptional claim. Scholars like Stephen Wheatcroft and Robert Gellately, who mentioned Soviet gas vans in their comparisons of Soviet and Nazi policies, both called for further investigations and Gellately specified that the Soviets had no gas chambers. Authors like local historian Dmitry Sokolov, whose article in a Crimean newspaper is central to some of MvbW's editing, argue much less restrained. Sokolov, for instance, claims that the first death camps were operated in the Soviet Union. An article introduced by Nug himself, namely on “The genocide of the Polish people in the USSR in the years 1937–1938” by Marek Halaburda, published in a journal by Halaburda’s employer, the Pontifical University of John Paul II, links the Soviet use of gas vans directly to Polish history.
I do not see that the sourcing restrictions specify that only publications based upon full access to historical archives can be used. Academic research published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and so forth, must and will deal with the available sources just as well. I would think that Wikipedia should be even more strict on sourcing, the more difficult documentation of facts is, and not the other way around. It would be interesting to learn, though, what kind of “advantage” I might gain from the stricter sourcing requirements.--Assayer (talk) 03:47, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mkdw: The definition of the scope of the "topic area" is crucial and should be clarified. As I explained above, North Korea is not the problem here, but rather comparisons of Nazism and Stalinism. Is a section on Soviet history, e.g. Stalinism, inside the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland, if comparisons to Nazi policies, in particular the Holocaust, are drawn or when claims are made which contradict the findings of high quality scholarly literature on the Holocaust in Poland? --Assayer (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken

@Mkdw: I think what you write would work fine, except that I would add (for completeness) that whatever is summarized from the WWII/Poland related sections elsewhere in the broad article (e.g. in the article's introductory paragraphs, in a table grouping data from several sections of the article, etc), irrespective of whether such summaries carry their own references or rely on references elsewhere in the article, would also be subject to the strict sourcing requirements of the "Antisemitism in Poland" ArbCom case. Similar for Standard appendices and footers, e.g. a "Further reading" section should not list literature of a lesser quality on WWII/Poland topics. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:18, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D

I've been active on Wikipedia since 2005 with a focus on World War II, and for as long as I can remember our coverage of Poland, and especially 1920s-1940s era Poland, has been a deeply troubled topic area. I think it's entirely sensible to require a strict adherence to WP:RS as an attempt to ease these problems. I don't see any reason for good faith editors to struggle with this remedy: it might slow them down, but they should be pleased that it will result in better quality articles. As I have noted at WT:MILHIST#Implications of recent ArbCom case for content creation on WWII Polish topics I wouldn't support this kind of restriction being rolled out more broadly, but in unusual circumstances like this it's a worthwhile experiment. Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration, including a comment from an editor at WT:MILHIST who pointed out that the current wording would exclude some 'gold standard' military sources such as Jane's Fighting Ships on the grounds that they are non-scholarly, I think that the wording of the restriction regarding sourcing should be loosened somewhat to ensure that this doesn't have undesirable consequences. Peacemaker also makes a good point below about WP:RS already doing a lot of the lifting this remedy is seeking to do. I'd suggest something along the lines of "Only high quality sources may be used. Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available." Something like this would make it clear that editors should use scholarly sources, but provide some flexibility when these aren't comprehensive or available. Nick-D (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Slatersteven

I am wary of any topic specific polices at the best of times. But when it is loaded with subjective criteria (As this is) I start to get very alarmed as to intent. I have no issue with "peer-reviewed scholarly journals", but what is an "academically focused book"? As to "reputable institutions", who decides this, what is reputable (and why is a newspaper not a reputable institution?)? This is all too fuzzy and ill defined for me. I find it odd that it did not just read ""peer-reviewed scholarly journals or works by recognized academics".Slatersteven (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure about "recognized institutions", it would be best if we stuck to as narrow a definition as possible. One answer may be "academic institutions", but may still be open to abuse.Slatersteven (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ermenrich

Worm That Turned, I do not think that adding works by recognized academics is a good idea. Take this source. It is a set of lecture notes, yet an editor is arguing that he should not have been sanctioned for adding it (and some worse sources) because the scholar is well known. Such sources are not reliable and should not be used, but this change would open the door to using them. This would make the sourcing restrictions effectively meaningless. I also think that the phrasing or published by recognized institutions needs to be tightened, as at the moment that same user is using it to argue in favor of using a newspaper, and it was indeed understood to include them by Sandstein. This was not the intention and the wording needs to be changed to "reputable historical/scholarly institutions" or something like that.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DGG

The wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. Depending on the topic covered, I think there is no reason not to use them, if they are used with caution, and for some related topics, they may be essential. I'd would perhaps say Newspapers andmagazines can be used ,but with caution and agreement, and in context..

I understand the felling of the arbs who have commented that this is too early to make the change, but I think the original conception was overly simplistic, and would impair rational consideration of sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peacemaker67

I've been following this and the original case with interest. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this level of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted above, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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

Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The expanded article sourcing expectations apply to all articles on the topic of Polish history during World War II (1933-45), including the Holocaust in Poland. When a broad article has sections that relate to these topics, the restriction applies to only the relevant sections. Other sections outside of the topic area would not be subject to the expanded article sourcing expectations. For example, in the article Gas chamber, the section about North Korea would not be subject to these restrictions (and the standard Wikipedia requirements for sourcing and verifiability would still apply); whereas the Nazi Germany section would need to comply with the expanded article sourcing expectations. Mkdw talk 02:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the clarification of the scope, I absolutely agree with Mkdw - all articles on Polish history during World War II, including Holocaust in Poland. Outside those articles, it applies only to relevant sections of the articles. WormTT(talk) 11:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    On the suggested amendment to the types of sources used, I'm not willing to expand to news sources at present - my hope was to start with a extra strict adherence to WP:RS, which could be relaxed in the future. I will accept that there are improvements that can be made, which I'm still pondering on. I do like Slatersteven's suggestion for "peer-reviewed scholarly journals or works by recognized academics" as an alternative - however it does The issue that was raised in the case was allowing works from institutions such as United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. As this already needs one tweak (World War 2 did not start in 1933), I'm considering updating it to "peer-reviewed scholarly journals, works by recognized academics or published by recognized institutions" Comments would be appreciated. WormTT(talk) 11:39, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments so far. I will note, My very best wishes‎ that sanctioning the reliable sources is something that needs more thought - and I see there is a different ARCA lower down on the page on exactly that issue. WormTT(talk) 15:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment request: American politics 2

Initiated by Atsme at 23:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Indef t-ban from Anti-fascism broadly construed
  2. Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins
  3. Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability
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
  • Removal of the t-ban, and redaction from the log
  • Admins should not be permitted to create their own DS, or micromanage a topic area by imposing unilateral actions against editors for violations of DS that are not specifically defined in ArbCom Remedies

Statement by Atsme

I believe Awilley is a good admin trying to accomplish good things but is going about it the wrong way. He has inadvertently misused the tools and created more disruption than he's resolved. His bias is sometimes obvious but not consistently so. He takes unilateral actions based on his customized DS which has lead to POV creep and specific DS for specific editors as he sees fit. He is micromanaging AP2 and controlling the narrative by lording over editors. His experimental undertakings and ominous presence have a chilling effect. The following diffs will demonstrate the depth of his involvement and why ArbCom needs to modify/amend AE, particularly with reference to the issues mentioned herein. Note: I pinged only the few admins mentioned in the diffs below, but do not consider them or any of the editors named to be involved parties.

The day after I sought Awilley's help, he exercised a unilateral action and imposed an indef t-ban based on his misinterpretation of WP:GASLIGHTING
Involved, enforces homemade DS in anticipation of disruption, not because of it
Hounding, attempts to manipulate & control what others say and think
  • 2/21/2019 - I respond to misrepresentations
  • 2/22/2019 - hounding during 1st appeal - please note the section title On a personal note 16:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
  • 2/25/2019 - ignores consensus & goes with rope to maintain control
  • 2/27/2019 - another admin responds
  • 3/1/2019 - labels constructive criticism Strawman
  • 4/9/2019 - preconceived notions
  • 11/15/2019 - manipulative - Anybody with one eye can see that I pressured Snoogans into making those commitments..."
Displays of favoritism wherein he allows normal processes to work without his interference
  • 7/7/2019 - allows editors to work things out, a courtesy I was denied
  • 7/11/ 2019 gives editor a chance to self-correct
  • 7/23/2019 - simply redacts racial slur & helps involved editor with no warnings
  • 8/1/2019 - acts on an afterthought he should have engaged in before t-ban *RfC supported my position but again, his interference derailed my participation in a community process
  • 8/8/2019 - he's too busy to sanction, & tells editor to take a week off
  • 10/31/2019 - removes offensive comment, adds a friendly warning
  • 11/3/2019 - IP criticism over his friendly warnings and courtesy removals
  • 11/15/2019 - negotiates a side deal, rescinds DS


  • Response - Awilley's statement amplifies his inability to take responsibility for his mistakes or hounding disguised as WP:ROPE, and further demonstrates his POV creep, bias, and favoritism as evidenced by the diffs above and contained herein. He eludes discussion about the confusion and disruption caused by his unilateral actions & subsequent retractions for favored editors or when other admins question him. A few examples follow: he imposed NPC & TS DS based on an AE case; retracted TS; retracts both. A well-stated criticism over special DS followed by a little brew ha ha grave dance and a null edit “Let’s both sleep on this, deal?”; he mentions harm, creep and super-specific sanctions tailored to individual editors; he responds to criticism but rejects any notion that his micromanagement-style lording over the AP2 topic area is harmful. With regards to WP:GASLIGHTING, I repudiate his response as an obvious diversion of the truth per the diffs and discussion I've provided. I will also add that he has not said anything to others who have used the term, particularly when used fallaciously as in the 1st subsection title; or when used by others on his UTP, or in discussions wherein he participated. Quite frankly, it is creepy stalking by an admin, who is overly involved in a topic area, anticipating or perhaps even hoping an editor makes a mistake so he can impose his homemade DS. It has an undeniably chilling effect, and demands a closer look by ArbCom. Atsme Talk 📧 15:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vanamonde - thank you for your input. I am here requesting clarification and amendment as it relates to my case which has proven to be an excellent example of Awilley's overreach stemming from sole discretion and unilateral actions taken in the name of AE DS; thus, ARCA is the correct venue. Presenting it in parts or in any other form, and we'd have a carriage without the horse. Awilley's t-ban was an action of AE DS but it had an unforseen undertow - one that is not isolated to only my case as evidenced in the diffs above, as well as by his overreach in other cases such as this one wherein he inadvertently interfered with consensus building. His activities need ArbCom's scrutiny and clarification, which will benefit all of us, including Awilley himself. The community elected a committee to arbitrate tough cases that could not/should not be remedied by a single admin - yet, AE DS tossed the ball back into the admin court by authorizing unilateral actions which has afforded an excessive amount of leverage to an admin's sole discretion which leads to problems when there are POV issues, bias (perceived or otherwise), preconceived notions, and/or a shadowed history between an admin and an editor. The latter typically arises from over-involvement in a particular topic area (see diffs). No editor should ever be subjected to hounding by an admin who is stalking them in the shadows just waiting for them to make a mistake. I went to Awilley seeking help, as I have occasionally done with you, Vanamonde. The diffs I provided above speak to the result, and it had a very chilling effect on me. Atsme Talk 📧 20:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @KrakatoaKatie - please look at the following 2 diffs again: [103], [104] - it appears you missed them if you believe there was no attempt to cover up his misinterpretation of Gaslighting when he t-banned me. I was asking for his help and he turned around and accused me instead. One of the editors who was doing it at the article TP apologized to me and I included that diff as well. The log also confirms the attempted cover-up via redirect so that it would support his version, as does his TP. Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_11#Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING He stated clearly "This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect. Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse. An example of a similarly unhelpful redirect would be WP:KILL to WP:BLOCK. We don't want users running around complaining that an admin threatened to "kill" them; in a similar way we don't want users to complaing that gamers are "gaslighting" His TP discussion also clearly states what he thought Gaslighting meant and what he was accusing me of, and then in the Redirect discussion, Ivanvector explained it to him. His response was Doh! I should have seen that. I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target, which wasn't very helpful since it brought up the current target and a bunch of AN/I-like pages. Please feel free to speedy close this with the if that's a thing around here. (I can do the retarget myself.) them." So, yes, he did initially try to cover it up and was unsuccessful. Atsme Talk 📧 23:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’To the Arbs’’’ - I came here for clarity, and it appears you may have misunderstood the diffs I’ve provided. I went to Awilley for help and in turn, he accused me of wrongfully using WP:GASLIGHTING because he thought it meant Gaslighting and t-banned me for using it. Then, in an effort to make the term fit his definition and justify his t-ban, he attempted to deceitfully redirect the WP guideline to the article. That is not a proper action. One of the editors apologized to me for his behavior further substantiating that I used the guideline correctly, and described the disruption correctly. It was not I causing it. How can you say that what Awilley did was a proper action, GorillaWarfare, PremeditatedChaos and KrakatoaKatie?? The entire crux of what Awilley did was based on his misinterpretation of the term. Atsme Talk 📧 09:53, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
re-do ping that didn’t send: Premeditated Chaos Atsme Talk 📧 10:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GorillaWarfare - no, that is not what happened, and the diffs unequivocally support my position. Saying I was "backsliding into behavior that led to your previous AP topic ban" - is absolutely false. This is more of Awilley's made-up DS, hair trigger ill-conceived actions based on misinterpretations - the diffs support what I'm saying. He did it to me - misinterpreted my use of WP:GASLIGHTING, thinking it meant psychological manipulation and then tried to redirect it to article that describes it as psychological manipulation. With all due respect, that is not what you described. I provided, and further substantiated with his actual words above, exactly what happened. It is unambiguous. This is exactly why I combined the two issues - to demonstrate to ArbCom that admins should not take unilateral actions when they are that involved, or they are biased and have preconceived notions. TonyBallioni summarized it quite well in this diff - and it has happened to me. What Awilley believes may become disruption is NOT a reason to block or t-ban an editor. I have barely edited in the subject area that covers his t-ban- I may have a total of 30 edits there - certainly not enough to demonstrate any kind of backsliding pattern. What does concern me more and should concern every editor on this project, is the fact that ArbCom has given a green light to admins allowing them sole discretion to make-up rules as they go, act unilaterally while micromanaging a topic area, and t-banning/blocking any editor they so desire for whatever reason they choose. If that is acceptable to the community, then I have nothing more to say. I thank you for your time. Atsme Talk 📧 18:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GorillaWarfare - JzG just cast some very harmful aspersions against me in violation of DECORUM - it was a blatant character assassination. He has made fallacious claims against me over the years - they are undeniably PAs and they should be redacted. His accusations with regards to laetrile & G. Edward Griffin are completely false and misleading. My last edit to that BLP was on March 13, 2015. Read it for yourselves. WP:AVDUCK is also available for everyone to read - it was my first attempt at writing an essay - I am simply a co-author among several - it is a good essay, one I was encouraged to write by SlimVirgin several years ago. As for GMOs - I may have made 3 edits in that topic area, broadly construed, and I think it was an insecticide article, and maybe I participated in an RfC - that is the extent of my involvement. GMOs are not my area of interest. JzG has been HOUNDING me and constantly casts the same aspersions over and over again. I have tried to ignore him over the years, but he keeps bringing it up. He needs a major time out. His attempt to sugarcoat his aspersions do not make the well any less poisoned. Atsme Talk 📧 02:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • GorillaWarfare - I will do my best to clarify in response to your question:
    • 7/23/2019 T-ban - "Despite your commitments to "LETITGO", when someone actually suggested that you "drop the stick" you accuse them of "gaslighting" you." July 20 2019 The diff clearly explains what was happening. An editor apologized to me for his behavior. We were about to start an RfC. Awilley's preconceived notions clouded his judgement - he did not AGF and had WP:ROPE foremost on his mind because he is far too involved in the topic area - so much so that he uses AP2 as a petri dish - read the diff. Read the wise concerns by DGG, TonyBallioni and other admins. Awilley targeted my use of gaslighting based on his misinterpretation rather than focusing on the bullying and the reason I went to him for help.
    • I approached Awilley on * July 24th regarding his definition of WP:GASLIGHTING because I knew then that he had it wrong.

