Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:A/R)
Jump to: navigation, search

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents


Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: American politics 2

Initiated by StAnselm at 05:14, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
American politics 2 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 StAnselm

We have previously discussed this at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Unblock appeal by User:Stadscykel, but were not able to resolve the disagreement.

Coffee has placed Donald Trump and United States presidential election, 2016 under page restrictions, which includes that violations can be sanctioned without warning. Stadscykel made this edit to Donald Trump, and was blocked without warning by Coffee under discretionary sanctions. Is this a correct block per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions? That is, does the page notice alert at Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump count as a DS alert? Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions is unclear at this point. It says that "no editor may be sanctioned unless they are aware that discretionary sanctions are in force for the area of conflict". It goes on to define "aware" as (among other things) "given and/or received an alert for the area of conflict". But "alert" is defined as having the standard template message "placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". This would seem to indicate that Stadscykel did not receive the necessary DS warning. Furthermore, if Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions mandates that all editors need to be alerted before they can be sanctioned, is Template:2016 US Election AE (which is on the Donald Trump talk page), allowed to say that editors will be "blocked without warning"? (I note that Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump does not mention being blocked without warning, and there is no indication that Stadscykel ever saw the talk page notice.)

Statement by Coffee

My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning. I would definitely be interested if the Committee says otherwise. Such a ruling would have an immediate effect on the GMO RFC that I and The Wordsmith are moderating, as we're using the page restriction format to enforce DS per the previous ARCAs you're aware of.

I am taking some time off to think about everything that happened today, to reevaluate my actions and to calm down some. I would appreciate if you could take that into consideration (i.e. email me if you have an immediate need for me to comment, I'll gladly provide my cell number as well if necessary). I also do not intend to rehash all of my arguments from earlier (there's an obvious sign that I'm missing something here, but I'm not going to discover the answer via those types of discussions), I would just like some guidance from the Committee so I can be that sure I'm properly enforcing your actions.

I apologize to The Wordsmith for leaving him with most of the work on the RFC for a bit, but I feel it's best for me to reset before I move forward. Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Signing off... Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:35, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Callanecc: The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as "content editors" henceforth. Having a 0RR restriction would allow "drive-by" editors to place something completely without consensus on the page, and having the 1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article). So the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, as long as we can find an acceptable method to reduce the workload of our content editors and ensure that the media is not scrutinizing our behaviour in the process. Do you all have any ideas on how to address this particular issue? Or do you feel it is literally outside of the available restrictions that your discretionary sanctions provide? (I'd also love to hear from Anythingyouwant, one of the most prolific editors on Donald Trump, on their ideas on how to solve this issue.) Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
@Callanecc: Great point. Perhaps something like "if an edit is reverted, you are prohibited from adding the contended edit back until consensus is found for it"? Better wording can be used for the final restriction, but this would seem to be a good idea based on your input. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Waggers, Callanecc: From what I'm seeing, yes. This should completely remove any issues regarding admins blocking users unfamiliar with the area, who are editing in good faith. It would definitely seem to make any editor's intentions quite clear too. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Callanecc: I've updated all of the editnotices per your request, (as can be seen in the log), the new wording is now: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.. I hope that the wording is now satisfactory to the Committee. Please inform me if I need to change anything else. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad: That's the entire point of changing the wording. I can ensure you that such blocks will not happen in the future, now that the letter of the restriction can be followed without overreaching onto editors without familiarity with the situation. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Stadscykel

It is obvious that the editnotice does not consitute the required alert. Indeed, Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Alerts says clearly that the alerts "only count as the formal notifications required by this procedure if the standard template message – currently {{Ds/alert}} – is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted".

Besides, I disagree with the content of Template:2016 US Election AE created by User:Coffee and placed by him on the talk pages of the relevant articles, particularly with the section "Further information" and, more precisely, the sentence "Editors who violate this restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offence", as nothing in the current rules regarding the discretionary sanctions suggests that. Meanwhile, I agree that the sentence (from the same template) "Discretionary sanctions can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process" describes my understanding of the current policy, though I see no way how this could have been applied to me.

I disagree that there is any sufficient reasoning why this edit should be "punished" by a block; the idea that re-stating the fact already presented otherwise in the article can be seen by an editor new to the topic as a "potentially contentious edit" (as the warning from Template:Editnotices/Page/Donald Trump tells us) is ridiculous. Indeed, the logic behind having to issue the official alert is providing the right to learn about the policy which applies to the topic in question, and having the possibility to apply sanctions if the offences continue. Besides, I do not consider this edit as contrary to the objective of the discretionary sanctions on the topic of American politics, even through it is contrary to the style guide (as discussed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_126#RfC:_Religion_in_biographical_infoboxes), as I have neither added nor removed any fact from the article. There is no warning anywhere that the breach of this particular "style guide" (which is not presented to the editors at all), could result in a block without warning, nor is there any evidence suggesting that this type of sanctions is allowed.

My opinion is that Coffee's current application of the discretionary sanctions turns all the topics covered by discretionary sanctions into a minefield for editors not previously informed about any possible consensuses which have possibly been achieved somewhere else. I hope that the Arbitration Committee agrees with me that creating these "minefields" is not the intent of this policy. Stadscykel (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

According to WP:ACDS, "Any uninvolved administrator may impose on any page or set of pages relating to the area of conflict semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists). Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator...Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}})."

That would seem to suggest that the standard Editnotice is a valid method of notification, specifically for page restrictions. While this seems to be at odds with the portion mentioned above, and clarification would be beneficial, the policy clearly states that editors ignoring page restrictions (as listed in the editnotice) may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. Coffee's block could have been handled better (though I think it is within policy, discussion would have been preferable), the unblock should have been handled better (anything marked as Arbitration Enforcement probably should not be overturned without permission from Arbcom or a strong consensus, even if you don't think AE applies). SlimVirgin [3], Trusilver [4], Dreadstar [5], and Yngvadottir [6] were desysopped for overturning Arbitration Enforcement blocks out of process, even though they all thought they were bad blocks as well, with Dreadstar even logging in their unblock message "Invalid block".

The Committee needs to clarify the editnotice issue, but they also need to make a strong statement that if something is labeled as AE and properly logged, it can't be overturned out of process even if you think it was a bad block. If an admin is abusing that by labeling regular blocks as AE, that would be grounds for desysopping, but what happened here is clearly a grey area. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, and Doug Weller: Before closing, there is still the issue of whether or not reversing a block carried out under AE (even if questionable or a bad block) is to be allowed. We also need to clarify in WP:ACDS explicitly whether or not editnotices are considered a valid form of notification. Can this be done via motion? Or do we have to go through the excessive referendum process in WP:ARBPOL? The WordsmithTalk to me 14:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Doug Weller: The Presumption of Validity solves that issue, yes. The other is partially rectified, we just need a ruling on whether or not it is valid for an editor who has not been templated to be sanctioned, if they edited on a page with the DS editnotice. Currently two parts of WP:ACDS seem to conflict on this, and that's the whole reason this ARCA request happened. So far, I think Opabinia regalis has the best idea on this, in that it can be a legitimate replacement for the template but only outside of Article-space. I might even go a bit farther and exclude the Talk: namespace as well, since plenty of inexperienced editors end up there. Whereas if they're in Project-space or Template space, etc, they're probably experienced enough to notice it. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

I commented on this block and unblock in the AN thread. Those comments are equally relevant here, and if it's all right, I'll simply refer to those comments rather than repeat them all here. If there are any questions I'd be happy to address them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Like some of the others commenting below, I am a bit troubled that the focus of the discussion thus far has been on procedural clarification. Obviously, to the extent that there are issues of governance or procedure that people think are unclear, clarifying them is good. But let's not lose sight of the big picture here, which is that this was an extremely troublesome block.