Awilley said: Me just now: "Hey Google, define gaslighting."
My phone: "Gaslight: manipulate (someone) by psychological means into questioning their own sanity."
I don't think "gaslighting" is an appropriate word to describe most garden variety disputes that pop up on Wikipedia's talk pages, if that's what you're trying to get at. ~Awilley (talk)
Atsme responds: No, actually I believe you should have referred to WP:GASLIGHTING instead - then you would have recognized what the others were doing to me. Atsme Talk 📧 10:29 am, 25 July 2019

  1. July 26, 2019 The day after I explained WP:GASLIGHTING to Awilley, he opened a redirect for discussion and wikilinked to Gaslighting because that is what he saw as a better target page to justify his t-ban and belief that I had used such a radical term against good editors and caused disruption, when all along it was a WP guideline. He could have asked me or said something to me, but no - he was content with the definition he used because it justified his t-ban. How does his attempt at a quiet redirect not raise a brow?
  2. Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 August 11#Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING Awilley stated: "This seems like a non-neutral and misleading redirect. Gaslighting has a specific meaning and the target page (examples of gaming/wikilawering) doesn't include anything about gaslighting or any other form of psychological abuse." In other words, he was unaware of the guideline definition which is how I applied it as a veteran editor who is familiar with our PAGs. I had no problem finding it because I just automatically figured someone probably moved the anchor and did not update the redirect.

Ivanvector explained: Retarget to Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process (the section directly below the current target) which specifically mentions gaslighting as a separate bullet point. In fact it's already listed as a shortcut for that section, not the one it currently targets. I suspect someone just made a mistake. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 1:37 pm, 26 July 2019, Friday (3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)
Awilley replies: "Doh! I should have seen that. I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target, which wasn't very helpful since it brought up the current target and a bunch of AN/I-like pages. Please feel free to speedy close this with the if that's a thing around here. (I can do the retarget myself.)" ~Awilley (talk) 2:00 pm, 26 July 2019, Friday (3 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5)

  • He admits "I even went so far as to do a search for a more appropriate target,..." - more appropriate meaning appropriate to his definition of psychological manipulation which would justify his t-ban. His motives were quite clear - he did not believe me - he had preconceived notions - he was in a ROPE mindset. It happens - he did it - my case is exemplary in demonstrating the bigger issue I brought here - unilateral actions and sole discretion in AE DS - and the problems with micromanagement and customizing DS to a particular editor. Yes, it is all related but I would rather put my t-ban on hold, and focus on the bigger issue which is highly problematic. Thank you to the arbitrators, I apologize for lacking clarity but this has been a very stressful endeavor for me. I hope you all will forgive my faults and human errors. Atsme Talk 📧 23:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare, if Awilley’s misunderstanding of gaslighting is not the reason in your view, then what is exactly? Slippage into past behavior is technically not a reason. What policy did I violate? What behavior was disruptive to the point of t-ban worthy? Please be specific because the diffs provided do not demonstrate disruption or behavior worthy of a t-ban when what I was saying led to an apology, an RfC and the proper outcome in an AfD wherein I was being bludgeoned. I am even more confused now than when I started and would very much appreciate your naming a t-ban worthy violation. Does an admin saying WP:IDONTLIKEIT apply as a valid reason to call an editor’s consensus building discussion disruptive behavior? I really need to know the policy I violated so I don’t repeat the behavior. Atsme Talk 📧 11:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • GorillaWarfare there is a lengthy discussion about similar matters I brought here for clarification/amendment taking place at ANI now. This case is going nowhere because, in retrospect, it was malformed and probably should have been rejected from the start by a clerk or someone who could offer me a bit of help in doing it properly. I never intended for the appeal to be separate from the other - I apologize for the confusion but the two go hand in hand as evidenced by the ANI discussion. Will you close this case as malformed as appeal denied or whatever else you need to do? in light of the ANI case?11:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC) Atsme Talk 📧 09:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


  • JzG could not have provided a better reason for ArbCom to carefully consider why it is highly problematic to allow admins - especially involved admins with strong biases as JzG just demonstrated - to use sole discretion when taking unilateral actions based on their personal interpretations of DS. To distort the truth, take an editor’s comments out of context, and espouse misinformation repeatedly for nearly 5 years using WP’s own consensus building process in a diff to denigrate and patronize a female editor is behavior unbecoming an admin, and it deserves ArbCom’s utmost scrutiny. The misogyny in his comments could not be more obvious. Atsme Talk 📧 13:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

  • Just a note to say that I have seen this and that I won't be able to make a full response tonight. If this is about getting the topic ban rescinded I am ready to do that at any time if/when Atsme makes an appeal. She asked me a couple of times via email to rescind the ban, but I informed her that I don't do appeals by email. After that she approached me on my talk page asking how to appeal and I responded with my criteria. The exchange is here. The only other on-wiki discussion I can remember that remotely resembled an appeal was on my talk page here. I haven't had times to review the diffs above but if there are things people find concerning please let me know so I can respond specifically to the concerns. ~Awilley (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had some more time to review this, and I'm still a bit unclear on what proportion of this is a request to lift the Antifa topic ban I placed on Atsme vs. a request for arbitrator intervention against myself vs. a request to modify the nature of discretionary sanctions. Looking at the diffs above I feel a few points might need some clarification:
  1. Above it is stated that I imposed the topic ban based on my misinterpretation of WP:GASLIGHTING. In fact the use of the word "gaslighting" was only part of the rationale, and the link to WP:GASLIGHTING seems retroactive. Usually when someone is referencing a WP policy or guideline that is indicated via formatting (the inclusion of a link, a "WP:" on the front of the word, or ALLCAPS). The first time I saw Atsme use such formatting was on July 25 on my talk page, 3 days after the topic ban had been placed. Prior to that the only special formatting for the word "gaslighting" had been 🔥to put it between flame emojis🔥
  2. Above it is stated that I tried to redirect/delete the WP:GASLIGHTING redirect to "quietly cover up" something. What actually happened was that the link was pointing to the wrong target. When it was placed on my talk page I clicked on it to see what it said, and what I found didn't even mention gaslighting. I searched around to see if there was a better target...direct mention in an essay or policy or something, and when I couldn't find anything I put it up for discussion. I think my intentions should be pretty obvious to anybody who reads the two comments I made at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2019_August_11#Wikipedia:GASLIGHTING. I fixed the redirect here.
  3. Re: involvement, as far as I can recall my interactions with Atsme and other editors in the topic area have been in an administrative role and the occasional edit or wording suggestion is aimed at helping editors in disagreement find common ground. Many disputes on Wikipedia can be resolved with creative compromise wordings that satisfy the objections of both sides. I've put a lot of effort into trying to get people out of the all-or-nothing mindset that seems to frequently dominate American Politics discussions. A recent example of that is here. I feel that is in line with the second paragraph of WP:INVOLVED which states that "an administrator whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not show bias, is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that editor or topic area. Warnings, calm and reasonable discussion and explanation of those warnings, advice about community norms, and suggestions on possible wordings and approaches do not make an administrator 'involved'."
  • On the subject of custom sanctions (I wish we could depreciate the "special" descriptor) I believe I have been very cautious with the application and receptive to feedback. Of the 7 sanctions listed on my subpage, 2 have never been applied, and 2 have been retired. In the 1.5 years since I created the sanctions I have applied them to only 7 editors, and currently sanctions are only active on 2 editors. The sanctions are designed to give users a chance to correct mistakes, so actual enforcement is rarely necessary.
    Here's a quick table summary of which sanctions have been applied, and how many times:
Summary table of custom sanctions
Sanction Number of times applied Number of times remedy needed to be enforced
No Personal Comments

(On Artcle Talk pages, don't distract from content by attacking the contribuotrs)

5 0
Thicker Skin

(On Article Talk pages, don't accuse others of making personal comments directed at yourself)

2 0
Edit Summaries

(Say what you're doing, and don't mislead)

0 -
Courtesy in Reporting

(No "gotcha" reports to administrative noticeboards...politely give the offender a chance to fix the problem first)

2 0
Consensus Required

(Just like the page restriction, except it only applies to 1 editor. If your edit is reverted, don't restore it without consensus on talk.)

0 -
Anti-Filibuster (Deprecated)

(Don't bludgeon RfCs)

3 0.5 (1-week topic ban was informal, un-logged)
Auto-Boomerang (Deprecated) 1 0
I would also note that I am hardly the first to apply custom sanctions to editors. It happens both from consensus processes (at AN/I and Arbcom), and with individual admins acting unilaterally. I think I've just been more public about it, writing the sanctions down and re-using them.
Here are some examples of custom sanctions that other admins have placed on individual editors
Examples of custom sanctions from other admins
  • "[editor] is prohibited for six months from adding any article-level maintenance tags to any Trump-related articles"
  • "[editor] is indefinitely prohibited from commenting on AE requests to which they are not a party."
  • "[editor] is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons..."
  • "[editor] prohibited from commenting on Wikipedia with regards to any accounts owned or alleged to be owned by Wikipedia editors on non-Wikimedia websites...:
  • "[editor] is prohibited from describing any edit as "vandalism" (whether in edit summaries, on talk pages, or anywhere else) unless it meets the definition at WP:VAND"
  • "[editor] prohibited from violations of WP:AGF; advised to avoid commenting on contributor."
  • "[editor] prohibited from reverting without discussing"
  • "[editor]...prohibited for four months from making more than one revert per week"
  • "[editor] is prohibited from commencing or participating in dispute resolution or enforcement processes (including arbitration enforcement) relating to user conduct within the area of conflict (as defined by WP:DIGWUREN#Discretionary sanctions) for a period of two months, save for processes concerning his or her own conduct. To avoid doubt, "commencing or participating in" includes doing so by proxy.
  • "[editor] prohibited from using images that advocate against any party involved in the Israeli-Arab conflict on their user page."
There are of course more...these examples are just the ones that happened to contain the word "prohibited" (found these in the log with Ctrl+F)
Another well-known example is: "[editor] agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors...If [editor] finds himself tempted to engage in prohibited conduct, he is to disengage and either let the matter drop or refer it to another editor to resolve..."
I'm happy to discuss this in depth elsewhere, but since it was being discussed here I figured I'd respond here. ~Awilley (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again on the subject of custom sanctions, I'm happy to discuss it here or elsewhere. I've solicited input since the beginning, and it's probably time to have a formal discussion. From what I understand of DGG's position, questions that need to be addressed are (in order):
    • Should ArbCom continue to delegate its power to Admins in the form of Discretionary Sanctions?
      • Should individual admins continue to have the power to impose unilateral discretionary action? (I think this is where DGG says "No".)
      • Should the admins at AE have the power to impose custom sanctions (more than just the standard toolset of blocks, topic bans, revert restrictions)? (Not sure where DGG stands on this.)
        • Should individual admins have the power to impose custom sanctions? (Strong "No" from DGG, I think)
          • Do the custom sanctions listed at User:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions push the envelope too far? In particular, do the specific enforcement procedures (meant to give people a chance to resolve disputes at the lowest level without admin intervention) and fixed remedies (meant to reduce drama from disproportionate punishment) make the sanctions too complicated to be useful?
        • Would it help to have a page of sanctions that can be imposed unilaterally by individual admins?
          • If so, would it be helpful to expand that list of sanctions to use some of the custom sanctions that have been used by the community over the years? (For example, sanctions against speculating on talk pages about the motivations of other editors, or commenting in AE requests to which you aren't a party, or reverting more than once without discussion, or making "gotcha" requests to noticeboards without first giving editors a chance to self-revert)
Also, would it be better to discuss this in an amendment request, or in a formal case with evidence pages and workshops? ~Awilley (talk) 05:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Pudeo

I have previously criticized Awilley's special discretionary sanctions as complex and arbitrary. In response, Awilley deprecated the anti-filibuster sanction as too complex. Anti-filibuster sanction was this: In talk page discussions you are limited to 3 initial posts, then 1 post per 24-hrs. In threads specifically for voting you are limted to 1 post. Imagine having to count that for highly active editors. You'd have to WP:HOUND pretty hard to see it enforced.

Well, good that is was deprecated. But the principle of giving this much discretion needs to be evaluated. Being this customizable and complex means it's hard to enforce them in an even way. It is also interesting to see that the special sanction for Snooganssnoogans was negotiated away. Special discretion is like entering the King's court and seeing if he, on this occasion, wants to give you sanctions 1, 2, 3 and 4 or if you can strike a side-deal. Needless to say, the situation would be unworkable if all admins had their own set of special sanctions. --Pudeo (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Statement by DGG

Sometimes there is a need to make sanctions a little flexible. But to avoid confusion, this needs to be kept very close to the standard parameters. I understand Awilley's desire to find sanctions that might possibly be more effective than the standard. But this is not really the sort of thing that is fair to the subjects of these sanctions --or even those threatened by such sanctions-- when done by individual experimentation. Very reasonably the enactment of DS by Arb Com the last few years has been in the direction of greater standardization, instead of the earlier experimentation case by case. Even as a committee we learned not to try to be too inventive. Dispute resolution needs a stable environment. DGG ( talk ) 19:35, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to see that the remaining members of the current arbitration committee considers the sort of customized sanctions to beperhaps an inappropriate delegation of their powers, they should reconsider. The committee can appropriately use its collectve judgememnt and the authority given by the elections to devise any sanctions it considers reasonable. Delegating the same function to whatever one of the several hundred individual admins may choose to exercise their imagination is another matter entirely. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The question that has not yet been adequately addressed is whether it is appropriate for any one single admin to be the "admin trying to get some order in the topic area" (KK). Arb com would never let one individual arb make the decisions in a case: consider the concern when the number of active admin this year fell so low as to possibly be unrepresentative. Nor would the community ever have approved an arb policy where we had a single arb, or a single arb for any one question. Nor would any arb I have ever encountered suggest that they personally were qualified to do this--the only person to ever do so was Jimbo, and when he last tried to do just that a number of years ago, the community reaction was such that he agreed to not take such actions at enWP ever again.
all the more so would the arbs never appoint a single admin to enforce decisions. They and we should see this more generally--it should be made clear that no one admin should repeatedly engage in arb enforcement on the same individual or take a disproportionate share for any large area. Thefundamental reason is not competence, but that even if one is perfectly free from all bias, some degree of bias will unconsciously develop as one carries out enforcement. I don't believe there is anyone here or anywhere less that is totally free from this tendency.
The system here survives because people here more or less trust it, and almost all admins step back when they suspect even the beginning of disproportionate interest, and most certainly when another WPedian suggests the possibility. Even if that WPedian is acting in unnecessary over-sensitive self protection, there are hundreds of other admins. And even if that WPedian is acting to delay or avoid justified action, there are hundreds of other admins to take over. DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

Can be discussed in a separate request if needed. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think Arbcom should establish a limited set of standard discretionary sanctions to be used by admins. Simply saying "any reasonable measure" here is not good enough. I am not saying the sanctions by Awilley were bad, outside discretion or unreasonable. To the contrary, I think you need to look at them and decide if something Awilley suggested can be used as a basis for the new standard DS, in addition to 1RR, page protection, etc. You might also look at the "consensus required" restriction used in AP area. However, I think that one should never be used, based on the amount of confusion and infighting it caused. My very best wishes (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Bishonen

There are at least two uncomfortable "amendment request" bedfellows here. Both DGG and Pudeo, perhaps also MVBW, seem to be getting Awilley's bog standard topic ban of Atsme from Anti-fascism broadly construed mixed up with Awilley's "special discretionary sanctions". The topic ban Atsme is appealing here has nothing to do with those special sanctions, but was simply placed per the AP2 discretionary sanctions. DGG has previously criticized Awilley's special sanctions roundly, compare User talk:Awilley/Discretionary sanctions, passim but especially recently, and so has Pudeo (but I'm not going to dig that up). They are perhaps so interested in the special sanctions that they can't resist posting about them here. Indeed, Atsme also alludes to Awilley's special sanctions: "Admins should not be permitted to create their own DS, or micromanage a topic area by imposing unilateral actions against editors for violations of DS that are not specifically defined in ArbCom Remedies". And yet this request is framed as an amendment to (= a lifting of) Awilley's indef T-ban from Anti-fascism broadly construed. If getting that T-ban lifted is Atsme's goal here, then Awilley's special sanctions are neither here nor there, for the T-ban is not based on them, and people should stop confusing the arbitrators by bringing them up. If, on the other hand, Atsme primarily wants to complain to ArbCom about Awilley's special sanctions, that is a much bigger subject, which should not be mixed with an irrelevant T-ban request. She may wish to consider posting another, separate, ARCA request about the special sanctions.