How did we get to the point where a hard-working, dedicated, good-faith administrator, whom I respect, came to make such a block? Precisely by focusing too much on the wording of procedures, and "discretionary sanctions" protocols, and not enough on what is the purpose of blocking.

Blocking is a last resort. It should never become routine where good-faith editors are involved. It should never be used as a substitute for discussion with editors who can be expected to understand when expectations are explained to them. And the fact that a given page or topic-area is under discretionary sanctions, while it may justify the reasonable creation and enforcement of tighter editing rules for those pages, does not change this basic norm.

As I wrote in the AN thread, I personally wrote the requirement of a prior warning into the DS procedures nine years ago (in the Israel-Palestine case). I did so precisely to avoid the situation we have here, in which a good-faith editor new to a page made what he reasonably thought was a routine edit and is suddenly hit, not with information about how the page must be edited, not even with a warning, but with a block coming totally out of left field. There are very few, if any, situations in which such a block is warranted and this was not one of them.

The question presented is not whether the wording of the edit notice was sufficiently clear, although it obviously wasn't. The question presented is not whether an edit notice, without more, is sufficient warning that editors may be blocked for first offenses, although it obviously isn't. The question is whether editors who are acting in good faith and have no idea they are doing anything wrong should, absent extraordinary circumstances, be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule and told how they can comply with it going forward. The answer is that they should not.

I hope never to see another block like this one again. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: I agree that the wording you propose is an improvement to the edit notice, but please do not block good-faith editors who have made an isolated edit that they may not have realized was a violation (either because they haven't followed the revert history or they didn't notice the edit notice) without first discussing with them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
@Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, and Doug Weller: and other arbs: I think it would be good if you could clarify that this is the expectation. Our experienced administrators can hopefully distinguish people who are aware of the rules and disregard or try to wikilawyer around them, versus situations such as happened here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@Coffee: plus the arbs: It's also been pointed out to me on my talkpage that the new wording omits the usual exception for edits addressing BLP violations. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@The Wordsmith: plus the arbs: Although I understand the rationale for a namespace-based approach in deciding whether an edit-notice without more is a sufficient DS warning, I fear that there's still too much risk of sanctioning good-faith editors who inadvertently overlook the warning. To me, I'd much rather err on the side of requiring a formal DS notice to an editor before sanctioning him or her. If we want to make exceptions, at most they should cover situations where the edit would have been obviously problematic anyway even apart from the discretionary sanctions. Administrators should be able to distinguish between a case in which an editor has obviously done the wrong thing and is rules-lawyering about the warnings, versus other cases.

In the case of doubt, there will usually be little harm to issuing the warning: Either the warned editor will misbehave just once more, in which case a sanction can follow without dispute over its fairness or legitimacy; or the editor will not misbehave again, in which case the goal has been achieved without a sanction or a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Responding to the latest comments, I understand User:Opabinia regalis's point that some editors would prefer to be informed or reminded of DS on a mainspace page rather than receive a personalized notification. Personally I think the avoidance of out-of-the-blue blocks or sanctions is most significant, but this can be achieved in various ways. What is crucial is that administrators are careful to avoid such blocks (e.g. by giving a final warning rather than blocking or sanctioning where an editor's intent is unclear).
As for not further escalating the degree of difficulty of overturning an AE sanction, I agree wholeheartedly with Opabinia regalis. We do not want a cowboy culture in which admins overturn each others' AE actions (or any actions) willy-nilly, but we do not want unjustified blocks lingering for days, either. In this instance, two experienced administrators plus one other editor concurred that the block was bad at the time the editor was unblocked. (When I came upon the AN thread I became the third administrator to opine that it was a very bad block. Post-unblock the thread continued for some days and basically no one, other than the original blocking admin, defended the block.) Significantly, the unblock took place 12 hours after the unblock request was posted; it was only a 48-hour block in the first place, so that having days of discussion would have defeated the entire point of the unblock request; and it was not just a non-consensus block but an awful one, which had the blocked user thinking of quitting the project—and me not blaming him. The unblock under these circumstances was the right call, and in the unfortunately and hopefully unlikely event that these circumstances occurred again, a speedy unblock would again be the right call. Presumptions in favor of upholding AE actions and consensus requirements for overturning them should not be taken to extremes; nor, as I argued in lonely dissent multiple times when I was on the Committee, should inflexibility and automatic actions ever be written into the ArbCom's procedures and norms. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by L235

It is generally recognized that enforcement of page restrictions validly imposed under discretionary sanctions do not require a prior alert. Obviously, editing a page with a DS editnotice does not mean that anyone editing that page is "alerted" to DS, only that the specific page restriction previously imposed under DS may be enforced. However:

  • Kirill's question regarding the validity of the original page restriction is a good one. My personal view is that viewed in the most restrictive light possible, the restriction requires a consensus before any edit – which seems to be less restrictive than blanket full restriction and, in the alternative, less restrictive than a "prohibition[] on the addition or removal" of any content on the entire page "except when consensus for the edit exists" (WP:ACDS#sanctions.page).
  • In addition, I agree with The Wordsmith that the Committee should make a formal statement – perhaps by motion – that any admin action that purports to be AE, even if there is question as to whether it is valid, should not be lifted without the AE/AN consensus or ArbCom motion. Challenges to whether the action was validly AE should be brought on appeal.

Respectfully submitted, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC) Reformatted, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I made the above (procedural) statement before reading the AN thread. Having read that now, although admins have wide latitude in fashioning an appropriate discretionary sanction, they should be reminded that blocking should not be the first solution that comes up when dealing with good faith editors such as Stadscykel. Thanks, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:15, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • To avoid any doubt, DS ≠ AE. All DS actions are AE actions, but AE actions are not necessarily DS actions. Blocks under DS page restrictions, even without DS procedural protections such as alerts, are AE sanctions and are subject to standard modification procedures. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @Clerks: FYI, the last unsigned arb comment is by DGG. I'd template it but I'm recused here. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 14:24, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I think that page sanctions are not the same as discretionary sanctions imposed under ARBCOM. My thinking is that page sanctions are blocks given out with permission of ARBCOM, but should not be considered an ARBCOM block, so that a regular appeal process can be used. Under the rules, in order for a block to be an ARBCOM block, it must have valid notices, etc. The page sanction is just used to prevent contentious edits, but is not the same as an ARBCOM block.

Statement by DHeyward

It should be plainly obvious that individual notification of what DS for a particular topic are. The page notices are for editors already aware of the topic Discretionary Sanctions and makes clear that the page falls under them. That doesn't mean we should presume that a page notice is sufficient to fully inform editors about the restrictions. AGF requires at least a good faith attempt to individually warn each editor about the sanctions and the topic area associated with them. If we wish to be a welcoming and safe community, admins with the block button shouldn't be the door greeters but rather should be attempting to explain the rules and what they believe is a sanctionable offense before sanctioning. It stands reason on its head to make the most unappealable block/ban also the one with least notice. A block for vandalism generally requires a warning and if it escalates to block, the appeal template can be used. But as used here, a no-warning AE block has a complicated and higher threshold for appeal. It should be more difficult to impose an AE block than than general disruption block precisely because the AE topic is more nuanced, the block more severe. --DHeyward (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

An admin has least three burdens in imposing a sanction for a page restriction violation. The first is maintaining the list of "certain content" that he is restricting. The second is to make sure consensus hasn't changed the list. The third is to inform the editor on the editors talk page about Discretionary Sanctions that allowed the list AND a pointer to the list. The burden for notice is higher for Page Sanction random content restrictions, not less.

@Kirill Lokshin: The problem is that templates for pages subject to AE DS is an overreach of the wording in the decision for pages subject to DS. The template appears to give authority to block for any contentious edit without warning as part of a page restriction, the ArbCom decision does not. --DHeyward (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Okay, you got me. I am not hip enough to know what MEGO is and following the link did not help. What is MEGO and where do they camp? --DHeyward (talk) 12:05, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Masem

Speaking only to the idea of using edit notices as a replacement for the alert to a user about DS in place on a page, I strongly discourage this as an acceptable replacement. At least for myself, the appearance of a editnotice is like banner ads on other websites, and my own eyes slip right past them unless they are brightly colored, large, or something I am specifically looking for. It is very easy to miss these if you have been editing WP for long enough. On the other hand, a talk page message on the user's page is not likely to be missed, and can be readily treated as a warning directed at that user (even if it is copy-pasted warnings). Once warned about the general topic DS, those editors can continue to edit elsewhere and aware that DS applies to a certain range of topics, they should be informed enough to watch for editheaders to know whether a page falls into the same sanction or not.

Noting the other factor, this GMO RFC, if I were specifically planning to comment on an RFC, it is reasonable that a statement in the header of the RFC (not as a editnotice) is going to have to be read for anyone replying to that RFC, so in such a case, the broad alert about the existing DS can be put there instead of warning every user that replies the first time. That DS warning can be repeated in the editnotice, but I think the RFC header would be reasonable assured to be something that had to be read by all participants. --MASEM (t) 17:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Gerda

My trust in arbcom is not the highest, as you may know. They can pleasantly surprise me if they manage to send a clear message that an admin should at least look at an editor's contribution before blocking, and - if the victim is obviously a good-faith editor who helps this project by gnomish edits - please talk before a block ("Talk to the user who offended, tell the user how you feel about it, trying to achieve modification or revert."). The editor made three edits in 2016, so missed all discussions about religion in infoboxes, possibly even missed all discussions about infoboxes. Believe it or not: there's life on Wikipedia untouched by noticeboards. It needs preservation, not blocks. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

re Kirill Lokshin: you emphesize "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content", but the one edit in question did not add content nor removed content, only repeated it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

re Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller and others who mentioned "potentially contentious edit": that is so vague a term that every edit can be construed to fall under it. If an edit is contentious, revert it with an explanation in the edit summary, - no need to block. If it happens again - quite likely when a new user doesn't know how to read an edit summary and only sees that their "improvement" disappeared - contact the user's talk, refer to the article talk (another secret for a new user), in other words, assume good faith, - no need to block for the first time, without warning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Not going to comment on the nature of the block as I'm not involved in the topic at all, but I'm curious for clarification since it seems difficult to say this isn't notification from a WP:COMMONSENSE approach. The edit notice clearly states discretionary sanctions are in play, and editors need to go through that notice to edit. That should be the end of that question there. If it were only just something like a 1RR notice only, I might be singing a slightly different tune in regards to awareness of DS, but editors are still expected to follow even that 1RR notice. It shouldn't be any different for awareness of DS.

Basically, if this edit notice is not appropriate for proper awareness simply because it is not listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Awareness_and_alerts, we're dealing with a WP:BUREAU problem because we only need to scroll down a few sections to the page restrictions that say, Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator. That wording should invalidate any claims that an admin cannot take action solely because the editor didn't get a talk page template. Not to mention that the user talk page template is not the only indication listed that an editor is aware of DS. The entirety of WP:AC/DS and the wording at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Placing_sanctions_and_page_restrictions makes it clear that editors are aware even if it's not explicitly stated in the awareness section.

To cut down on this potential for bureaucracy, I would suggest adding an explicit 4th option under the awareness section that is some variation of:

4. An editor has edited a page with an edit notice explicitly detailing that discretionary sanctions are in effect for the article.

This would be redundant with other wording on the page for the most part, so it's not really adding anything new that would constitute a "new rule" per se. It would however require an explicit mention of the discretionary sanctions as happened in this specific case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:51, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I'm not really commenting on the central matters here, but I want to request that the Arbs be careful, in replying here, not to do any collateral damage to the GMO RfC that is in progress. There are editors who do not like what the community seems to be leaning towards, who are looking for ways to discredit the RfC process, and they will seize upon anything said by Arbs here, that could be construed as reflecting badly on how Coffee and The Wordsmith have utilized DS in carrying out the RfC. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

As can be seen below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I read what Newyorkbrad said to the Committee about prioritizing the good of the project above rigid application of the rules, and I want to agree. Broadly speaking, it is good advice that Arbs sometimes seem to get distracted from in the course of your workload, even if you agreed with it before being elected. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Petrarchan47

My comment is only in reference to Tryptofish and his plea to protect the GMO RfC. His statement contradicts the facts as I see them. There are serious concerns with this GMO RfC process, and they were mostly raised (before being quickly silenced by Wordsmith) before the RfC began. To say that concerns raised now (by plural editors?) are only due to RfC comments and their overall direction is pure conspiracy theory and has no place on this noticeboard sans proof.

Statement by Blackmane

I was the one that came across the unblock appeal. Opening up an edit window in Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, I notice the page restriction box but my eyes slide right past them without reading their substance and I scroll straight down to the editing box. One could easily argue that it is the responsibility of the individual editor to take the time to do due diligence. However, we're in an age where banner ads are viewed as intrusive annoying things and the page restriction box has all the hallmarks of a banner ad and is likely to automatically trigger the same response.

In my view, the edit notice should not qualify as appropriate warning by itself. It should serve as a reminder notice after a DS warning. Consider a speed limit sign; when you first set out learning to drive, you won't know what those white boards with a number surrounded by a red circle means, but once you do every time you see one you are reminded of what it is for. Blackmane (talk) 23:34, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

There needs to be a limit on what one administrator can impose as a sanction. I understand desperate times and all that, but this is as close to thought crime enforcement as Ive seen here. A blanket ban on "potentially contentious edits" is not a reasonable exercise of authority. Its one thing to restrict specific material, eg no one can add material about some candidate's view of the Birther movement or Black Lives Matter or whatever to the lead, or even to restrict reverts of such material, but to ban an edit to a page on the basis that some other person on the internet finds it objectionable or otherwise contentious? Regardless of whether an edit notice constitutes sufficient notice, there should be some limit on just how far an admins discretion is allowed to go. And I think a subjective open-ended restriction on edits, not even reverts but edits, should be on the other side of that acceptable sanction line. Nableezy 07:35, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Waggers

I came across the discussion at WP:AN after three users had commented, all of them expressing a view that Stadscykel should not just be unblocked, but unblocked speedily and that Coffee's block as a terrible block. With speed evidently of the essence I reviewed the block and it seemed very clear that Coffee had made a mistake, which I assumed at the time to be an honest mistake. With Coffee not around at the time to consult on the matter I took the decision to reverse the block, with a note at the AN discussion that should consensus emerge that the original block was correct I would have no objection to it being reinstated. I believe I was correct to do so and stand by my actions. It is worth noting that no administrator involved in the discussion, including Coffee, has seen fit to reinstate the block despite my comment that I would not object to that happening.

Essentially that's where my own involvement ends, other than returning to the AN discussion to try and summarise it and move towards closure. All the above was done without taking a firm view on Coffee's block of Stadscykel, but while I'm here I would like to comment on that. The block was clearly wrong; others have explained why in their words and I would like to do so in mine.