For my part, I find Awilley's detailed rationale for the topic ban persuasive. It is largely based on Atsme's own promises and undertakings when she successfully appealed a previous, broader, topic ban from the entirety of the AP2 area. People believed those undertakings, and therefore accepted her appeal.

(Parenthetical note: Atsme has also listed Wikipedia:Administrators#Involved admins and Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability under "Clauses to which an amendment is requested", but I'm going to assume that was accidental, and due to the constraints of the ARCA template. Atsme surely knows that it's not for ArbCom to amend Wikipedia's policies, and merely meant to say those policies support her request.) Bishonen | talk 14:57, 21 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Statement by Vanamonde (AP2)

I'd like to make a couple of indirectly related points here. First, Atsme, an ARCA where you are appealing your own topic ban isn't the place to demand an examination of Awilley's actions. Second, with respect to specific sanctions; I can understand the desire to make our sanctions regimes as simple as possible. However, it is worth noting that a specific sanction is often created because the only reasonable alternative would be a much broader sanction. I have on numerous occasions proposed specific sanctions because they were the only workable way to allow an editor to continue to be productive, and because the alternative responses were draconian. As such, if we move away from user-specific sanctions, I think we will inevitably see more frequent and more severe "standard" sanctions being applied; so y'all might want to think about what you're really asking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Floq

I won't say much, based on the assumption that the Arbs will take 5 minutes to look at Awilley's AE sanction notice and the diffs he included in it, look at Atsme's promises made in her February appeal, and quickly realize this was a measured, restrained use of DS. Reimposing the original full AP topic ban would have been justifiable, but no good deed goes unpunished I guess.

If the committee wants to consider Awilley's specialized DS, that should probably be a separate clarification request; it has nothing to do with Atsme's appeal, because this is a bog-standard topic ban. But per Vanamonde, preventing such specialized DS's will likely just lead to more admins using a full AP topic ban instead. Which - as in this case - might not be a bad thing. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MastCell

This topic ban appeal seems to consist almost entirely of poorly substantiated or completely unfounded attacks against the admin who imposed the sanction. Atsme goes so far as to accuse Awilley of "creepy stalking", which is an appalling—and, again, completely unfounded—personal attack. And she's presumably on her best behavior in this venue. I don't see any compelling rationale put forward to lift the topic ban, and this appeal reinforces more general concerns about Atsme's suitability as an editor in the American-politics topic area.

As for Awilley's custom discretionary sanctions, while I sometimes disagree with his application, he deserves a few dozen barnstars—and ArbCom's unflinching support and gratitude—for being willing to try something in a topic area that most admins have long since abandoned to belligerent partisans. MastCell Talk 22:02, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MONGO

I've spoken with Awilley numerous times and believe he is trying to do the right thing by making tailor-made sanctions and restrictions. But have also seen a number of admins say this is overly complex and difficult to enforce. I am definitely more in favor of an admin who imposes highly specific sanctions that do not eliminate the editor from similar areas within the same topic where they are not causing issues. Lastly, I do not see any reason to sanction Awilley but definitely think Atsme has previously been targeted for relatively minor issues by the same admins that defend far worse activity from editors they share biases with. I mean, it couldn't be more obvious if one was slapped in the head with a trout and frankly, I think its despicable.--MONGO (talk) 23:56, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Winged Blades of Godric...I think a careful review of Atsme's comment indicates she was NOT saying JzG had themselves made unilateral actions in the arena in question. However, when we have admins who so voraciously state their peculiar absolutism as far as what qualifies as referencing (even though said references have repeated been found by the consensus of the Wikippedia community to be reliable), their opinion invaribly carries more weight due to their admin status, for better or worse. Opinion crowns with an imperial voice, sadly.--MONGO (talk) 18:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

First things first, Arbcommers: deprecate the use of "special" / "custom" sanctions, preferably by motion (although noting the discussion below). The whole point of discretionary sanctions is that they level the playing field in contentious areas while treating all editors equally. A unique set of sanctions that may or may not be used does precisely the opposite. Damoclean; or imagine, if you will Thomas, Lord Stanley waiting in the wings at Bosworth deciding which way the chips will fall...

——SN54129 14:41, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SashiRolls

I was pleased to find myself missing from AWilley's 29 October 2019 pschitt list.

Can Atsme's TBAN be appealed anywhere other than at ArbCom at this point?

Concerning "Gaslighting": I've seen this term a lot on en.wp over the years, starting probably with SageRad at AE in 2016 and most recently in the exchange between GorillaWarfare and Kudpung on the latter's campaign page for election to the body who will decide this case, if it is taken.

I'm a little hesitant to read AWilley's initial call to delete WP:GASLIGHTING as a "cover-up", but I do think that AWilley does have some problems discerning red & green when observing concerted activities across Wikipedia spaces (mainspace, talkspace, usertalkspace, WPtalk-space, and in disciplinary spaces like this one). Still, the ensuing deletion discussion was interesting.

I get how the "having a reputation developed for you" game works. I've been blocked twice by Awilley (which is actually a significant percentage of their blocking activity), and am, in addition, the recipient of one of his special dispensations. As he says, he doesn't enforce them, they're just little brooches of dishonor we're encouraged to show our wiki-friends at AE parties.

I think that, as Katie has suggested, ArbCom should look into how DS are being used and perhaps just as importantly how they are not being used. I will, time permitting, add to the evidence page once/if one is opened. As often, I seem to be awash in evidence. ^^ In short, yes, Awilley's enforcement in AP2 might well tend towards the arbitrary & capricious, from my point of view. The rules themselves are pretty good, of course.

In the larger context of DS-misuse, I suppose I could appeal Kingofaces43 v. SashiRolls (I & II) soon. I was not very successful in appealing Sagecandor v. SashiRolls (I & II) to ArbCom back in the day. There are some notable similarities (and differences) in the two prosecutions. I suppose that the path to irredeemability would begin with pools of tears at AE, rather than at ArbCom?

Still, I do think Atsme is right to raise the question of the mixed reception and enforcement history of Mr. Awilley's special and less special discretionary black marks, since he took over the templating of AP2 from Coffee. If ArbCom chooses to look into that aspect of this case in conjunction with—or separately from—Awilley's TBAN of Atsme, I'll add some diffs. I first looked into this because I like Atsme. I've commented because I'm not absent from the context of the diffs above (e.g. [105]), though I'm not involved in the discussions surrounding antifa.

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 12:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is amusing that Calton, of all the involved people who could show up, is directing anyone who is concerned about the misuse of DS to AN instead of to ArbCom. This is, as DGG suggested in Boston (Wikimania), probably the right place for this discussion to be taking place. I would add that the weaponisation of DS is nothing new and goes well beyond the specific example of it that will be given concerning AWilley once we get to the evidence presentation stage.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of Calton's claims in the context of the en.wp mainspace definition of gaslighting. There is no problem with DS (denial), I am a misguided parachutist (misdirection) making comments about previously unmentioned and unrelated subjects like discretionary sanctions and gaslighting (contradiction). What's more I'm not concerned (despite being one of only two people currently sanctioned by Awilly's special disciplinary measures) (lying), my comments are off-topic and only semi-coherent (destabilize the victim and discredit the victim's beliefs). Thanks for helping by providing Arbs this textbook example. (Cf. e.g. Calton's May 25 block, or his edit summary here) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 09:51, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by JzG (American politics 2)

I commend AWilley for making this a narrower ban than I would have argued for. My experience with Atsme is that she is delightful but given to devoting furious energy to lost causes. That was true when I first encountered her at G. Edward Griffin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), where she was arguing that we were suppressing Laetrile as a cancer cure; it was true in the GMO case; it has been true in numerous recent disputes around American Politics. At WP:RSN, she referred to the "Russian collusion conspiracy theory", a Fox News talking point. That may be an indicator as to the root of the problem, I don't know. It's pretty clear by now that the right wing media bubble does not share a common fact base with mainstream sources, and that's always going to prove difficult on Wikipedia, especially right now - and I have to confess that does cause me to wonder about the advice she might be giving people via OTRS, if she still has access.

I invite the arbitrators to review the history of Wikipedia:Advocacy ducks, notably it's early version almost wholly the work of Atsme here. This is a response to a one against many dispute here. It may be summarised as: when large numbers of people disagree with you, it's probably because they are all colluding to push an agenda. As far as I can tell, nothing has changed since then.

Example: this edit] to her ACE guide for 2019 switches from Support to Oppose 15 minutes after a sitting arbitrator expressed support for this sanction. Yes, you're allowed to do that, but the inference is clear: your qualities as a Wikipedian depend on how closely you agree with Atsme. That is the mentality expressed in the "advocacy ducks" article and the talk page debates that led to the sanction.

Atsme can be lovely, a delight to be around when not on a hot button issue. She gets very passionate about things and has a hard time accepting when consensus is against her. She can be too prone to ascribe opposition to bias, and attempts to talk her down from the Reichstag as harassment. I think the further away from our US politics articles she stays, the happier she will be, especially in a climate where, as seems likely, her preferred sources are operating on an entirely different factual framework from Wikipedia. Guy (help!) 14:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Le sigh. It's not me, it's everybody else. This is very depressing. Guy (help!) 22:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare What would you like, please? I have viewed a lot of this as water under the bridge, we're allowed to grow as Wikipedians. DrChrissy died in 2017 and Atsme, a friend on-wiki, created Chris Sherwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). That's very touching, even though DrChrissy was a tireless advocate for alternative medicine and was eventually topic banned from biomedical topics for fringe advocacy (User talk:DrChrissy/Archive 7 § Community-imposed topic ban). I opposed this article creation but I was wrong: it's clear by now that he passed WP:PROF. I think Atsme is the kind of person who values personal friendships highly and that can lead to great outcomes for the project, like that article, but I fear it also leads her astray. I hope I can help you without burying Atsme any deeper. Guy (help!) 00:38, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GorillaWarfare My uncertainty was as to how far back to go. I have always assumed that the older a diff, the less valid it is. I now understand the ask and will do some work in the morning (or rather, later in the morning, it's 01:43 here now). Guy (help!) 01:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Lengthy dispute over Atsme's attempts to remove Islamophobia references from Stop Islamization of America
Original AN dispute re Griffin article

I am sorry, I would go and look through more (from [107]) but I have to pack as I am away this week singing. Fairness is important to me here. I do not want to bury Atsme further, only to show a long history of tenaciously arguing against consensus for including criticism of right-wing groups and figures. From my experience of Atsme the TBAN is proportionate and a net good for both us and her. Guy (help!) 10:39, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Winged Blades of Godric

@Atsme:- Can you please point me to a few of JzG's administrative actions, under ACDS, in APOL? ∯WBGconverse 16:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Calton

Two things:

  1. The business regarding "gaslighting", its true meaning, and wherever WP:GASLIGHTING goes to/went to/should go to/was redirected is pointlessly complicated and almost irrelevant: by saying that editors were "gaslighting" her, Atsme was claiming that they were LYING. Without strong evidence, that's a straight-up personal attack. It's as simple as that.
  2. This is supposed to be an appeal of Atsme's topic ban: a Clerk or Admin should hat statements above that have nothing to do with Atsme and which are merely drive-by shots at Awilley, particularly those of User:Pudeo, User: SN54129, and User:SashiRolls. If they have a problem with Awilley, WP:AN is thataway. --Calton | Talk 10:49, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to User:SashiRolls: And it is perfectly in character for you to parachute into a discussion which has nothing to do with you so you can carry on with oft-sanctioned battleground behavior, and to do so in an only semi-coherent fashion. Which, again, is why your off-topic comments should be hatted and -- if necessary -- you should be topic-banned from commenting on things which don't concern you directly. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Two separate issues in play: the anti-fascism topic ban, and Awilley's boutique DS set. The former is appropriate for us to address here, and I think the topic ban is warranted and necessary. I don't see any evidence of a cover-up or hounding or harassment; I do see an admin trying to get some order in the topic area. That said, as to the discretionary sanctions scheme, I'm not crazy about it and wasn't crazy about it when I first learned of it several months ago. If Awilley runs across an editor, he's going to use his set of discretionary sanctions while all the other 1100+ admins will use another set. It's arbitrary, and I don't like it. But I believe this would be better addressed in a case request about discretionary sanctions, which is yet another thing we've been meaning to take a look at for a while. This would be an excellent opportunity for us to revisit the whole issue. Katietalk 21:16, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Bishonen and KrakatoaKatie that this request appears to address two separate issues: the existence of Awilley's custom sanctions, and the antifascism topic ban he imposed upon Atsme. A topic ban from antifascism is about as standard as discretionary sanction enforcement gets, and so this does not seem to be a great place to also address whether admins should be creating their own sets of custom sanctions for use in areas where discretionary sanctions have been authorized. However it does seem like it would be worth visiting that issue somewhere, since there seem to be many people who share concerns about them. This is the first I've taken much of a look at Awilley's sanctions and while they are certainly a creative approach towards limiting problems in contentious areas, I share some of the concerns that have been expressed above. @Atsme:, I did want to get one piece of clarification from you—you've listed sections of the WP:Administrators policy in the "Clauses to which an amendment is requested" portion of the request. Was that an issue with the template or are you requesting we amend the administrator policy? That policy, as with all policies, is decided by the community, and the Arbitration Committee cannot unilaterally amend policy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel like the focus on the "gaslighting" issue is perhaps not useful here. Gaslighting has one relatively well-accepted meaning, which is the same meaning used at Wikipedia:Gaming the system#Gaming the consensus-building process #4. The previous location of the redirect (at the top of the general WP:Gaming the system page) was confusing and could feasibly lead someone to believe that "gaslighting" could be used to refer to gaming the system more generally, despite the term not having that meaning in standard usage. It's believable that Atsme was using the term in this way—after all, it would hardly be the first term that commonly means one thing, but is used differently in "wikispeak". My opinion is that Awilley started the discussion about the shortlink in good faith because using the term "gaslighting" to refer broadly to "gaming the system" is unusual and misleading, and the shortlink was rightfully moved to its appropriate subsection (where I suspect it was initially intended to go). It does not appear to be an attempt to cover anything up, or hide a misunderstanding—it appears to be an attempt to clarify. But as I said above, I don't think the focus on the "gaslighting" issue is all that relevant. @Atsme: Awilley did not topic ban you for using the term as you have said—he topic banned you for "backsliding into behavior that led to your previous AP topic ban". He linked to your accusations of gaslighting as an example of this, but even if that was all a misunderstanding over the usage of the term and even if we discount those diffs entirely, the topic ban still appears to be appropriate. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JzG: It would be helpful if you could provide specific diffs to the behavior you're describing—though you've pointed at these incidences I would like to have the specific links so I can be sure we're referring to the same edits. @Atsme: I understand you take issue with a handful of admins in addition to Awilley, but I'm not sure it's best to try to lump those in with the topic ban appeal—normally discussions of administrator misconduct would happen at a case request, not at an amendment to a topic ban placed by a different admin, where those admins have commented. As it stands I don't see anything in the existing statements that needs to be removed per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Participation (which I am assuming you are referring to when you mention "DECORUM"? Given the ambiguity we've already faced with your reference to "gaslighting", a wikilink would be useful for the absence of doubt as to what you're referring to). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Atsme: Again, I think the focus on the "gaslighting" issue is not helpful here. There was clearly a discrepancy in how you used the term, vs. how Awilley understood it, and the former location of the WP:GASLIGHTING redirect didn't help matters. But the misunderstanding does not make the topic ban improper; for what it's worth, I also see Awilley's activity regarding the redirect to be in good faith. You mention you would rather put my t-ban on hold, and focus on the bigger issue which is highly problematic—there is no need to put anything on hold, especially given many people (yourself included) have already put a lot of time and effort into this discussion. You can open a separate discussion about the custom discretionary sanctions at any point. I understand if you'd rather not do a whole request from scratch, after already putting effort into writing this one—if you'd rather just copy the relevant portion of your statement below to a new request it would be fine by me. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JzG: I'm not sure what was unclear—I was asking for you to provide specific diffs for the behavior you were describing. For example, you wrote That was true when I first encountered her at G. Edward Griffin, where she was arguing that we were suppressing Laetrile as a cancer cure but did not include any diffs that would allow those of us who are unfamiliar with that incident to go familiarize ourselves. I can certainly go look for it, but it's best if you provide the diffs to avoid any doubt that I'm looking at the right argument. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @JzG: Ah, got it. Yes, it's possible that they're so old that they're not particularly relevant—that's partly why I asked that you do provide diffs, because it's hard to tell from your statement without them how old the behavior is. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Atsme: Slippage into past behavior is technically not a reason. Slippage into the same behavior that led to your original topic ban is absolutely reason enough for an administrator to reinstate a topic ban in a subsection of the same area. In fact, Awilley specifically noted when he granted your appeal that "backsliding into behaviors that led to the ban will result in further sanctions". Diffs were provided along with the topic ban. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Atsme: I don't think it's accurate to say this is going nowhere—so far three arbitrators have commented to say that the topic ban appears to be appropriate. I also disagree that the discussion of your topic ban needs to be coupled with discussions of Awilley's custom sanctions—a topic ban is about as standard a DS enforcement action as there comes. Furthermore, aside from the two comments from Nil Einne, that discussion all appears to predate this request. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline to lift the topic ban on Atsme, which doesn't appear to have been applied inappropriately. I agree with Katie and GW that the custom DS sanctions (or DS in general) should probably be addressed elsewhere in its own discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:33, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Atsme, the topic ban rationale clearly cites five separate diffs where you literally state that various editors are gaslighting you. Awilley didn't T-ban you for linking to a behavioral guideline via internal shortcut. For one thing, in those diffs, you didn't - every instance of the word "gaslighting" in those diffs is lowercase and unlinked, and WP:GASLIGHTING isn't so common a shortcut that it would be obvious you meant the internal shortcut rather than the common word. You were T-banned for backsliding into the same behavior that got you T-banned from AP2 as a whole. The "gaslighting" diffs are examples of that kind of unproductive behavior, but the rest of the rationale clearly describes that the T-ban is based on your behavior as a whole. Again, I don't see anything inappropriate about Awilley's behavior in issuing the T-ban. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:29, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland (2)

Initiated by Piotrus at 04:44, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Statement by Piotrus

The Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations remedy from the recent case seemed like a good idea at a time. When I thought about the restriction passed, I thought it would reinforce WP:BRD: someone (re)adds a problematic reference, they get reverted, their source is discussed on talk or at WP:RSN, and they are warned that they should not re-add it or such until a consensus is reached. A sort of 1RR for problematic sources, particularly in case of WP:REDFLAGs.

However, this recent AE ruling, where an editor (User:MyMoloboaccount) was blocked for a week in about an hour after the request was made, for restoring a problematic source or two, with no discussion on talk anywhere, just a straight report and near insta block, gave me a major pause. It is good to require editors to use quality sources; there is a ton of bad sources to be weeded out, and adding more low quality ones needs to be discouraged (I habitually remove low quality refs and there's a lot of garbage in this topic area: ex. [108], [109]). But discouragement should not be achieved by a wiki equivalent of nuking people for small infractions. Now, I have personally written hundreds of articles related to this topic area, and I am speaking with my content creator hat now: the above AE ruling has made me scared of creating any new topics in this area, expanding them or even of reverting problematic edits by likely socks/SPIs. Because if one can get a week long block for a first infraction with no need for an explicit warning, this is an invitation to create a battleground populated by said socks/SPIs, and in a short while we will have nobody else editing this topic area.

If one can get blocked for a week+ in an hour after adding a borderline source, this opens a major can of worms. Sure, we can all agree that some sources like personal webpages, blogs or forums are unacceptable, but there are plenty that fall in a gray area, and I find it scary that a single admin is now not only apparently empowered to decide what is reliable or not, bypassing prior talk consensuses, RSN and such, but per DS could even impose year blocks and topic bans of up to a year at a whim. Let me illustrate this with some practical example of what has been used in this topic area.

In the linked AE thread, for example, a newspaper was among the sources reported as 'bad', through the closing admin judged it acceptable. That was for Rzeczpospolita (newspaper). But which other newspaper will make the cut and which will be seen as not reliable? If someone uses a more controversial paper like Sieci or Do Rzeczy as a source, will they get a week long block? A year long topic ban? For the first infraction? What about an article from a news portal like Onet.pl? Can a city portal be used to reference information about unveiling of a local monument or celebration of a remembrance event? Or a March of the Living coverage? Yes, newspapers and such are not the best sources, but are they now a gamble with a potential block or ban? Is an average admin that does probably does not speak Polish empowered to make such calls based on what they see in an English Wikipedia article on a Polish newspaper, magazine or portal (if one event exists)? If it mentions words like controversial, right-wing, left-wing, or whatever is it that they see as a red flag, it's ban hammer time?

More examples. In my talk post at Talk:Home Army where I reviewed some sources recently challenged on that talk page (and that were shortly after discussed in that AE thread) I noted that I think course notes by a reliable academic are probably ok. Apparently, they are not, since lecture notes are not peer reviewed. Ok. How about [110], a source used in recently created Warsaw Ghetto Hunger Study (by the same editor who made the complain about said course notes...)? That appears to be a non-peer reviewed lecture delivered at an unspecified place (I have attended such events as a grad student and later, they can be very informal and address a room of <10 people). Ban editor for using such a source or not? What if someone cites a popular history magazine such as Histmag? Reliable or not? Toss a coin? How about a source published by Institute of National Remembrance? That institution has been criticized for some recent politicization (as described in the article body), what if the reviewing admin decides that an editor using this source, until now generally seen as acceptable, merits a ban because they find the criticism section in the IPN article convincing and feel that IPN is no longer a reliable source? How about articles from a a museum website? How about an educational website maintained by IPN, like [111] or [112]? How is it better than the course notes that were ruled 'not good enough'? Did I mention popular history magazines? IPN publishes several (pl:Biuletyn Instytutu Pamięci Narodowej, pl:Biuletyn IPN „pamięć.pl”). What about a portal like [113], which contains information on Polish Righteous Among the Nations, co-financed by by Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, but also by a controversial NGO associated with unreliable Radio Maryja? Is that portal unreliable because it received financing from a problematic NGO? Even if it is unreliable, an average editor using it may not even be aware of the connection. Block people because they didn't investigate who funds a website sufficiently? I am an academic and an editor experienced in this topic area and in finding reliable sources myself, yet I didn't even realize some of those sources were problematic until someone else pointed it out (that a magazine I assumed was peer reviewed might not be, or that this website received some financing from a shady NGO). Can a website about local tourist attractions be used a source to note that some World War II fortifications survive as said tourist attractions ([114])? How about websites on shipwrecks? I recently became aware of articles like List of shipwrecks in August 1941 that use many substandard sources ([115]). If someone adds a source like this about a Polish WWII shipwreck, how many weeks of a block are they looking at? Shortly after the ArbCom case closed I asked one of our milhist ship experts to create an article on a minor ship SMS M85, and he replied that "I think that the recent Arbcom ruling on articles associated with Poland in WW2 makes writing an article impossible." He created it nonetheless, but if he used a less then impeccable source (perhaps [116] that I see in German minesweeper M18 (1939)), would he be looking a ta block? Is using a site like [117] to reference some non-WP:REDFLAG technical details about a ship or another minor detail a major offense now? How about if the article I created on Japanese pilot Naoshi Kanno was Poland-related? I referenced his appearance in an anime series to a source or two that another editor objected to ([118]). If it was a Polish pilot, would I be blocked now? Topic banned for a year, perhaps, if it was my second or third infraction?

I hope that the above illustrate clearly that the entire Poland WWII topic has become a minefield now that very few editors will dare to edit until this issue is clarified. In particular, we need to know the answers to:

  • per [119], is this indeed correct that "the remedy does not require any particular notification or proof of awareness...and therefore [is] enforceable whether or not an editor was aware of it". And if this is not correct, how to make new editors aware of this? Would {{Ds/alert}} for "topic=b" be sufficient?
  • is it the intent that AE can now be used to bypass WP:RSN and such, and any admin can now speedily rule on what sources are reliable or not and impose DS-level blocks and bans (up to a year, including topic bans) for a single infraction without a specific warning?
  • for this topic area, should RNS be bypassed and questions about reliability of sources directed to AE? Since the admin reviewing a complain is empowered to ignore RSN/talk consensus/etc. and make their own calls, why bother discussing sources anywhere else? Making a complain at AE seems to be the best way to get anything done in this topic area now (preferably by reporting one's opponents to AE until something sticks).

My constructive suggestion is to revise this remedy to make sure that this applies only to editors who have been warned and who engage in edit warring restoring bad sources. In other words, I think that editors should be allowed to add or readd any sources they wish, but once they have been made aware that there is an issue with a source they added through a talk page message, then a 0RR rule should apply pending an outcome of a RSN discussion that the editor who challenged the source should start. If, after made aware that a source is under review, they restore it, then they can be reported to AE. This should be done on a source basis, not editor, i.e. if an editor adds one problematic source, and few weeks later, a different one, it should be treated as separate case, not as a repeat violation (unless it is the same source). Further, an AE ruling in such a case should be not to block an editor for a first infraction, but to add the problematic source to a dedicated blacklist for this topic area. Only editors who re-add a source from said blacklist, after being made aware of its existence through a DS-like warning, should be eligible to being blocked (in practice, one should get warning "you added a source from this blacklist, if you do it again or add any other source from it you may be subject to escalating blocks and bans). To block editors for a first violation, when a source's reliability is often unclear and can merit further discussion, seems like a major battleground escalation, ignoring BDR, and encouraging editors to report their 'opponents' to AE in hope of a quick block. And yes, given the borderline and difficult to investigate nature of many sources, we need a blacklist that specifically states "this website/book/author are bad", because otherwise people will be blocked for plain ignorance or a simple mistake ("you reverted a likely sock that among other edits removed a problematic source. One year topic ban for you. Sock wins. Move on".

I end this with a reminder that I am a content creator and a professional writer, familiar with RS on and off wiki, and in my professional opinion anything more restrictive than the proposal above will create a chilling effect and a major battleground, with editors reporting one another for innocent borderline sources, until no-one is willing to touch this content area with a 10-foot long pole. Remember the adage about good intentions, please. It's enough to look at recent history for Home Army. I am a long standing, experienced contributor, and right now I am abandoning this article, and all related, to likely socks/SPI who have nothing to lose. And I am not going to revert anyone, I will just consider reporting them to AE, since any other course of action is an invitation to get myself blocked. Maybe they will gut this and other articles, removing bad sources, good sources, and whatever else they want, but I am frankly scared or restoring anything, if it is up to a semi-random admin to decide that maybe I merit a year-long topic ban because I added or restored a single borderline source. Is this the type of editing environment this remedy was meant to foster? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:45, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Molobo cannot make a statement as he is currently blocked, unreviewed appeal pending.

PPS. There is also a simple date error with this finding that I raised here (date 1933 should be 1939). I don't think that merits a separate thread.

-->

Statement by Sandstein

I was not notified of this request, even though I am listed as involved. This is an appeal of an enforcement action couched in the terms of a clarification request. It should be dismissed because, per applicable policy, only the sanctioned editor may appeal an enforcement action.

In fact, MyMoloboaccount is trying to make an appeal on their talk page, but hasn't said in which forum they want to make the appeal. Maybe an admin can help them out with that. The question of whether I was right to block MyMoloboaccount should then properly be discussed in the course of that appeal.

As to the broader point raised by Piotrus that it is not a good idea to make individual admins decide which sources are inadequate and therefore blockable, I don't really have a view. It's for ArbCom to decide whether such a measure is necessary in this topic area. I assume they chose to do so after careful consideration because the normal method of determining the appropriateness of sources through consensus has failed. But the authority given to admins here isn't really any broader than under discretionary sanctions, which already apply to the topic area. Sandstein 16:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The proper appeal has now been copied to AE: WP:AE#Arbitration enforcement action appeal by MyMoloboaccount. I have commented there. Sandstein 18:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MyMoloboaccount

Statement by JzG

Mymoloboaccount has been here long enough to know better. [120] is a flagrant misrepresentation of the source. Mymoloboaccount is lucky to have received only a one week block for this. Guy (help!) 11:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Ermenrich

Molobo is well aware that their editing is seen as problematic, see here. Their current arguing over the block only demonstrates either a lack of understanding of what a reliable source is, in which case competence issues seem present, or else willful disregard for it. There is no reason to hollow out these requirements because you're "scared". Molobo's block is, if anything, a sign that they are effective. He is fully aware of the remedy and the block, having participated in the case, and he's been here for years and years, so he ought to have a better sense of sourcing anyway.

If you have concerns about other editors' edits, you are also free to report them. The hope was this would clean up the area. Relaxing the restrictions would undermine this goal.--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nug, Paul Siebert is right - there are plenty of ways to get to good academic sources. There is no reason why these restrictions should stop anyone editing with good faith from editing.--Ermenrich (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by François Robere

In general, users who are new to Wikipedia or to a topic area aren't blocked immediately upon infringing on a rule - they're notified and asked to participate in the TP, as it should be. Molobo isn't either - he's familiar with the topic area, took part in the ArbCom case,[121] and later used as justification for an edit.[122] He's well aware that his edits are problematic - I can count at least six editors and two admins who expressed their concerns about him, in his presence, in several fora.

Editors who regularly discuss their edits, and who do not engage in source misrepresentation or needless edit wars - and I count Piotrus and myself as two - should not feel threatened by these DS. While we in theory we could be served with DS without prior warning, in practice it doesn't happen often.