It seems a lot hinges on Coffee's assertion: "My understanding is that the editnotice does indeed qualify as the required warning." So let's look at the edit notice; it says users are not allowed to do any one of three things:

  • make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article
  • making any potentially contentious edits without consensus on the talk page of the article (emphasis mine)
  • breach discretionary sanctions on the page

Nobody seems to be suggesting that Stadscykel breached 1RR, and rightly so: the edit in question was the user's only edit to the article. As StAnselm has pointed out a number of times, the notion of adding the subject's religion to the page has indeed been discussed and reached discussion on the talk page of the article[7]. Others have pointed to a Village Pump discussion which they believe somehow trumps [no pun intended] this, but the edit notice makes no mention of the Village Pump - it requires consensus on the article talk page and that requirement is satisfied. That leaves the third matter, of discretionary sanctions. The link in the editnotice only takes editors to a description of what discretionary sanctions are, not a list of sanctions in place on that article - so a new user to the article such as Stadscykel has no easy way of finding out what sanctions exist. But more importantly, WP:ACDS#Awareness_and_alerts is very clear about what constitutes an editor being aware of a sanction and it is equally clear that Stadscykel had not been made aware of any sanction according to that procedure. WaggersTALK 10:18, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

A short addition to the above; apparently the sanction Coffee things Stadscykel breached is a page restriction the article in question. At the DS log, Coffee logged this as "The following pages have had page restrictions applied to them, due to their high visibility" followed by a list of pages. Coffee did not specify which page restrictions were in place either there or in the edit notice. As discussed above, there was a talk page consensus for Stadscykel's edit so did not breach any "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"; nor, as discussed, did it breach any revert restrictions; neither did Stadscykel use some devious means of circumventing any form of protection that was in place on the article in order to make the edit in question. Those are the only types of page restrictions that exist. I would argue that not only was Coffee's blocking of this user incorrect, but that Coffee's logging of the page restrictions in force at WP:AC/DSL is meaningless unless the log entry specifies which page restrictions are supposed to be in place. It is not sufficient to say "there are some page restrictions". WaggersTALK 10:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
@Callanecc and Coffee: Am I right in thinking that under that wording, Stadscykel would not have been blocked, since they didn't add the contended edit back? (They were blocked after their first and only edit to the article). In which case, are you satisfied that it would solve the problem? WaggersTALK 08:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Just to expand on Waggers comment - other than Coffee (who is obviously not impartial) subsequent further discussion by those uninvolved in no way supported Coffee's position. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

While the Arb discussion below is on the literal minutiae of the actual rules (and, I guess, has to be to some extent (added July 7)), there's one thing that's clear to me. When an innocent new editor sees an edit notice that says they can be blocked for doing something "potentially contentious" (with that nebulous term unexplained), makes one good-faith edit on each of two articles with no idea what constitutes "potentially contentious" and considers their edits to be uncontroversial, and then gets blocked for it without any prior explanation of what was "potentially contentious" about their edits... well, that is clearly not the intention behind the way discretionary sanctions are supposed to work! (It can't be, because that would be astoundingly stupid!)

Rules are meant to be used intelligently and not just applied blindly, and just because a rule might say an editor can be blocked, that does not mean they should be blocked. Discretionary sanctions are intended to provide a means to handle contentious topics and quickly deal with troublemakers, and should not be misused to clobber innocent newbies. I'd expect any admin worthy of the role to see that difference, and if they make a mistake, to see the mistake when there's a clear consensus pointing it out to them. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I just want to add that I agree completely with Newyorkbrad in his continuing comments above. It was an obviously bad block (and I've rarely seen one more obviously bad), except for the blocking admin there was an otherwise unanimous consensus to overturn it, and I'm amazed that there are people here suggesting that the unblocking admin was wrong to unblock. Brad's comment that "Presumptions in favor of upholding AE actions and consensus requirements for overturning them should not be taken to extremes; nor, as I argued in lonely dissent multiple times when I was on the Committee, should inflexibility and automatic actions ever be written into the ArbCom's procedures and norms" is so obviously right that I'm shocked that he even needs to say it. And I'm seriously disappointed that the current ArbCom seems to have their heads so seriously buried in the rules that they apparently can't see the bloody obvious even when it's biting them in the bum. I voted for (most of) the current committee because I expected them to be able to offer intelligent and flexible judgment, not to behave like a bunch of rule-reading bots. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

An editnotice or DS banner should be considered sufficient notice for anyone editing the page (they can't miss it). A page-top banner (like those atop the talk pages of most any article subject to DS) should be considered sufficient notice for anyone editing the page in multiple sessions (i.e., they've had plenty of time to notice). Speaking in general, and thinking of an entirely different case: People who are long-time disruptors of, and among the most active editors at, a page with such banner, and obviously fully aware of the DS, have escaped DS enforcement multiple times because their personal user talk page didn't have a {{Ds/alert}} on it in the last 12 months.

It's utterly pointless rule-creep and bureaucracy to let this kind of system-gaming continue by bad-apples ruthlessly wikilawyering the WP:AC/DS wording, or because admins who'd like to issue a sanction aren't certain they can. (And in some cases they end up sanctioning only one side of a dispute, the one that doesn't have personal notice, instead of both when they deserved it; I've seen this end up with AN overturning their action as punitive and uneven-handed, which doesn't look good for the admin.) A further problem here is that we all know by now that actually leaving someone {{ds/alert}} is uniformly perceived as a threat or WP:JERK move, and simply escalates already tense situations, with the result that fewer editors will leave the alerts, so more bad-actors will escape sanctions. I've been raising these problem for over two years now, and nothing over gets done about it. Please do something about it, finally.

I offer no opinion on whether Coffee's block action was evenhanded or an overreaction to the specific content in question, since I didn't observe it, and I don't want to get involved in inter-personal drama, only address the systematic WP:PROCESS problem of granting people exploitable loopholes to use for sanction-gaming. The point of this ARCA seems to be whether an admin can be punished/admonished for assuming that WP:BUREAU and WP:COMMONSENSE aren't magically inapplicable here and that sanction-gaming must be permitted if any interpretation of WP:AC/DS can seem to be bent to allow for it.

PS: I say that as someone whose comments in the RfC were hatted by Coffee until I revised them (and I didn't like it, and thought about citing WP:IAR for reasons clear from the RfC's talk page), so I'm not showing up as part of some kind of "protect Coffee!" fan club (nor am I all that irritated about it any more).  — SMcCandlish ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ʌ≼  18:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

While I haven't paid much attention to the Donald Trump page, when Coffee says that a "1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article)", I find it extremely unlikely that that would ever be the case with the article for the candidate of one of the two main US presidential parties. Vandalism on those pages is usually reverted near-instantly, for instance. Obviously having something decided by revert-wars and the rules governing reverts is bad, but as a general rule I find hard to believe we'd end up in a situation where something glaringly bad (or, for that matter, remotely controversial) was added to such a high-profile article with only one person objecting.

Beyond that it's just common sense that a user isn't going to anticipate that adding a religion entry to the sidebar will get them immediately banned; as someone who hasn't been following discussions there, I had no idea it was remotely controversial myself. Requiring that new editors carefully assess the consensus on the talk page for every single edit prior to making it just doesn't seem reasonable to me. Things like that (where a well-meaning new user arrives at a controversial article and makes a change that goes against an established consensus without realizing that it's controversial) are part of the reason we have WP:BRD. Even in articles under discretionary sanctions, and even when the user has been informed of the sanctions, an instant block with no warning should be reserved for situations where the edit in question is so clearly controversial or drastic as to imply bad faith; putting that Trump's religion is Presbyterian in the infobox obviously just doesn't qualify. --Aquillion (talk) 07:24, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Recuse – writing a statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My reading of WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts is that an edit notice doesn't meet the procedural warning requirements; as Stadscykel points out, the rules state that an editor is aware if they have "received an alert for the area of conflict", but then go on to define alerts as being valid only if "the standard template message [...] is placed unmodified on the talk page of the editor being alerted". However, I know that past enforcement practices—and some of my colleagues—disagree with me on this point.