As for the "chilling effect" of the sanctions: the ArbCom case subject of this amendment request had two editors T-banned, who after the case were blocked (one indef). ANI and AE cases resulted in another editor T-banned, and two more blocked. Another editor, who was already T-banned, postponed her appeal. Five editors were "left standing", but they are joined by a handful of editors who frequent the TA less often, and an unknown number of editors who edit in specific articles or on specific issues. All in all, anywhere from 5-15 editors are active in the topic area at any one time (not counting copy editors, reference fixers and bots), some of which have only become active in the TA after the ArbCom case. In short, there's no evidence of a "chilling effect" on the regular editing activities within the TA. François Robere (talk) 15:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nigel Ish

As written, this sanction is incredibly vague - it could be argued to apply to almost any subject associated with either the Western or Eastern front in World War II - any area where Polish forces fought, any ship that served with the Polish Navy or with the German navy at the start of the war, any piece of military equipment in service during the German invasion of Poland or the Soviet campaign - and demands that only academic sources be used - a standard that is well in excess of anywhere else on Wikipedia, and if applied strictly will make it impossible to edit in many areas, including most of Military History, as someone can always argue that a source isn't academic enough and demand that the content it supports must be removed on pain of an Arbcom block. Statements by Arbcom members on the case above make it clear that the ruling is expected to be applied widely. This has a clear chilling effect and makes a mockery of Wikipedia being the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, as it means that only someone with access to a high quality university library and with the backing of a large bunch of supporters who can support them at Arbcom. Nigel Ish (talk) 18:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @François Robere: ::Since we are only allowed to use academic sources it effectively limits the user to using journal articles or books by academic presses, which effectively eliminates any sources that present detailed technical data. While the sources used in SMS M85 for example are reliable - it can be argued that they are not academic (and one source is in German, when an English language edition is available (although I don't have access to it), so I can be punished for writing this article if anyone with a grudge takes me to Arbcom.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution is for people in authority (i.e. admins and Arbcom) to actually deal with behaviour issues (including things like Civil POV pushing) as behaviour issues using their existing powers, which are entirely adequate if they are prepared to use them properly, and not to invent ever more arcane discretionary sanctions regimes (which in this case can lead to someone being blocked without any warning whatsoever) which are capable of abuse as weapons in content disputes - if a sanction can be abused, it will be abused.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nug

I agree with Nigel Ish. This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library.

Articles published in academic journals necessarily present new and/or novel perspectives on some topic, the dissemination of these new viewpoints to other academics is the raison d'être of these journals. As such a particular article doesn’t reflect the main stream view, but the viewpoint of the author, by definition a minority viewpoint at the point of publication. It is only when that article is cited by other articles and books that we can get a measure of the acceptance of that viewpoint. It must be noted that the peer review process in history journals isn’t intended to provide a measure of acceptance or endorsement of the view, but, as Anthony Grafton from Princeton University puts it, to assure the authors are not out “wearing their magenta socks”, i.e. to assure themselves their article doesn’t contain glaring mistakes in presentation.

Arbcom has always been about conduct, not content, and proscribing the sourcing of an article is surely not what Arbcom should be doing. Wikipedia already has mechanisms in place to deal with sourcing, and whether to impose stricter content source rules on a particular topic area should really be the decision of the wider community via a RFC.

A way forward in this case would be for Arbcom to suspend this content related remedy pending an outcome to a RFC to the wider community. --Nug (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Sunshine, the difference is that retrictive sourcing policies like WP:BLP were developed by community concensus, not imposed by ArbCom because a tiny handful of editors managed to persuade them it was necessary in some arbitration case. It is like using a hand grenade to crack a nut. Topic banning all the participants of that particular case for a year would have been more effective than imposing a content sourcing restriction that impacts everyone else not involved. --Nug (talk) 21:06, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Paul Siebert

It seems Nigel Ish and Nug are talking about totally different subjects. Indeed, I concede what Nigel Ish's arguments are partially reasonable: it may be problematic to find, for example, some technical characteristics of some concrete WWII time battleship in peer-reviewed publications. However, it is equally hard to expect a hot dispute about that. In contrast, the Holocaust in Poland topic is an area of incessant conflict between two POVs, both of them are strongly politically motivated and, they seriously affect some national feelings. Obviously, the worst POV-pusher is using the worst sources, and the best way to stop an edit war is not 1RR or "Consensus required", and not even topic bans. The best way to fight against POV-pushers is to deprive them of their main weapon - their sources. Which sources national POV-pushers are using the most frequently? Some obscure books, local newspapers, questionable web sites. If such sources are not allowed - the conflict ends.

Regarding Nug's "This remedy does have a chilling effect and is an impediment to those who don’t have access to a university library." Exactly. If you want to write about such a sensitive topic as Holocaust - go to a local library, find good sources - and write. Jstor provides a free subscription (several articles per month), some journals are free, google scholar provides citations - those who want to write good content have a lot of tools. If, instead of that, they prefer to collect various rumors at the very dark recesses of Internet, then WP:NOTHERE is the only option.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: I got a much better idea: if some source has been cited by peers, and the references can be found via google.scholar (or some other scientific/scholarly search engine), such a source can be used. This is the approach I myself use (I very rarely use sources that cannot be found by gscholar or jstor search), and this approach was recognized as good in this peer-reviewed publication, which is specifically devoted to the analysis of content disputes in Wikipedia. With regard to newspapers, there is currently a discussion about a modification of that part of the policy, and it seems a consensus is that only very reputable newspapers are "mainstream newspapers" (good sources per WP:V), and even for them WP:NEWSORG should work, which means editorial and op-ed materials are primary sources about author's opinion.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re Zaloga, this author is being widely used in WWII related articles, this concrete book was cited by many peer-reviewed publications, and at least one generally positive review on Zaloga's earlier book with the same title was published in The Polish Review, Vol. 28, No. 3 (1983), pp. 103-105. If some admin will try to block me for using that source, I will successfully contest this block, and will request that admin to be banned from reviewing cases that relate to WWII history per WP:CIR. Most likely, that my request will be implemented. However, that is a purely hypothetical case. If you want, you may directly ask admins who are active on this page if any of them is going to block me for Zaloga.--Paul Siebert (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nug: I accepted your challenge and duly answered. Your turn.--Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: You are obviously wrong. One of the most cited works is this.
However, you are right that the number of citations per se is not an indication of validity. However, it is an indication that the source X is the part of a scientific/scholarly discourse, which creates an opportunity for verification: every participant of the content dispute can randomly pick several articles/books that cite the source X and see if that source is rejected or accepted by peers. Actually, that is how I work, and, as a rule, in majority cases citations mean not criticism but support. Obviously, if the source X is used as a source of information in the source Y, which cites X, that is an indication of validity of the source X.
Regarding newspapers, this part of WP:V is being discussed currently, partially to address the arguments similar to the one you presented. Indeed, "mainstream" is vague, but my point is that in any scenario, "mainstream" refers to just a small fraction of newspapers, and a significant part of materials published in newspapers are primary sources, and should be treated as such. Therefore, the question about citing newspapers belongs to the realm of WP:NOR, not WP:V, and the core idea of NOR is: "be careful when you use primary sources." --Paul Siebert (talk) 14:58, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statment by DGG

With respect ot the specific request here, I agree with Piotrus that the wording was too rigid. Making a sharp division between academic and no academic sources is not necessarily helpful--there are multiple works in any field that defy easy classification, and also many works not strictly academic that are of equal standing and reliability. Nor is being academic a guarantee of reliability--I mention for example Soviet Lysenkoism and Nazi racial science, both with high national academic standing, and, in the case of Nazi science, considerable international recognition. I'd suggest a much more flexible wording Only high quality sources may be used, specifically peer-reviewed scholarly journals, academically focused books by reputable publishers, and/or articles published by reputable institutions. and works of similar quality and responsibility". Considering the examples given in the request, I think that this would deal with much of it. Newspapers, however, are a more difficult problem, and the responsibility of content of serious topics published is newspapers is variable. I wouldn't rule them out entirely, but I don't know quite how to word it. {Possibly '"and other responsible sources bywide general agreement . ) DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul Siebert:, It's not whether something is cited, but what is aid about it. The most cited sources are sometimes the ones that are obviously wrong, because everyone refutes them. As for newspapers, in the soviet era, Pravda was a mainstream newspaper, and, in fact, the national paper of record. Peoples Daily is a mainstream newspaper. They can both be cited, but they can not be used to give a honest view of reality. There is no shortcut to a detailed consideration of how sources are used in context. There is no shortcut to NPOV. Perhaps shortcuts here are all arb com has to work with for affecting content, but they won't by themselves do it. DGG ( talk ) 05:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Paul Siebert:, the most cited sources are sometimes.... They also sometimes are the famous works everyone cirteswithout actually reading. There's n onecessary relationship, except that the uncited ones can be assumed to have no influence. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by ThoughtIdRetired

What of the "casual" editor of one of the articles to which these restrictions apply - by that I mean someone who is not deeply involved within the narrow confines of the subject, but adds what they believe to be helpful content from a source that would be OK elsewhere in Wikipedia? How would such an editor know that these restrictions apply or, even, how to comply with them? If the casual editor is going to be sanctioned, how does this fit with WP:GOODFAITH? Surely a central principle of Wikipedia is being subverted in order to control a few rogue problem editors. Feel free to point out to me if you think I have misunderstood (but me saying this emphasises the apparent complexity of rules with draconian penalties).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:13, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So these restrictions should only apply to persistent and knowing offenders who ignore warnings.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by My very best wishes

This should be a request for amendment. I think this sourcing restriction should be removed and never used again for the reasons I explained in my request. The discretionary sanctions already existing in this subject area are more than sufficient to handle any problems.

  • In addition, this "sourcing restriction" is open to "gaming". Here is how.
Step 1. Consider user X (even me, for example) who uses sources which qualify as WP:RS and are normally accepted on various WP pages. A couple of other users do not like what these sources say, want to remove this content [126] and are trying to discredit these sources by resorting to ridiculous arguments, such as a criticism of these sources (e.g. a notable book by Petro Grigorenko) found in a blog post by unknown person [127], and they even bring this blog post as an "RS" to RSNB and argue that the blog post was "good" [128]. They claim that even academic sources are not good just because they cited an article from Komsomolskaya pravda. They claim that an article in Kontinent is not good, etc.
Step 2. After not receiving a support from community in this and several other similar threads [129], [130], these users are demanding on WP:AE to follow the "sourcing restrictions" on content completely unrelated to Poland [131].
Step 3. These users demand to sanction user X on WP:AE [132]. That would not happen on WP:AE if we had no the "sourcing restriction" for Poland.
  • @Sunrise. Thank you for bringing the comparison with sourcing per WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS. Those are excellent examples to explain why the sourcing restrictions should never be used by Arbcom. Here are the differences:
  1. The WP:BLP and WP:MEDRS have been developed and can be modified at any time by consensus of contributors who edit in these areas. Therefore, these rules were carefully and openly debated and can be fixed at any time if needed, unlike this restriction.
  2. The practical applications are completely different. I have never seen a long-term contributor being sanctioned on WP:AE for a single BLP violation on a single page. One really needs to demonstrate a serious pattern of placing poorly sourced (rather than WP:NEWSORG) defamatory materials on BLP pages, and ignore warnings. As about the WP:MEDRS, this is only a guideline that no one actually follows on many thousands of WP pages by making references to original peer reviewed publications in scientific journals, which is not really a big problem. No one normally reports people for doing this. WP:MEDRS does come to play only on the highly controversial matters, when a dispute arises. Then, the disputes do need to be resolved by using good review articles per WP:MEDRS. My very best wishes (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Assayer

A lot of scenarios have been developed, where scores of unsuspecting editors are going to be blocked immediately for using anything other than peer-reviewed scholarly studies. This amounts to scare tactics without actual evidence that these threats are real. But, as a matter of fact, RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC often fail when it comes to certain disputes about whether a particular source is reliable or not. I can name various examples of questionable sources which were determined acceptable and reliable, including interviews with convicted Holocaust perpetrators commenting on “Operation Reinhard”. Instead of discussing abstract scenarios and opening loopholes, the question thus should be: What is the objective of these restrictions? Is this objective acchieved? --Assayer (talk) 20:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience there are two main arguments to fend off a more restricted use of sources, e.g. of scholarly sources only. According to the first argument even primary sources are admissible when they are used for “uncontroversial”, “factual” information which may not be covered by scholarly sources, but is allegedly needed to provide for a “comprehensive” article. The second argument, namely “consensus”, is used to subdue criticism by stating that the use of such sources has been decided upon by “consensus” and that critics should “drop the stick”, even though the criticism and the debate itself demonstrate that “consensus” has changed. Thereby primary sources like SS personal files hosted at state archives, self-published publications, publications by SS veteran organizations and scores of militaria literature have all been declared permissible reliable sources. Yes, article sourcing guidance should be developed by “content creators”, but sometimes some “content creators” become a gated community at odds with the guidelines of the community as a whole and in need of some input from the outside.

@MvbW If I understand correctly, Molobo has not been blocked, because they inserted references to ‘’Jane’s Fighting Ships’’ in an article on a German minesweeper sunk in 1939. And you have not been blocked at all, yet.--Assayer (talk) 13:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: I was thinking of sources used and propagated by User:OberRanks. In particular I remember Karl Wolff, where the use of SS service records hosted at the National Archives at College park was vigorously defended. The discussion was closed by Eggishorn as without clear consensus. These SS personal files were still used. The discussion found some continuation at the article on Theodor Eicke [133], where I was able to demonstrate divergences between dates given by OberRanks and dates given in scholarly sources. About one and a half years later OberRanks was blocked indefinitely for fabrication of offline references.[134] You will still find references to SS service records in the articles on Amon Göth, Reinhard Heydrich and Rudolf Höß although the latter’s service record has since been removed. The Heydrich article refers to Lina Heydrich's and Walter Schellenberg's memoirs alongside scholarly literature like Aronson and Schreiber.
One should not expect this in an article on German pilot Hans-Joachim Marseille, but here we find Karl Wolff being cited on the Aktion Reinhard.[135] I challenged that extraordinary story by Wolff[136] which contradicts established evidence that Operation Reinhard was top secret. I took the source, which I consider militaria, to RSN where it was considered “acceptable and reliable”.[137]
Turning to self-published sources, I might refer to Veit Scherzer’s work as it was discussed between us.[138] It’s been used in many articles, e.g. in Johannes Blaskowitz or Hermann Fegelein. The latter also features Florian Berger’s self-published work just as Joachim Peiper.
All of the examples I gave are within the subject area of Poland 1939-45 or feature claims which pertain to this subject. This affects other subject areas like Yugoslavia as well, but I’ll leave it at that. The point is not to encourage “mission creep” by anyone, but stricter rules in certain subject areas which would, hopefully, make certain prolonged debates superfluous. You consider this to be a peanut, I consider it to be a stonewall that needs to be breached.--Assayer (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MvbW: You are seriously misrepresenting arguments and I would suggest that you to withdraw your misleading statement.[139]--Assayer (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: If an editor is able to use and place fabricated sources in a sensitive subject area for more than ten years, in your own words one of the most egregious betrayals of Wikipedia any editor can commit,[140] how has that not been deleterious to the project as a whole? My point is that your notion, that the reliability whether a particular source is reliable should best be determined by consensus, is naive, because this “consensus” has been used to work around even basic guidelines like WP:SOURCE, stating “Unpublished materials are not considered reliable”, and WP:PRIMARY. As Sunrise has pointed out below, this is less an issue of content, but of behavior, because the use of poor sources is likely to cause disruption. To minimize disruption, e.g. example to spare us endless debates about reliability of unpublished archival records, testimonies or memoirs, stricter rules should be in place in certain subject areas where such disruption has occurred.--Assayer (talk) 12:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Peacemaker67

Mostly copied from the first ARCA thread on this case, because it is just as relevant here as there. I have plenty of experience with disputed sourcing in ARBEE from my work on Yugoslavia in WWII articles and have never once thought this sort of ArbCom intervention was needed. I am fundamentally opposed to this remedy because it enters into content areas, and the arbitration process exists to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes, not content ones. If ArbCom wants to get involved in content matters, then it should ask the community for the scope of ArbCom to be expanded and receive that imprimatur before sticking its oar into content areas. We have a perfectly serviceable reliable sources policy, and questions about whether a particular source is reliable are determined by consensus, supplemented by outside opinions via RSN and dispute resolution mechanisms like RfC if a consensus cannot be arrived at between the regular editors of the article in question. As has been noted elsewhere, if the editor that wants to use a source cannot get a consensus that a source is reliable, it cannot be used. The Article sourcing expectations remedy should be voided as it was made outside the scope of ArbCom's remit. I think the comments about the chilling effect of this remedy reflect quite reasonable concerns, and these sanctions have a great deal of potential to be used as weapons in content disputes. If article sourcing guidance beyond WP:RS is needed for a particular contentious area, it should be developed by the content creators who actually know the subject area, not by ArbCom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of generalised WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments here being used to bolster extremely thin arguments about this subject area and to try to encourage "mission creep" by ArbCom into content areas where the members of the committee have virtually no demonstrated expertise. For example, I encourage Assayer to point out where the consensus exists that SS personal files, self-published publications, publications by SS veteran organizations and "scores of militaria literature" have been used in this subject area and a consensus has been arrived at that they are reliable and this has caused conduct issues or even has been deleterious for articles in the subject area. I'll be happy to withdraw my objections if there is compelling evidence of same. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An example of the nonsensical results of this remedy is that an article on a Luftwaffe pilot that flew during the invasion of Poland cannot use a reliable (but non-academic) book which details his movements and activities during the invasion, but if he went on to fly during the Battle of France, the same article can include the same sort of detail for that campaign using the same book. The same could be said of any German individual, squadron, unit or ship that fought in Poland and went on to serve elsewhere, or any Pole or Polish squadron, unit or ship for that matter. It is ridiculous. This remedy is like using a piledriver to crack a peanut. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Assayer, we have differences of opinion about what is a reliable source, but where have any of your examples resulted in persistent conduct issues or been deleterious to the project as a whole? They just haven't, and as a result, ArbCom shouldn't be getting itself involved in what is clearly a content dispute. It certainly is "mission creep" into content areas that you are encouraging, and it should be opposed vigorously as outside the remit of the committee. This whole remedy is completely out of ArbCom's lane, and they should just void it and back off until they have community approval to get involved in content rather than conduct matters. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:09, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Sunrise, BLP and medical content sourcing requirements were determined by the community via consensus, and were not dictated by ArbCom. I have no problem with the community deciding that particular areas should have higher standards than RS, but that is for the community to decide, not ArbCom, which doesn't know the complexities of the subject area. ArbCom is well out of its lane here and should back off. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nick-D

Like Peacemaker's comment above, the comment I made at WP:ARCA#Clarification request: Antisemitism in Poland also applies here. In short, while I think that a remedy requiring quality sourcing is justified, the current remedy is too narrow as it rules out high quality but non-scholarly works. I'd suggest changing it to something like "Only high quality sources may be used. Preference should be given to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books. Other reliable sources may be used to augment scholarly works or where such works are not available." I have no opinion on the mechanism for enforcing this, noting especially that this topic area has subject to very long-running and serious problems so strict penalties are likely justified, but the usual arrangement where editors who are not aware of the sanction are warned first should obviously apply. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sunrise

I'd like to point out, since it doesn't seem to have been mentioned in the above discussion, that we already enforce sourcing thresholds requiring a higher level of quality than that of WP:RS alone - they're used in two of the largest areas of Wikipedia, those being BLP and medical content. Since those areas seem to be working fine, many of the claims about major problems arising from this sanction would therefore seem to be incorrect. While the exact threshold is different in this case (being roughly in between the two in terms of restrictiveness), any argument that would apply equally in those areas needs to establish why this particular topic should be considered to be uniquely different.

The sanction seems to have been successful at preventing the use of poor sources to cause disruption (an issue of behavior, not content), and that should be recognized. Of course, it is entirely possible this particular threshold could be refined, but requests to do so should be based in reasoned argument as to why specific categories of sources have an equivalent level of reliability to the sources that are already permitted, as opposed to the (IMO quite hyperbolic) rhetoric used in some of the comments above. Sunrise (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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

Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

Amendment request: Antisemitism in Poland (3)

Initiated by Volunteer Marek at 20:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
Antisemitism in Poland arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Proposed decision#Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Volunteer Marek's IBAN regarding Icewhiz is rescinded

Statement by Volunteer Marek

Per the recent comments on my talk page by User:TonyBallioni [141], User:Piotrus [142] and User:Worm That Turned [143], I am submitting this request to amend the Proposed Remedy 3.3.2 [144] of this case to read:

Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from interacting with, or commenting on Volunteer Marek anywhere on Wikipedia.

This effectively converts the two sided IBAN into a one sided one.

As User:Worm That Turned points out, with Icewhiz indefinitely banned from Wikipedia the grounds for a two way IBAN are no longer valid and its original rationale is no longer applicable. Related to Tony Ballioni's point, there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself (this happened for example on User:Jimbo Wales's talk page). This is particularly egregious since Icewhiz was indefinitely banned for extremely nasty off-wiki harassment of myself (as well as other editors).

Likewise, since the end of the case, and Icewhiz's indef ban, the topic area has seen a proliferation of new accounts and sock puppets (although not all of them are Icewhiz). Some of these appear to be engaged in baiting behavior, for example by restoring Icewhiz's old edits, which raises the possibility of an inadvertent IBAN violation. In other cases, these sock puppets/new accounts have made edits which target me personally but because of the IBAN I am unable to bring up the possibility that they are connected to Icewhiz on Wiki (some of the diffs from these accounts have been oversighted due to their extremely nasty nature).

I want to state that if this amendment carries, I have no intention of "seeking out" Icewhiz, or gravedancing, or "interacting" with his old edits or initiating discussions about him. For the most part I will be all too happy to continue to ignore his existence. However, as stated above, there is no longer a need for this restriction and occasionally (like with SPIs) a situation may arise where I should be able to comment.

Statement by Valereee

I'm not comfortable with this being so broad. VM ought to be able to comment in some cases, but simply allowing them to comment anywhere for any reason doesn't sound reasonable. Volunteer Marek says there occasionally arise discussion/interactions on Wikipedia where I (Volunteer Marek) am brought up or discussed in some connection to Icewhiz by other editors (some of them apparently brand new accounts) and where, because of the IBAN, I am unable to comment, reply or defend myself; why can't we amend to say that on such occasions, VM may comment. --valereee (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I get that, WTT, and I have little doubt IceWhiz is behaving badly. But to simply remove the limitation altogether...I dunno. I guess we can address it when it happens, but honestly there was plenty of bad behavior going around. --valereee (talk) 19:14, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Antisemitism in Poland: Clerk notes

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

Antisemitism in Poland: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • This is a reasonable request. Now that Icewhiz is banned a two-way IBAN serves no purpose in reducing disruption, and per the above comments, is unfairly restricting VM's ability to respond to harassment and disruption targeted at him. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • valereee Simply put, the committee has received sufficient evidence that we put forward a motion removing Icewhiz from the encyclopedia. Since then, problematic behaviours have continued and have been targetted at VM. It's no longer about disputes escalating, it's about someone being able to protect themselves. WormTT(talk) 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in Poland: Motion

Remedy 2 of Antisemitism in Poland ("Icewhiz and Volunteer Marek interaction-banned") is renamed Icewhiz banned from interacting with Volunteer Marek and amended to read:

Icewhiz (talk · contribs) is indefinitely banned from interacting with or commenting on Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs) anywhere on Wikipedia (subject to the ordinary exceptions).
For this motion there are 8 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - CodeLyokotalk 01:53, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Proposed. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This kind of motion runs the risk of signalling to Icewhiz that we will not entertain an appeal in the future. The committee is not voting on that question. However, an interaction ban where one of the two parties is absent is obviously without purpose. And the current state of affairs risks being manifestly unjust to Volunteer Marek, for reasons that do not need detailing. Vacating the interaction ban would be useful and appropriate. AGK ■ 10:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm hesitant about this. Firstly, we applied a 2 way interaction ban for a good reason - it was the right thing to do and it wasn't long ago. Secondly, I don't like 1 way interaction bans. However, as AGK points out, this state of affairs risks being manifestly unjust to Volunteer Marek. I may be hesitant, but this is the right decision. WormTT(talk) 10:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per AGK. Katietalk 11:44, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per AGK. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not to be a broken record, but, per AGK. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:12, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mkdw talk 17:03, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
Recuse
Comments

Amendment request: The Rambling Man

Initiated by Sandstein at 19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected
The Rambling Man arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited
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
  • Change this restriction to a site ban or another appropriate sanction, or remove it.

Statement by Sandstein

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man#The Rambling Man prohibited provides: "If however, in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, The Rambling Man does engage in prohibited conduct, he may be blocked for up to 48 hours. If, in the opinion of the enforcing administrator, a longer block, or other sanction, is warranted a request is to be filed at WP:ARCA." This is such a request.

In the abovementioned decision, twice amended since 2016, The Rambling Man was "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." He has been blocked four times by four different admins for violating this restriction (see his block log). A few days ago, Kingofaces43 requested enforcement of the restrictions for recent comments made by The Rambling Man such as:

  • "are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?" ([145], edit summary)
  • "Not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place" ([146])

In my view, as expressed at AE, the comments at issue are "reflections on the competence" of others, and therefore violate the restriction. Other admins in the AE thread have disagreed.

If the Committee shares my view, it should ban The Rambling Man. If an explicit ArbCom restriction and four blocks (among many other blocks) are not effective in changing the conduct of an editor, nothing will be. Editors should not have to put up with intractably rude people. We would not accept such people among our friends or at our workplaces. We should not have to accept them in this collaborative, academic project. The merits of their contributions cannot make up for the disruption and bad will (and enforcement overhead) they cause.

If the Committee is of the view that the comments at issue are not a violation of the restriction, or are not worth sanctioning, it should lift the restriction, because this would show that the restriction is too vague to be consistently and fairly enforced. Sandstein 19:37, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that, even as this request is pending, The Rambling Man continues to violate his restriction, as he himself recognizes below. For example, he removed my notification about this request with the edit summary "the harassment ends tonight". In addition to sounding like a threat, this is a speculation about my motive in making this request, namely, that it is intended as harassment instead of (as is in fact the case) a normal part of the arbitration enforcement process. This, too, violates the restriction.
I also take exception to Thryduulf and Iridescent's statements below, who are, as in previous cases involving The Rambling Man, casting unfounded aspersions on my supposed motives. I cannot interpret these interventions by Thryduulf and Iridescent other than as repeated attempts to protect The Rambling Man against legitimate and valid enforcement requests by multiple users who feel harassed by The Rambling Man's disruptive conduct. This is conduct unbecoming of administrators, and should be looked into by the Committee. Administrators should attempt to implement ArbCom's decisions, as I try to do, rather than trying to frustrate arbitration enforcement by making unfounded attacks against those who are engaged in the enforcement process. Sandstein 10:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@AGK: Thank you for your valuable feedback, which I will take into consideration, together with the feedback other arbitrators may want to offer. As to recusal from matters pertaining to The Rambling Man, so far I've taken the view - perhaps also colored by my experience in real-world administrative law - that an administrator should not recuse themselves just because they have repeatedly "interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role", as WP:INVOLVED tells us. In my view, this also applies if these interactions (as mine have been) have been strongly criticized by the subject of the interactions and by others. If I was wrong in these interactions, the place for the community or ArbCom to determine this would be an appeal of any sanctions I imposed. But I don't see how the fact that – probably more so than many other admins – I am generally in favor of relatively strict sanctions against regularly incivil and disruptive contributors (not only The Rambling Man) would make me appear biased. Overly strict, unemphatetic, obstinate, perhaps – but not, in my view, biased against a particular person. But, of course, if ArbCom as a body makes it clear that they prefer that I don't deal with The Rambling Man any more, I'd be happy to do so. You may want to consider, though, that this might incentivize others to attempt to pressure other AE admins into recusal if these admins are perceived as insufficiently lenient towards certain editors. Sandstein 15:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by The Rambling Man

I literally give up. Sandstein has used every chance to see the back of me and I can't take it any longer. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This ARCA demonstrates the ridiculous nature of the wording of the sanction. I made substantiated claims at WP:AN about a number of edits by a certain admin who refused to do anything but bait me, and make false accusations about my motivations. If now, as it seems, I am to be banned because I objected and stated said objections to an admins inserting false information, incorrect sources, badly formatted citations, making false edit summaries and leaving articles in a worse state, half-removing contentious material but leaving the rest, in a meatbot fashion, then I guess that sums the place up now. Absolutely everything I said was factually accurate. There was no discussion over "motivation", just statements of fact about the ever-increasing mess this admin was leaving throughout the vast numbers of edits they were making. Of course, given the wording of the sanction, just about every sentence I've typed here now means I should be banned too. Bravo. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Roe I know exactly where you stand, but for "baiting" perhaps you could read "making unsubstantiated attacks about me, lying about my motivations, and continually invoking WP:ICANTHEARYOU". Of course, if I can't raise these issues at AN, I suppose there's no hope at all. Banned for telling the truth. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 09:21, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein There is no "threat" there. How could it possibly, conceivably be a "threat"? What on earth are you talking about? I think it's clear from the various fora where you are always seeking the harshest possible punishment on me that I personally feel completely harassed by you. That is not a statement about your motivations, it is a clear, unambiguous description of how your actions make me feel. If you learn nothing else from this debacle, please at least know that. Are you actually suggesting that I cannot let others know that I feel you are harassing me? Are you seriously suggesting that is prohibited under these sanctions? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Roe so telling an admin that he has introduced factual errors and incorrect sources to an article is reflections on their competence? Or is it direct advice that anyone should be able to offer when problematic edits have been made by an admin and continue to be made by an admin despite being asked to stop? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 10:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AGK thanks for your comments. The "harassment ends" comment I left certainly couldn't be interpreted as anything other than me expressing my final thoughts on Wikipedia having felt so harassed by Sandstein time and again, and I was about to leave for good. But according to Sandstein, even feeling harassed by him is a violation of this sanction, so perhaps I need to contact T&S if that's the case. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 14:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cullen328 I made no "reflections" or "speculations" about the behaviour of two admins in this case. I gave clear and concise reasons as to why they should desist their behaviour. I am now beginning to understand that specific information about erroneous edits is now considered, by some, as "reflections on competence". I wholeheartedly refute that. There's no doubting that the two admins are competent but also that both have actually made mistakes in the context (and that's important) of this dispute. I even offered to completely retract and apologise for everything I'd asserted should their behaviour be backed up in policy and guideline. And that, in the face of multiple lies about my motivations, multiple personal attacks, etc, from these admins. I suppose if the sanction was designed to allow anyone and everyone to have a one-sided swing at me, it's succeeded in that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:50, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Awilley thanks for your input and note to me earlier. Somewhat like WP:BANEX, I had expected that I was able to note the multiple shortcomings of admins' behaviour in an "appropriate location" (e.g. WP:AN) and it would not constitute an infraction of the sanction even if it had even got close to violating the wording (which it did not). The alternative interpretation being promoted by others is to assume that I am banned from notifying anyone of any mistake they have made anywhere on Wikipedia, for fear of that now being classified as commenting on their competence, that I am banned from questioning the behaviour of admins who have actively introduced errors into the encyclopedia etc. Is that really what this sanction is about? And did either of the admins who variously attacked me personally or simply fallaciously speculated on my motives ever deem that the discussion needed this? Or was it another example of the sanction being a one-way street for people to watch and wait for their interpretation of it to be fulfilled and throw the book at me? I suppose if I'm going to be banned for telling these admins the truth about what they were doing, in the face of their attacks on me, that'll be interesting for Wikipedia going forward. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 20:20, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A general question: does this constitute a "reflection" on this user's "competence"? I corrected them a couple of times, gave reasons for doing so, but yet no-one sought to sanction me for it. Where is the line between correcting mistakes, telling people I'm correcting their mistakes, asking people to stop continually making mistakes I'm having to correct, and accepting personal attacks and aspersions about my motivations, while still asking them to desist from their introductions of errors into the encyclopedia? Is this really what this sanction is about? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 22:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's just fine for the admin to accuse me of wiki-stalking? As noted clearly and unambiguously at WP:HOUND, Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. which is precisely what I did, and where it became obvious to me that the meatbot purge was being done with errors and leaving articles in mess. And despite suggesting the admin should stop, several times, I asked them if they were open to recall which they ignored, numerous times. But under the current sanction, I'm prevented from doing this? The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 07:58, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And it's problematic that this admin is enabled to level such unverifiable and untrue personal attacks, continue to edit for a further thirty minutes and leave. All editors should know better than to do something like that. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 08:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you David Gerard for eventually getting back and providing those diffs. It's no secret that Mandarax grave-danced on my previous retirement, it's no secret that I have in excess of 10,000 pages including his talk page on my watchlist. It's no secret that Vanamonde and I haven't gotten on at all for years, and it's certainly no secret that PBP has been claiming some kind of "agenda" on my behalf to have him "banned" from this Wikipedia after he was banned from Simple English Wikipedia. As for following your edits, given the nature of them that is in no way stalking, as I already provided the Wikipedia-based definition above - the problems you were introducing and the misleading edit summaries needed to be fixed. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 19:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf (re TRM)

It's worth being explicit here that of the administrators to comment at ARCA AE:

  • I saw suboptimal conduct from TRM (and others) that was not a breach of this restriction.
  • Seraphimblade and Lord Roem both indicated that they saw it similarly.
  • El_C was less explicit, but my reading of their comments is that they believe it was not a violation of the restriction as worded.
  • Sandstein saw it as a clear-cut violation that should be met with the harshest permissible sanction.