    Having said that, I'm actually more interested in the content of the edit notice rather than its form. WP:AC/DS#Page restrictions allows administrators to impose "semi-protection, full protection, move protection, revert restrictions, and prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content" (emphasis mine). My interpretation of this rule is that a restriction of this sort must define some specific content that cannot be added or removed, in sufficient detail that an editor can determine whether an edit they wish to make would breach the restriction. Consequently, I'm unconvinced that a blanket prohibition of "potentially contentious edits" is an acceptable form of discretionary sanction under this clause. Coffee, could you comment on your interpretation of this requirement and your rationale for imposing this particular sanction? Kirill Lokshin (talk) 14:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

    • @Gerda Arendt: I'm questioning whether the page restriction is a valid one under the current rules for discretionary sanctions. Whether the edit in question actually violated that restriction is an entirely separate issue. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, first off, I don't expect to be sanctioning anyone as a result of this particular incident. I am squarely in the MEGO camp on editnotices in general (in fact, I use a userscript to hide them), but there is precedent for treating them as sufficient warning; it's clear that there's ambiguity in the DS procedures that needs to be sorted out going forward. On review of this particular implementation I agree with Kirill that "potentially contentious edits" may be too vague to be a workable page restriction. If you've spent months deeply immersed in some particular wiki-problem, it may seem obvious what kinds of edits will fall into that category, but the audience for these notices is much wider than that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) @DHeyward: MEGO = My Eyes Glaze Over. I swear the dab page used to say that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • It seems that agreement has been reached that the original wording of the editnotice was too vague and it has now been updated, which takes care of the immediate issue; however, there are still some underlying matters unresolved and it would seem awfully bureaucratic to demand a new request to address them (especially considering that the problems lie in procedural bureaucracy :) As Wordsmith says above, the open procedural questions are: 1) is an editnotice sufficient warning for DS sanctions? and 2) should even obviously misguided AE actions prompt desysopping as a consequence for reversal? I'm uncertain on 1 - there are circumstances where it's impractical to individually warn every participant. I'd prefer to allow editnotices to be used as warnings, with the strong expectation that they will be used sparingly - perhaps only outside of articlespace, under the assumption that people participating in complex internal wikiprocesses are generally familiar with the system. Certainly I think NYB is correct to recommend emphasizing that blocks should be a last resort, not an automatic reaction to an evidently good-faith edit that happens to break the rules.
      On the other hand, I'm very certain on 2: it's no secret that I strongly dislike the "AE tripwire" effect and absolutely do not think there is any benefit to trying to double down on it for future similar situations as a consequence of this request. It doesn't work as intended to reduce drama and overreaction or to support the efforts of admins working in difficult areas - compare this slow-moving and generally calm procedural discussion with the hypothetical situation in which a rush of arbs had voted in a Level II desysop. Again, I'm not sure we need a procedural change so much as a change in social expectations: if your AE action gets reverted, do what Coffee wisely did and take a couple of days off and then come to ARCA to work out how to fix whatever the misunderstanding was. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      I had an old tab open when I wrote this, and I see Callanecc has made this edit regarding enforcement actions, which I can't contest as a matter of procedural validity - that is indeed an accurate description of what was decided last year - but I strongly disagree with its substance. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
      • On editnotices: The Wordsmith, that's a good idea about the talk namespace, and article+talk vs projectspace captures most of the intended distinction. Newyorkbrad, I take it that you think a direct personal notification is always preferable to a general notice, but I'm not sure I agree; as far as I can tell most experienced editors hate these things. There's almost no way a template on your talk page, no matter how neutrally and blandly worded, doesn't feel targeted toward you. A general notice risks being overlooked but also avoids annoying people who are already working in a difficult area. If delivering notices for article and talk space edits is chewing up too much scarce admin time, then it sounds like the solution is either to actively solicit more admin help in AE/DS, or to leverage what we have with more effective technical support. (Maybe a bot could deliver the talk-page alerts to those who edit particular pages for the first time and haven't been warned?)
      • On reversal of AE sanctions: After a year of opportunities, this is the set of facts that prompts us to draw a line under AE1, instead of reconsidering that conclusion? OK, this time through the wringer went: Good-faith but undesirable edit, good-faith but undesirable block, quick unblock, everyone heads over to ARCA to sort shit out, compromise reached (though I guess it still needs some wordsmithing). Next time it'll be: Edit, block, unblock, ZOMG AE REVERSAL LEVEL II DEFCON 1!!!!11, desysop, angry ANI thread where someone gets blocked for incivility, edit war over closure of ANI thread, case request, 50+ pissed-off preliminary statements from various partisans, 6-week case, desysopped admin retires, blocked editor says "fuck this" and leaves, case closes, someone posts youtube link to Eric Cartman compilation video in post-decision ACN thread and gets blocked for disrespecting our authoritah copyvio. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree we shouldn't be sanctioning anyone. So far as I'm concerned, practice is that talk page notices and edit notices are sufficient, and if our documentation is confusing or suggests otherwise then we should do something about it. This could be to change practice (but not to suggest that enforcement of such notices in the past was wrong) or to change policy/documentation as appropriate. "Potentially contentious" is a problem and I'd have to be convinced that such wording is useful and enforceable. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • @Coffee: Looks like we are getting somewhere, hopefully more of my colleagues will be around soon to comment. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • My interpretation would be that Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator implies that an alert does not need to be left on an editor's talk page and that an editnotice is enough when the admin is enforcing the edit notice. However, in this instance, I tend to agree with Kirill that prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content refers to "some specific content that cannot be added or removed" rather than broad restrictions on "potentially contentious edits". Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @Coffee: Sounds like full protection, but one that allows anyone to make uncontroversial edits? I don't actually think something like this is covered by the current DS procedure. The issue would be with a sanction like this is that what is and is not "contentious" is ambiguous and subjective so it's difficult to expect editors to know what it is and what isn't. You could impose a different revert restriction which enforces WP:BRD? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @The Wordsmith: I've clarified the point presumption of validity in the procedure. Talking on arbcom-l about the editnotice one at the moment. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The minutia matter, but not as much as the spirit of discretionary sanctions, which are a means to an end, not a trap. I happily admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and that I have to remind myself of all the procedures and notifications and logs and whatnot--never mind the scope of any action and the procedure of possible appeal or redress--every single time I run into a AC/DS issue. I thank Newyorkbrad for his comment, and Boing for expressing his frustration in a harsh but well-intended matter. No one should be blocked before being talked to, except in overt cases of vandalism and etc. A poor decision should be able to be overturned in a timely manner. In this case, that discussion took place and a consensus was clear.