This matches very closely with the situation detailed in The December 2018 amendment request (see summary in my section there).

The underlying disagreement on this occasion is a content dispute between two groups of editors who each feel, apparently in good faith, that their actions are improving the encyclopaedia and the actions of the other group are harming it. I have not looked into it enough to have a view on whether one or other group is right or whether it is more complicated that that. Both sides however have got very annoyed with each other and instead of working out their differences calmly and amicably, heated walls of text are being lobbed from behind barricades. While this conduct is very clearly not what anybody wants to see from editors, I do not believe that it is what the committee intended the sanction to cover as TRM has not speculated about motives, and has not reflected on other editors' general competence but has detailed specific concerns he has and why he has those concerns (albeit phrased very poorly).

I would like the Committee to:

  1. clarify their intent with the restriction
  2. do so independently of the merits or otherwise of underlying content dispute (I don't think it has reached the level that requires committee involvement, but if it has it should be a separate case request), and actively discourage discussion of it here.
  3. examine Sandstein's impartiality with regards to TRM as nothing has changed in 11 months. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his comment above and this edit summary it is clear that TRM is feeling harassed by Sandstein (and given the history I can fully understand why). At the very least I think the committee should take note of this and actively consider an interaction ban or other restriction to help with this. Thryduulf (talk) 23:36, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joe Roe: TRM is prohibited from commenting on the general competence of an editor. That word is important and does allow for him to question the competence of editors' specific actions and in the context that is exactly what he was doing. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hrm, that change does make a difference but I still do not think that the situation we have here is what the sanction was intended to deal with. Certainly it was not intended to sanction only one party in a multi-sided dispute where nearly everyone is engaging in the same behaviour and I don't see that it would help in resolving the underlying dispute. Thryduulf (talk) 10:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I am not protecting, or attempting to protect, TRM from valid enforcement requests. When I see evidence that TRM has violated both the letter and spirit of a restriction then I will either impose or endorse a proportionate sanction on him. What I will not do is impose or endorse a sanction where nearly everyone who is either (a) uninvolved or (b) you agrees TRMs action did not violate the letter and spirit of his restriction. This is not special treatment: this is exactly the same standard that I hold every editor to.
In the current dispute, as in previous ones, multiple administrators have explained to you, in detail, why there was not a violation yet on every occasion you attempt to impose not just any sanction but the harshest one available. Thryduulf (talk) 11:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnuniq: The issue with that is that any administrator imposing such a block would be doing so contrary to the consensus of uninvolved administrators at AE (when the discussion was closed there was either no consensus either way or a consensus against, depending how you read it). This sanction would then be appealed and we'd be back where we are now. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: so how should TRM indicate that he believes an editor has made a series of bad judgements over a sustained period of time without violating this restriction? How can he heed this restriction if not even arbitrators can agree what is and is not a violation of it? I agree that TRM's conduct in this dispute is not good (but the conduct of several other parties is equally bad), but I do not understand how, in context, it violates this restriction.

Whatever the answers to the above, it is clearly not serving its intended purpose (and is probably actually hindering the resolution of this content dispute) and should be rescinded and replaced with something that clearly states its intent so that everyone (most importantly including TRM himself) can understand what is and what is not appropriate. Ideally with a provision that allows an identical sanction to be placed on any other party in a dispute with TRM that engages in behaviour that is prohibited of TRM and/or baits TRM. Thryduulf (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Banedon

I've not read the original thread that led to the AE filing, but looking at the four diffs linked in the AE itself, I think that if we interpret the restrictions as written then the first and fourth diffs should violate the "... prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence" restriction. The first diff clearly questions the competence, while the fourth clearly questions the motivation.

Problem with that is, in my (completely subjective) opinion none of the four diffs look like actionable, let alone bannable, offenses. In fact I completely don't see any issue with the 2nd and 3rd diffs. I suspect this is at the heart of the difference in opinion between Sandstein and the other AE admins.

Banedon (talk) 00:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Kingofaces43 (AE filer)

As Sandstein mentioned, I filed the most recent AE, mostly as an uninvolved editor, so I don't have any history with TRM, which seems to have been a confounding factor in some previous requests on TRM and comments I see here already.

For my background, I first came across TRM at this post at RSN noticing a content dispute was being exacerbated by TRM's behavior. I tried to give some guidance there,[147][148] but their tone and response to that didn't allay concerns about battleground behavior or ignoring WP:ONUS policy: Hey? Suddenly you're looking for a consensus to include a source rather than exclude a source? You have it completely arse-about-face. . .[149] I saw them later when behavior problems bled over to AN where I was made aware TRM had specific restrictions towards commenting on editor motivation, competency, etc.

When I filed the AE, TRM saying David Gerard lacked competency as an admin and should be recalled when they said are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?[150] as well as other diffs at the AE looked to be a plain as day violation from an outside perspective and pervasive throughout discussion rather than a one-off unactionable instance. Addressing one's capability is the same thing as competency even if the word itself is avoided. Just becoming aware of TRM in the last few days and doing a blind read of the remedy/case (and the most recent amendment), I thought the prohibition was clear and that TRM was also supposed to disengage. On that latter one, they've been badgering editors instead[151] at the RSN and AN posts to the point it seems to be in WP:ASPERSIONS territory, so the remedy seemed redundantly clear at that point even without broadly construed in the remedy language.

I don't have a horse in this dispute aside from noticing behavior problems exacerbated by TRM at the noticeboards that nearly had me ignore the postings instead as an uninvolved editor. That disruption by TRM just needs to stop. I thought the prohibition was clear, but since it's being tested by TRM, I agree something stricter might be needed since lack of enforcement has apparently been a perennial problem brought up here before. Arbs probably know more history than I do only getting up to speed on this over the last few days, but this seems to be a case where a sort of "topic" ban improvement could cover any inkling of WP:HOUNDING and WP:FOC given the WP:ROPE issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I'm a bit confused by your comment indicating this edit summary questioning Gerard's competency/capability as a admin wasn't a violation of the competency prohibition. Could you clarify how that meshes, especially considering Joe Roe's comments? I'm not sure what would be considered a violation otherwise. That's probably a core need of this clarification, especially since I filed that AE seeing it as a straightforward violation as the remedy was written while being practically uninvolved with TRM or other background interactions you're bringing up.
If I were subject to such a ban and discussing purely content where someone was "wrong", I would expect that I could only say an edit was incorrect on the talk page (and how to fix the underlying issues) and not escalate to things beyond content (i.e, the disengage portion of the remedy). No going to ANI, etc. to say the person is messing everything up or using noticeboards to pursue someone rather than specifically address content only.
A parallel example would be if someone was topic-banned from edits on say competency of BLPs (with specific guidance to let other editors handle legitimate problems), and that editor made an edit to that page about the BLP getting fired from a job due to capability issues with job performance. I would expect, as an uninvolved editor just reading the topic ban, that undoing the edit as a ban violation or requesting admin intervention if other associated behavior problems came up would be relatively uncontroversial. This is a behavior "ban", but scope consideration would pretty much be the same, so I'm legitimately surprised so many are saying it's not a violation. That expectation was also why I didn't dig into slightly older diffs at the AE.
  • If discussing editor competency in any form like that diff, especially as a bludgeon within a content dispute, isn't a violation of the competency prohibition, then the wording definitely needs to be changed to not include competency. To be clear, I think that wording is justified from what I've seen.
  • The only other suggestion I have for a possible amendment (could be an improvement or another can of worms) would be to add the option of interaction bans (one or two-way depending on need) in addition to that 48 hour block language. I don't want to get into sanctions much since I originally just wanted to hand this off to admins and move on to other things, but that seems like a much more reasonable option than longer/more blocks.
I try not to turn my sections into walls of text, but that about sums up my views and questions to the point I don't think I need to add much more since I'll be away for awhile. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cullen328

To the best of my recollection, I have had very few if any direct interactions with The Rambling Man. This is because I try to avoid interacting with combative established editors unless absolutely necessary, and I have read an awful lot about TRM over the years. If my memory is correct, then I am uninvolved. I am a logical kind of guy, so here is what I see: TRM is "prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence." That seems clear. TRM recently wrote "are you open to recall as an admin who has consistently made bad judgements, false claims in edit summaries, deliberately introduced false claims into articles etc?" That also seems clear to me even though throwing "etc." at the end of it looks like mediocre writing to me. But mediocre writing is not actionable in this context. What is actionable is that TRM's comment looks to me like a clearcut violation of their editing restriction. TRM is reflecting on the competence and motivations of another editor. TRM's defense (defence) seems to be that their speculations and reflections are correct. This is not a valid defense. If, for the sake of discussion, I had an editing restriction regarding elephants, and I added some truly brilliant, well-referenced, neutral and completely correct content about elephants, I would still be in violation of my editing restriction. (This is hypothetical because, unlike TRM, I have conducted myself in such a way that no restrictions have ever been imposed on my editing.) What we have here is what looks to me to be a clearcut violation of an editing restriction. The only open question, in my view, is what type of sanction should be imposed for the violation. That is up to those at a higher pay grade, who should make that decision now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 08:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Iridescent

I agree more or less word-for-word with everything Thryduulf says above, and (unusually) disagree with Cullen. It's obvious that the intention behind TRM's restriction was to prevent him from escalating disputes unnecessarily, not to prevent him from ever challenging an edit he deems inappropriate or raising concerns about the conduct of another editor. It's also clear that the "Admin A says there's nothing actionable, Admin B says there's nothing actionable, Admin C says there's nothing actionable, Sandstein not only says this is actionable but demands the harshest sanction allowed" cycle is repeating far too often, to the extent that it's becoming actively disruptive. (I presume none of the current committee needs it explained that Sandstein's "ignore the opinions of anyone who disagrees with me, and always throw the book" approach damages Wikipedia's credibility; it not only leads to bad feeling among those who receive unduly harsh treatment, but it increases the number of successful appeals and thus perpetuates the "arbitrary process" and "unblockable editors" memes.) It also seems to be becoming obvious that Sandstein has a particular fixation on TRM, as no matter what the concern raised about TRM—even if it's on a matter with which Sandstein has never shown any previous interest—Sandstein seems inevitably to be among the first people to pop up, and invariably demanding the harshest possible sanctions.

I'm not sure if this is something that would (or should) be appropriate for resolution by motion at ARCA or whether it would need a full case so evidence can be presented and examined in a more formal setting over a longer timescale, but I think we're now reaching the point where Sandstein's interactions with TRM, and Sandstein's activity at AE in general, ought to be formally examined. I've been hearing variations on "Sandstein disregards other AE admins and imposes supervote closures", "Sandstein makes AE decisions based on his personal like or dislike of the parties rather than on the evidence presented" and "Sandstein cherry-picks evidence to suit his preferred result" quite literally for years now. Some of that may just be because Sandstein's obsession with AE means he's by far the most active editor there so he receives blame for decisions that would have been made regardless of who made them, but the nature of the complaints against him seem remarkably specific and consistent over time, with the current spat with TRM just the latest manifestation. An admin consistently accused over a long period of time by multiple editors of the misuse of advanced permissions to pursue personal grudges—regardless of the accuracy of the allegations—is ultimately going to become a trust and safety issue (both with lowercase and uppercase T & S), and we only just finished sacrificing millions of innocent pixels to establish the principle that these situations are for Arbcom to clean up.

To avoid the timesink of what would likely be a lengthy and acrimonious case, I also think it would be healthy both for Sandstein and for Wikipedia were he to disengage from closing AE discussions or taking enforcement actions, either voluntarily or at the barrel of an Arbcom motion. That way he could still say his piece on any given issue about why he feels "the maximum sentence" or "no action at all" are the only acceptable courses; if his decisions aren't perverse and against consensus then whoever else closes the discussion and takes the enforcement action will reach the same conclusion so nothing will be lost or disrupted in any way. ‑ Iridescent 09:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Yeah, I'm only protecting TRM because of our undying admiration for each other. If you're going to start lashing out and making up conspiracy theories when people call your competence into question, at least make up conspiracy theories that are plausible. This isn't some kind of organized campaign against you because you're The Only One Brave Enough To Tell The Truth™, it's multiple people pointing out that in their opinion you've been consistently misunderstanding policy, demonstrating competence issues, and giving the strong impression that you believe so strongly in your own infallibility that you literally can't see any explanation for the fact that other people disagree with you than that they're part of some kind of plot which the rest of Wikipedia has hatched against you for some unspecified reason.

(What were the previous cases involving The Rambling Man in which I cast unfounded aspersions on [your] supposed motives, incidentally? This is Wikipedia and we run on sources; if you're going to make claims you're expected to provide diffs rather than just making shit up and hoping some of it sticks. To help jog your memory, here's the diffs for every single comment I've ever made at AE regarding TRM.)

You may well be attempting to implement Arbcom's decisions, but the issue is that you've in my opinion demonstrated systematic incompetence both in interpreting the intent of those decisions, and in researching and interpreting the background to disputes, and instead just take on face value the claims of anyone who happens to be bringing someone to AE whom you happen to have taken a dislike to.