    So, to the point and all that--I suppose the block did not formally break any of our procedures, and I also agree that an edit notice should be enough. But that a block can be made from the point of view of some procedure doesn't mean everything. Good-faith editors editing in contentious articles who may not be completely aware of all the ins and outs shouldn't be blocked just because they can be blocked. Frequently, as in this case, it requires some serious background information to decide if something is contentious or not, to which extent simple factual verification isn't enough, how certain biographical facts are to be weighed. I would like for more administrators to check in regularly with sanctioned areas to see if they can help--not by notifying and logging and blocking and all that, but by talking to editors. Drmies (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

    • Adding that I also agree with Newyorkbrad's comment that "The question is whether editors who are acting in good faith and have no idea they are doing anything wrong should, absent extraordinary circumstances, be blocked without first being told they are violating a rule and told how they can comply with it going forward. The answer is that they should not." I've certainly reminded editors that they've done things that broke the sanctions and asked them not to do it again, rather than blocked them. Doesn't always work of course but that's ok, if it doesn't work then they can be sanctioned. Doug Weller talk 13:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The sanctions of AE a should never be used without full warning. I interpret full warning as requiring a page notice if a particular page is involved, and an individual notice. They're not a first line of defense, but something exceptional to deal with people who can not otherwise be restrained, and nobody should be presumed to know that they exist unless they have been warned. As an admin, I never dealt with AE basically because I did not myself want to become involved in what I regarded as potentially an extremely unfair procedure. Now that I am on arb com I realize the necessity of some procedure of this sort, but I still think they need to be used with every reasonable effort to alleviate their unfairness. If our current rules do not make this clear, they need to be changed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talkcontribs) 01:57, 10 July 2016‎

Amendment request: GoodDay

Intitated by GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
GoodDay 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 GoodDay

Howdy. It's been over 4 years, since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics on Wikipedia. I'm requesting that the ban be over-turned. GoodDay (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

As in my previous requests, I again promise 'not' to be disruptive in that area. GoodDay (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to Arbitrator - A clean slate would be good. Mostly though, I want to work on the Ice hockey articles in that area. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to Arbitrator - I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles. As for the question of what's changed since my last requests? I'm feeling stigmatized by this near half-decade ban. GoodDay (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Responses to Arbitrators - how to handle diacritics in ice hockey articles, is what I'm getting at. GoodDay (talk) 09:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to Kelapstick - Exceptions are made in North American based hockey articles, concerning French Canadians. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to Kelapstick - I wouldn't go 'round the Salming article, which is a player article. But, I would un-diacriticize Salming in any NHL-based team, tournament, or any other non-player articles, like Toronto Maple Leafs (for example). GoodDay (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Crossin

Meh, it's been four years. I'd say lift the ban - ArbCom can always reinstate it if need be. I would pre-emptively disagree with people that state he needs to give detailed reasoning on why the ban should be lifted, I'd think after 4 years, a promise to behave is all that's really required, and he's done so. Steven Crossin 13:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by HighKing

I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years (wow .. that's a long time!) and I also think that asking for detailed reasoning at this stage would be unreasonable. His actions and good behaviour on this issue speak for themselves. -- HighKing++ 22:05, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

The last clarification request makes it clear that you were not staying clear of the topic area then - for example GorillaWarfare said "this does strike me as a frantic attempt to participate in the topic area without technically being in breach of a ban, which frankly makes me think the ban was a good decision." so saying now you've kept your nose clean for 4 years is a bit disingenuous. Being patient is a lot more than remaining civil.

In my then capacity as an arbitrator I said then, "I've commented previously that you (GoodDay) should completely stay away the topic area you were restricted from, and I'm going to reiterate that advice now – let it go.". Coming back here 7 months later is not letting it go, so I would repeat my advice and add that when I say "let it go" I mean you should essentially forget that the topic exists and have absolutely nothing to do with it for at least a year - preferably two. I recommend to the current Committee that this appeal be declined and that adding a minimum time of 1 year before the next appeal should be considered. Thryduulf (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Unhelpful comment by Newyorkbrad

I see no acute need to modify the restriction, but I recognize this is a grave decision. If the sanction is lifted, I hope that GoodDay will be circumflex in his editing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I agree with Steven and support lifting the restriction on a provisional basis. If issues resurface after being allowed back to editing diacritics-related articles, then the topic ban can be reinstated at any time. I dislike the idea of permanent editing restrictions - they carry a stigma that lasts for as long as they are in place. These sanctions appear to have outlived their usefulness, so let's end them. Kurtis (talk) 20:55, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I retract my earlier statement; I think keeping the topic ban in place is necessary for the time being. The whole point of sanctions is to prevent people from becoming a disruptive influence in areas where they've been shown to have difficulty in separating their emotions from their editing. GoodDay appears hell-bent on enforcing his own preferences relating to diacritics, and I can't really envision this as being anything but counterproductive. Keeping the topic ban in place for the time being will help to prevent unnecessary bad blood from arising in the short-term. Kurtis (talk) 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I retract my retraction. GorillaWarfare (or Molly, whichever she prefers to be called) has swayed me back to my original point, which you can see in the first stanza of crossed-out words above. It sounds like there might be some issues, but if they do arise, we can always reapply the sanctions. Let's give GoodDay a chance and see how this works out. Kurtis (talk) 00:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

In an earlier request for amendment, GoodDay stated "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics." However with the latest statement indicating a desire to return to editing hockey player names, I believe this would result in a lot of wasted time arguing a matter that the English Wikipedia community as a whole has not managed to reach agreement upon. Thus I do not believe a removal of the topic ban would be beneficial to Wikipedia at this time. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: see Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey#Wikiproject notice for the compromise position on modified letters that had once been used by WikiProject Ice Hockey, and the amendment request from July 2015 for a discussion of the background of this compromise (in particular, the statement from Resolute). isaacl (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

As a way forward, perhaps the topic ban can be modified to permit discussion of modified letters on talk pages, while leaving the prohibition on editing article pages in place. User:Resolute had previously suggested a restriction of one comment per sub-section of a debate, and only in response to questions directed specifically to GoodDay. I suggest extending this to also allow a single comment in any RfC, poll, or other discussion where an opinion on the use of modified letters is specifically being requested from the community at large. This would prevent GoodDay from interjecting non-sequitur commentary on modified letters into other discussions, as has happened in the past. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Francis

See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (ice hockey): three broad discussions about the diacritics issue, the last one initiated less than a month ago. Doesn't seem like an area where the dust has settled.

Without prejudice what this means for this ARCA request: The OP's opinions in this matter may be as valuable as any other's (so that they should be allowed to edit in the area), or, alternatively, not a good idea to let the OP re-enter an arena where new surges of tension would not come unexpectedly? Maybe a transition period with no diacritics-related page moves without WP:RM and/or no diacritic-related WP:ENGVAR-like edits to articles without prior talk page agreement? --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:18, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

Kelapstick@Opabinia regalis@ The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey page says:

  • All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
  • All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).
  • All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

The Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey) says (apropos of article names):

  • All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question).
  • All North American hockey pages should have player names without diacritics, except where their use is likewise customary (specifically, in the Quebec Major Junior Hockey League and the Ligue Nord-Américaine de Hockey).
  • All non-North American hockey pages should have diacritics applied (where required).

These look identical to me.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:53, 17 July 2016 (UTC).

Statement/Clarification by Calton

User:HighKing wrote, "I agree with Steven. GoodDay has kept his nose clean for 4 years"

It's been two years, not four. From GoodDay's block log:

  • 08:14, May 21, 2014 Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) unblocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) (Unbanned by Arbitration Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=609493697&oldid=609438782)
  • 15:54, April 23, 2014 Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (enable talkpage editing to allow for appeal, as one year from ban has elapsed)
  • 06:25, May 6, 2013 Richwales (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [9]; adding talk page to existing block)
  • 01:16, April 22, 2013 Spartaz (talk | contribs) blocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [10])

--Calton | Talk 15:02, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Miesianiacal

I am of two minds on this: One is that GoodDay has managed to, so far, not cause major disruption on any British Isles-related articles since his ban against editing anything related to that topic was lifted. He has veered back there once or twice, but, appears to back down relatively quickly from conflict, knowing that acting in the opposite way will result in another topic ban or worse. However, the other mind says to me GoodDay still craves the drama of conflict to spice up the seemingly endless hours he spends on Wikipedia. This thriving on discord was noted before, during the discussion at ArbCom on amending restrictions against him, and, based on both recent and older personal experience, I hold the opinion that his craving has not been entirely satiated. That falls in line with his history of being difficult to reform and would suggest the more restrictions on GoodDay the better.

I suppose my conclusion would be: While we can assume good faith and recognize that it's entirely possible GoodDay won't return to old habits in the area of diacritics, lifting the ban will open that door for him again, returning to GoodDay the choice to go through it or not. And This is where I'll add that both the eagerness and the slightly misleading nature of GoodDay's request prompts me to raise an eyebrow in suspicion. Keeping the ban in place, however, ensures the door to disruption remains locked and, if GoodDay has managed to be a contributive editor with the ban in place, it can't hurt to leave it be. Though, modifications, such as those mentioned by isaacl, could be safe enough. -- MIESIANIACAL 18:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • What has changed since July 2015, September 2015, and January 2016? --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm mostly with Thryduulf and Guerillero. What's changed from the previous appeals and the comments arbitrators made then? Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 05:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Just a breve comment OK, fine, NYB took all the good puns! @GoodDay: Do you want this restriction lifted because you want a "clean slate" or because you want to edit in the area? If the latter, what do you want to work on? Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @GoodDay: Thanks. Maybe I'm uninformed - not much of a hockey fan - but can you clarify what hockey-related editing you want to do that involves editing or discussing diacritics? (And while you're here, see also Guerillero's question above.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @GoodDay: I'm still a little hazy, could you please give me an example (a discussion about removing them and an article they'd be in)? Thanks, Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 02:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Callanecc I would presume (although I could be wrong), names of hockey players (either European or French-Canadian). --kelapstick(bainuu) 02:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles does not seem in line with what is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey). --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Indeed. And that subject was specifically part of the problem that prompted the original case. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Rich Farmbrough, the point I am making is GoodDay wishes to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based hockey articles, where:
        1. All player pages should have them as according to the languages of the player in question (I read this as all encompassing regardless of where the player is currently playing).
        2. There is an exception to removal from North American hockey pages, particularly around the names of French-Canadian players (who commonly have diacritics in their names).
      • Thus it looks like he wishes to have his topic ban removed, in order to go against what the standard practice is. --kelapstick(bainuu) 23:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
        • So GoodDay, take a page like Börje Salming. This reads like to me, is that you would take this page, and move it to Borje Salming, because he's played for the Red Wings and Maple Leafs, but that stands contrary to point 1: All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question). Or is the idea to keep the page at the same location, and change references to him in the articles to Borje Salming. For example, on Toronto Maple Leafs he is listed within the text as both Börje Salming and Borje Salming, depending on where one looks. Related to this, under the French-Canadian Exception on Montreal Canadiens, should Leo Dandurande should be listed as Léo Dandurand (which he is not)? I am just trying to understand what it is you want to do, and if this is the accepted practice with naming conventions and representation within articles. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Newyorkbrad: did you take a dash, or possibly a double dash, of something illegal in some states while going through your high school French books and playing around on Wikipedia? Drmies (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Given GoodDay's statement that he intends to go around removing diacritics, I see no reason to lift the ban. Kirill Lokshin (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Nope, the ban should stay. GoodDay has convinced me. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I have to agree with the above; the ban should stay. Normally I'm inclined to lift long-standing sanctions, and I would've supported an "I don't care about this anymore and just want a clean slate" type of request, but the stated intention to go back to the area that caused the trouble in the first place convinces me we should leave the ban as-is. You've done plenty of other good work and there's plenty of other things to work on. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I don't think we should remove this ban. Opabinia said it well above; I'm inclined to lift such old sanctions, but that statement concerns me too much to do so here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Actually, after noodling on this for a bit, I'm inclined to lift the ban. If someone is subject to a topic ban and no longer wishes to edit in the area they're banned from, why would they even appeal it to begin with? I don't feel right declining an unban request because they wish to return to that area; if they didn't, they wouldn't appeal. Let's give GoodDay a chance in this area; if it doesn't go well, re-bans are cheap. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I am of two minds on this, first I appreciate that GoodDay wishes to abide by the consensus of WP:HOCKEY and their article naming convention, and implement the agreed standard of a lack of diacritics in NA based hockey articles. I really don't see an issue with this, because it is making articles consistent within an article (as illustrated by the Toronto Maple Leafs example above, it currently is neither consistent, nor according to the agreed style guideline). On the other hand I agree with Opabinia's comment above, and can see this doing more harm than good. So at this time I am going to say no. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by David Tornheim at 03:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Genetically modified organisms 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 David Tornheim

I request a stay of the Proposed Decision to block me in this action. Nothing in the admins' comments show any consideration of the evidence I presented of POV editing by my accuser Kingofaces43 ("King") or battleground and harassment behavior by King and Tryptofish. I specifically asked whether the diffs I provided showed POV editing and got no response.

The evidence of others who made similar comments to mine was not considered or commented on either.

I also question the neutrality of The Wordsmith and laser brain. When I asked for an admonition to King for POV-editing here and here, the admins all said they would not act on it, that I should go to WP:AE, including The Wordsmith[11]. Laserbrain had also voluntarily left all GMO related administration after he was accused of bullying regarding comments about me and Petrarchan47 [12]. I previously explained to you here that laserbrain and The Wordsmith had not been even-handed with me in comparison to King and Tryptofish at the RfC ruling making. (revised 05:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

I am concurrently filing another related action that will help resolve this one: [13]

Statement by laser brain

Literally nothing in David's statement is correct, including my username. I don't really have anything else to say. --Laser brain (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

Please note that there is no proposal on the table to block David. The proposal being discussed is a sanction being crafted to enforce the Committee's decision on casting aspersions, which has been a serious problem in this topic area. It appears to be well within the bounds allowed by Discretionary Sanctions, and David has not presented any argument that either the sanction being considered or the process used to craft it are improper. Moreover, while ARCA is a valid forum for appealing an AE decision, I can't recall any precedent for going to ARCA to seek an injunction to prevent AE admins from enforcing an Arbitration decision. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:22, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem

None of the admins responding to the enforcement request are proposing a block. The Wordsmith (talk · contribs) suggested a novel idea to resolve the underlying conduct issue in a focused way without too broad a sanction. If and when an admin imposes such a sanction, David is free to appeal then, but nothing yet has actually been done. Based off my read of the evidence submitted, The Wordsmith's proposal is worth giving a shot.

I'm also not sure what David's reasoning is for saying The Wordsmith isn't neutral. Is he saying they're involved? Or something else? --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Statement by Tryptofish

Statement by EllenCT

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.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion


Clarification request: Genetically modified organisms

Initiated by David Tornheim at 03:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Genetically modified organisms 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 David Tornheim

I request clarification on these questions regarding the Casting Aspersions Discretionary Sanction [14].

(1) Is it *always* wrong to identify an edit as pro-industry, even if it has a strong pro-industry WP:POV?
(2) If so, how are we supposed to achieve WP:NPOV if we cannot talk about POV problems?
(3) Does the sanction only apply to pro-industry allegations? in one direction?
(4) Does it continue to be acceptable (e.g. [15]) to call editors who challenge pro-industry edits with:
  • pejorative labels (e.g. anti-GMO, anti-science, fringe, psuedo-science) -and-
  • associations (e.g. anti-vaxxer, climate change denier, flat earther).

I am concurrently filing another related action [16] that the current action will help resolve.

Statement by laser brain

Statement by The Wordsmith

Statement by Lord Roem

I think the casting aspersions principle speaks for itself. "An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe." That goes in both/all directions on any topic. Editors should focus on research/references when dealing with disputed material in a calm and dispassionate manner. Saying something along the lines of "that edit is totally pro-X" is never helpful; instead, an editor should do their best to discuss their disagreement without attacking the credibility of their peer. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Statement by Tryptofish

Statement by EllenCT

Statement by Johnuniq

At WP:AE#Casting Aspersions (permalink), David Tornheim has continued casting aspersions and apparently does not understand that serious accusations must be backed with evidence.