That complaints of this nature have been made about you for years isn't in dispute, and is why if you're not willing to commit to following Wikipedia's customs, practices and policies, rather than constantly insisting that your personal opinions of the participants in a dispute overrule consensus, you're sooner or later going to end as the subject either of an Arbcom case or of one of Jan Eissfeldt's dossiers. It doesn't matter if the allegations are true or not, the fact that they keep being made means that someone will ultimately have a duty of care to investigate them. (If Framageddon has changed one thing on Wikipedia, it's that the good ol' boy days are over and we're no longer willing to dismiss repeated complaints about an editor or admin because "he's been around a long time so the complaints probably aren't worth investigating".) Your refusal to listen to other admins who aren't in total agreement with you on whatever the topic in question happens to be will mean that Arbcom or T&S—the only two bodies with the authority to compel you to participate—are the only people who will be able to conduct that investigation, and whichever of the two it turns out to be the process will be unpleasant and time-consuming for all involved. ‑ Iridescent 11:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe and AGK: I (unsurprisingly) disagree entirely that Sandstein's conduct and motivations are out of scope here. He opened this ARCA with the explicit aim of getting Arbcom to approve a hugely disproportionate response against an editor against whom it's documented that he's taken a dislike (If the Committee shares my view, it should ban The Rambling Man); it's entirely relevant whether this is a legitimate request or an attempt to weaponize the committee as a tool to intimidate a wiki-political opponent. Obviously if Sandstein isn't willing to moderate his behavior both at AE and more generally (I'm still waiting for either the evidence for his claims about me above or a retraction…) then this is going to end up as a full case eventually as it's not viable in the long term to have an admin abusing process to try to intimidate those who don't share his opinions—it does nobody any good to disregard the fact that Sandstein's actions aren't isolated incidents but are taking place within a broader context. ‑ Iridescent 15:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Johnuniq

Why all the drama? It appears the 48-hour block rule was imposed in December 2018 and there has only been one block (for 48 hours) since then. Any admin who believes a sanction is warranted should impose a 48-hour block and stop talking about it. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SN54129

@Sandstein: By I cannot interpret these interventions by Thryduulf and Iridescent..., are you speculating on their motives? If you are, then you will understand how innocently one may speculate; if you're not, you will understand how (such) commentary can be misunderstood. ——SN54129 11:13, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Black Kite

I don't think it's "casting aspersions" on Sandstein to suggest that he has previously been vociferous in seeking sanctions on TRM at AE when there is actual empirical data on the situation. Here, for example, he calls for a block of a month, but the case is eventually closed as "No Violation". Here, exactly the same thing happens again. Previously, Sandstein had actually blocked TRM for a month, which was then reduced to a week on appeal. Even 18 months ago, Sandstein's neutrality was being questioned - from the second link above "Generally I would expect an admin to recognize when their judgement may be compromised regardless of whether they meet the letter of WP:INVOLVED. Failing that I would expect that they would step aside once several editors repeatedly bring the matter up; If for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of impropriety."' Black Kite (talk) 13:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Joe Roe: I disagree - Sandstein believes an actual site ban (or similar - Change this restriction to a site ban or another appropriate sanction...) for a veteran editor is a possible outcome here, so I'd suggest that looking at the motives behind that wish are not out of scope. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by OID

If Arbcom do not address Sandstein's behaviour towards TRM here, then the next step will be opening an AN discussion with intent to ban him from any interactions with TRM. At which point all of Sandsteins contributions at AE, his habit of ignoring and/or dismissing other admins concerns, the over-eagerness to (not just with TRM) impose the maximum possible penalty, the various instances where he frankly has a basic lack of competence/understanding in certain subjects makes him unsuitable for enforcing restrictions on that subject - I can line up a long list of editors if you want and pages of evidence. The likely outcome of said discussion (for reasons iridescent and others above go into) would either be A)Sandstein gets prevented from interacting with TRM in any editorial or administrative function, or b)it gets punted back to Arbcom as too complicated and too many problems. So feel free to save everyone a lot of time and effort here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:24, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Awilley

Okay, so a contributor with 230,000 edits has received 4 AE civility blocks in 3 years, and the latest violation is borderline enough that admins disagree whether it should be enforced. So the solution is to either siteban the editor or remove the sanction entirely? And what is the metric for measuring success here? Is TRM being blocked too often, or not often enough?

Since this is at ARCA, I think there are a few ways in which this custom sanction *cough* could be improved. For one thing, I think it could provide alternate pathways towards resolution besides time-consuming trips to arbitration enforcement and blocks. Obviously it would be ideal if the uncivil personal comments stopped altogether, but the next best thing is if the comments are stricken/withdrawn voluntarily like this (diff of TRM striking one of their comments) Second, I think the scope could be narrowed to omit administrative noticeboards and TRM's user talk page. Unlike normal talk pages, noticeboards are designed to handle complaints about user behavior, and sometimes discussing things like competence and motivation is appropriate and necessary. And the user's own talk page is a low-disruption venue where users can traditionally blow off steam without too much fear of reprisal. ~Awilley (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by El_C

Taking into account that this is not an actual Arbitration request but one seeking clarification —and I would hope the distinction between the two would not become overly blurred— I think both parties here could benefit from advise that encompasses both criticism and praise. TRM for being (still) overly combative in their conduct, but notwithstanding their otherwise potent contributions. Sandstien for being overly strict —and, at times, supervotey— on AE, but who otherwise often does good work on that board.

There is also the matter of the restriction itself, which as mentioned in AE, I find confusing. That, indeed, should be clarified by motion. Uninvolved admins should be able to make immediate sense of it. Also, I would be opposed to any sanctions being applied at this juncture, even though I did find TRM's conduct in this latest dispute to have been subpar.

Finally, I'm a big believer in not needing to formalize everything. But I also don't know enough about the TRM arbitration case or about the TRM-Sandstien dynamic to offer more definitive input. Still, an awareness of (truly taking to heart) and a willingness by both parties to act upon their perceived strengths (more of) and weaknesses (less of) would be a good thing. It might be enough to turn the tide. Or we may be past that point. I don't really know which it is. But would lean toward giving the former informal approach a chance, if at all possible. El_C 17:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

If nothing else, I think this illustrates the need for clarification. (I do not think the only two possible resolutions are "site ban" or "lift the restriction"; far from it.) In my view, while I think the phrasing in which TRM expressed his views was in some cases excessive, I did not see him to be questioning the overall competence of any editors or admins, but rather disagreeing with particular actions. In one sense, I suppose disagreeing with someone's edit or action could be considered a question on their competence, but, as I said at the request, if the requirement is that TRM isn't allowed to disagree with people or object to their edits, it should (and presumably would) say that.

So far as Sandstein, well, Sandstein is often willing to make a decision in the tough cases (which AE sees plenty of), and when you do that, someone is going to be unhappy no matter what call you make. However, I would encourage Sandstein to consider some of the concerns brought up here by other admins with regard to TRM in specific, and handling in general. I absolutely do not want Sandstein pushed out of AE; we need people who are willing to make the tough call and take the inevitable flak for it. (I don't know enough about any particular history between Sandstein and TRM to comment on that). I'm around AE a fair bit myself, and in general, when I see Sandstein handle something, it is a reasonable and defensible decision. Sandstein does lean toward the tough side, but well, matters under discretionary sanctions are cases where decisive action is necessary to curb areas already subject to substantial disruption, so that in itself does not indicate a problem.

I wish I knew the best way forward. I'm afraid I don't. But the current framework isn't working. The filer of the AE request made their filing in good faith; their belief that it was a violation is a defensible one, as is the assertion that it was not. It does no favors to either TRM or to the community for us to be uncertain of what is permitted and what is not, and it is certainly not a good situation when the answer to "Was that a violation?" primarily depends on who answers that question. At this point, even the two arbitrators who have commented as of this writing don't agree on whether it was sanctionable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by David Gerard

I'm the admin TRM's comments were focused on (though the actions were purely editorial actions, not admin actions). FWIW, speaking as the target, I'm not too worried about them - non-admins' freedom to complain about admins, even in non-admin matters, is important, and I have a reasonably thick skin. I think he's dead-wrong and he thinks I'm dead-wrong - and the actual issue at hand will hopefully be resolved in an orderly manner with a resolution that all parties can live with in the current discussion at VPR.

But the effects of this behaviour on the editing environment need to be considered. I think it's important to note here that TRM's frankly amazing combativeness and junkyard-dog attitude is frankly wearying, and makes for a deeply unpleasant and repelling environment for other editors. This sanction isn't the precise appropriate one, but his behaviour is a serious problem - looking, for example, at the way he went off at Kingofaces43 as literally his first interaction, per above - and could do with some sort of action, because editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking, as TRM does, are fundamentally bad for Wikipedia - David Gerard (talk) 23:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sluzzelin it's 1:30am here, I'll add tomorrow - David Gerard (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is not presented with the intention of being some sort of a slam-dunk case for immediate action against TRM - but just as an answer to Sluzzelin's request for edits demonstrating "editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking".

Just picking a few examples from the last six months (and keeping in mind that this is not the issue this ARCA is about - but I've made a claim and should indeed back up what I said):

collapsed for length
  • Mandarax - TRM wikistalking after a conflict
    • Frustration with TRM - "He ominously said he's watching everything, which looks like a thinly veiled threat of stalking, and he demonstrated that he's watching by using the Thank feature on my edits. Such behavior could be viewed as a form of intimidation."
    • Edit in which TRM said this: "Nope. Just in hiding, but watching, everything." Mandarax asks TRM not to post to their talk again [152]
    • This is an otherwise-civil editor who was provoked into snapping by TRM.
  • Purplebackpack89:
    • Discussion in which Purplebackpack89 (pbp89) says at the start that TRM "has had a history of following me around to cause trouble, and is using VA as an attempt to goad me into doing something he can take me to ANI or another noticeboard for. He is repeatedly making inaccurate or uninformed statements about the Vital Articles project, and he's collecting diffs of mine, which is something nobody who was acting in good faith would do."
    • Later, to TRM: "you've only made a few edits to VA ever, with all of them coming within a day or two of me making edits, usually a string of them." [153]
    • Note that in this case, I personally thought TRM had the right of the substantive issue and pbp89 didn't - but TRM's interaction style, and his tendency to collect diffs of other editors in public view - where they can see a page being prepared about them from a glance at his contributions - clearly came across to php89 as intimidatory stalking.

Interaction with TRM is unpleasant at best, and requires sifting through what he's saying for the substance amongst the gratuitous aggression - and a substantive response is often answered with an aggressive diversion.

I don't doubt his sincerity, or his considerable good work at Wikipedia - I do doubt his outbursts and intimidatory behaviour are appropriate, and he really needs to recognise and stop doing this sort of thing, at all.

I hope this answers Sluzzelin's question sufficiently - keeping in mind that this is not concerning what this ARCA is about, but about other behaviour. I do think this is at least some demonstration of an interaction style that is seriously problematic and intimidatory to third party editors, and that this needs attention. It would be good if TRM could just stop interacting with others in this manner, even when he's sure he's right - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sluzzelin

David Gerard, please provide diffs showing that TRM belongs to "editors who insist on treating every interaction as a knock-down drag-out battle followed by wikistalking" ("as TRM does"). Thank you. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:22, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Lord Roem

As much as actual neutrality is important, so too is the perception that the enforcement process is fair and consistent in the severity of sanctions issued. I'd urge Sandstein to consider AGK's suggestion of voluntarily recusing from TRM-related matters. We're obviously in a very unique use case, so I don't think there's a strong risk of this being used to pressure other admins out of AE going forward. The tendency to always pull the trigger for an exorbitantly harsh sanction will naturally make an editor feel singled out. I hardly think the other admins who monitor the AE board will be unequipped to handle a future potential incident should the need arise.

At this point, any block issued would be punitive as we're now far removed from the diffs that started this all. For the Committee, I'd request rethinking the sanction itself. I know it's been through the ringer several times already, but my sense is that's evidence it's been unworkable from the get-go and that no perfect wording will make these issues easier for TRM or the admins at AE. I don't have a strong position on what that replacement should be, but clearly what we have is, at bottom, difficult and highly subjective to parse. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The Rambling Man: Clerk notes

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

The Rambling Man: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I cannot see how an admin who has consistently made bad judgements in particular is not a reflection on competence. There are no exceptions in TRM's current sanction for reflections on competence that are specific, or substantiated, or in response to "baiting" (an embarrassing concept to apply to the conduct of adults in a collegial environment). He is banned from making them, full stop. It was worth a try, but I think at this point it's obvious that this sanction has not been effective in reducing disruption. If anything it's increased it, given the burden placed on AE admins who could otherwise be working on improving the encyclopaedia. So yes, let's either remove the sanction if we think TRM's conduct is acceptable, or replace it with a clearer and more easily enforceable one if it's not. – Joe (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thryduulf: The wording of the sanction was amended last December specifically to remove the word "general". It now reads ...prohibited from posting speculation about the motivations of editors or reflections on their competence. I did get the impression that perhaps some participants in the AE discussion had missed that change (another reason why these highly 'bespoke' sanctions can be difficult to enforce). – Joe (talk) 10:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think commenting on Sandstein's conduct here is helpful, because a) this isn't a forum where anything can be done about it and b) what Sandstein has or hasn't done has no bearing on whether TRM has breached his sanctions or what we should do about it. If there is a problem with Sandstein's AE actions, I'd suggest raising it at AN or failing that in a new case request. – Joe (talk) 13:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the requested outcome could effect the Arbcom Elections, and I am a sitting candidate in that election, I'll keep out of this while the elections are ongoing. WormTT(talk) 09:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all administrators are willing to volunteer at the AE noticeboard; many avoid it. Sandstein is one of the most active volunteers and obviously does a lot of good, no matter what else is written here. However, the result of this week's enforcement request was incorrect. Four diffs were presented in the request; only a single one (the other messes you've left all over the place) was remotely a sanction breach. Prior to Sandstein, the enforcement request was running an appropriate course and I would not have us amending the remedy. Instead, I would have Sandstein committing to recusal from enforcement of the TRM sanction. Having this commitment expire after 2 years would seem like selecting an appropriate amount of time.
    I am sidestepping a number of the other points and issues raised in this request because I do not view them as pertinent. However, I will offer three additional comments. First, @The Rambling Man: you very well may have said the harassment ends tonight out of distress and not rage. Yet still the sentence is sinister and you have previously said things like that to other people on Wikipedia. When you are confronted by an interpersonal issue on Wikipedia, you need to start thinking upfront about the result you want to get to – rather than seeing red. Users in your position can erode and then lose community support if this sort of conduct goes on long enough, even if you are not actually "getting worse". Second, @Sandstein: if you will not commit to recusal, I may bring a motion compelling you. Although this appears like no choice at all, the motion cannot carry without a majority of the committee. Lastly, @Sandstein: I reiterate that I think your contributions to AE are valuable as a whole. You have received criticism about style and severity, from within this committee and by observers, that you need to take on board. However, peer review is a process that improves us and I encourage you not to resist its effects. AGK ■ 13:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recuse during the election. Katietalk 15:03, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Joe: the comments violate the restriction, and the restriction clearly is not being heeded. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Thryduulf: TRM's initial comment at the AN discussion was reasonable, within his restriction, and in my opinion exactly what he should have done in that scenario. He noticed what he viewed as an issue with another editor's work, and raised it politely at a relevant noticeboard so that other users/admins could investigate the issue. He could have left it at that, and stepped away from the conversation—instead he continued to argue in the AN thread and eventually breached the restriction. Even if he had decided to remain involved with the AN thread, I am certain it's possible to do so without making comments like you clearly are so far off the mark it's remarkable, not to mention the other messes you've left all over the place, and others he made in that conversation. Honestly, I'm not highly inclined to reword the sanction for a third time as you suggest—TRM has not been willing to adjust his behavior, and so we are just saddling AE with enforcement of a highly custom sanction (already difficult) against an editor who can make enforcement of sanctions against him quite unpleasant. That said, I'm not sure exactly what I think we should do—for one, the timing of this is really unfortunate: we have only six arbitrators who can give input on this, and TRM himself is a candidate in the current election. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification_and_Amendment&oldid=928696514"