  • David Tornheim wrote (diff) "King even admits he wrote the sanction to keep people from calling attention to his editing."
    • The above refers to a statement by Kingofaces43 at WP:AE (diff) where King wrote "I actually drafted that part of the language in large part because of evidence at Arbcom that EllenCT would follow me around to boards casting aspersions exactly like below and blatantly misrepresent me when I explained how I actually used the source in question even though they are fully aware there characterization of me below is false, directly calling me a paid shill, etc.[17]."

      Apparently the draft became the Casting aspersions principle adopted at WP:ARBGMO—a motherhood statement of the obvious.

    • The above is a gross mischaracterization of what Kingofaces43 wrote. Of course editors are welcome to call attention to any edit and to question its applicability in regards to policy compliance. Policy does not permit editors to cast aspersions by repeatedly insinuating someone is a shill, paid or otherwise, with no evidence.
  • The GMO RfC ran from 7 June 2016 to 7 July 2016. It was closed with a very clear consensus that anti-GMO editors do not like.
  • Despite the above, David Tornheim's WP:AE#Casting Aspersions statement includes "Can anyone look at my diffs above and with a straight face say those edits are not pro-industry?" Taken as a whole, the statement is another clear suggestion that Kingofaces43 is a company shill. The evidence supporting the shill conclusion appears to be that Kingofaces43 made edits in accord with the outcome of the RfC, although apparently David Tornheim believes those edits were too enthusiastic, and that edits which oppose anti-GMO views must be from a company shill.

David Tornheim should be topic banned from the GMO area as his presence is unhelpful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

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.

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion


Motions

Requests for enforcement


TripWire

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

Request concerning TripWire

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kautilya3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
TripWire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/India-Pakistan: ARBIPA

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 9 July 2016 (History of Gilgit-Baltistan) Reinstates an edit , for which another editor just got topic-banned. The edit comes with a combative edit summary: "They dont become unreialble because you say so." Dismisses the extensive discussion at Talk:Gilgit-Baltistan by the curt brushoff: "the sources are fine, it's your interpretation of them that is wrong."
  2. 9 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Deletes content attributed to the Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) comparing it to "Facebook". Repeats the revert the next day, ignoring the talk page discussion.
  3. 8 July 2016 (Baloch Students Organization) Adds "separatist fighter" as a LABEL for the founder of the organization. This fails to be NPOV because the founder was not a separatist fighter at the time and plenty of other sources do not use the description. In the talk page discussion, doubles down on POV and starts comparing the founder to Osama Bin Laden.
  4. 4 July 2016 CANVASSing for an RfC at WP:WikiProject Pakistan without a parallel post to WP:WikiProject India. The subject at hand deals with alleged Indian involvement in Balochistan conflict. (The RfC itself is now closed because it was initiated by a banned user, but that doesn't mitigate the obvious attempt of canvassing.)
  5. 8 May 2016 (Balochistan conflict) Reverts well-sourced content of Bharatiya29and repeats the revert seven times further. The talk page discussion here and here is throroughly deadlocked due to TripWire's tendentious position and argumentation. The compromises I propose are obsturcted.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. 3 July 2015 Future Perfect at Sunrise topic-banned the user from all edits related to Pakistani politics and Indian/Pakistani conflicts. FP's diagnosis: that you are a tendentious editor whose presence on Wikipedia is motivated almost entirely to a desire to push a certain national POV."
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

The user came back from a topic ban about 6 months ago and went back to the old ways soon after. At the previous AE request on 10 April, I argued against a sanction because I felt the user was showing improvement and a lot of the activity at that time centered on a sock (MBlaze Lightning). That is not the case any more. The user's talk page discussion is merely stonewalling. They constantly tell others to seek consensus, but never strive for consensus themselves. The POV that they push is not merely that of nationalism but of the State. Even AHRC's objections are brushed off.

The edit that breaks the camel's back is the latest edit on 9 July (diff 1). This one reinstates the edit of a user that just got topic-banned, deleting content sourced to scholarly sources and replacing it with OR. Two fake citations (one pointing to the last page of a book's index and another to a newspaper opinion column) appear, neither of which supports the claim that Gilgit-Baltistan "unconditionally acceded" to Pakistan. This is merely the State's propaganda that is being pushed on Wikipedia.

Most other users that have tried to reason with the user have given up in exasperation. I am at wit's end. I think it is time to take action again.

Responses: TripWire's long-winded, rambling response illustrates the same frivilous attitude that pervades all their discussions. This is not the place for content discussion anyway.

  • Reinstating the banned user's edit at 20:42, 9 July at History of Gilgit-Baltistan was their first edit ever on Gilgit-Baltistan topics. The second edit at 20:48, 9 July at Talk: Gilgit-Baltistan was the brushoff: the sources are fine, which completely ignores the preceding discussion. I see no effort to obtain consensus in this approach, or any regard to reliability of sources and Wikipedia policies. Which sources were fine? The last page of the index of a book? An op-ed that has no mention of "unconditional accesstion"? Why TripWire suddenly got interested in Gilgit-Baltistan at this time is another interesting question. (My own contributions to the articles can be seen on Xtools here and here.)
  • The explanation that TripWire came to the page because of a twitter feed of anonymous Pakistani edits, is not likely. The last such edit on History of Gilgit-Baltistan was six months ago. It is much more likely that they saw the posts of Saladin1987 on my talk page or SheriffIsInTown's talk page and decided to be the Robin Hood. Saladin's versions on Gilgit-Baltistan could not be reinstated because they had been revdel'ed. History of Gilgit-Baltistan was next.
  • TripWire also conveniently hides behind the screen of "defending Wikipedia against socks." But a sock has to be reported and blocked before we revert their edits. If, in fact, TripWire had known the sock's identity, why did they canvass at WikiProject Pakistan for the sock's RfC? Besides the sock, plenty of regular editors have also defended the content: Bharatiya29, myself, Kashmiri and Spartacus!.
  • The defense that TripWire didn't know the relevance of the topic to WikiProject India is also disingeneous, because they themselves mentioned "India" over a dozen times in the talk page discussion. And, they claimed to be well-versed with the CANVASSing policies as well.
  • TripWire claims unawareness of Saladin1987 being topic-banned; fair enough. But then the question remains what due diligence they did before reinstating content reverted by two experienced users: Thomas.W and me. Did they even look at the citations that were given?

Nationalistic POV: TripWire asks where they exhibited nationalistic POV. At Wikipedia, we aim to provide a fair representation of all the views expressed in reliable sources (WP:NPOV). TripWire's position in diff 1 is that of the Pakistani State, viz., Gilgit-Baltistan voluntarily acceded to Pakistan. Scholars disagree and they are dismissed. In diffs 2, 3, and 5, they support the State's views such as Kulbhushan Yadav is an Indian spy and Baloch Students Organization is a terrorist organization. All contrary views are dismissed. Nuro Dragonfly, a neutral third-party editor that came to mediate on the Kulbhushan Yadav page, had this to say at an earlier ARE case: "All attempts to create a neutral POV consensus in the article have been rejected by either FreeatlastChitchat or TripWire on all occasions, especially once the subject matter turns to the fact that everything that Pakistan has said on the matter is just a claim, exactly the same as everything India says is just a claim."[18]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2016 (UTC) |}

On The Wordsmith proposals: I think we are beyond the stage of civility now. TripWire did learn something from their last topic ban. Their strategy now is to quietly push POV without being noticeable. For example, if we look at the diff 1, they deleted content sourced to scholarly sources {{sfn|Schofield|2003|pp=63-64}} and Yaqoob Khan Bangash's journal article, and replaced it with content citing fake sources (the same Schofield book with a meaningless page number 278, and an opinion column from Dawn [19], neither of which supports the new content). In fact the Dawn column argues the opposite point of view. This is just a reckless WP:BATTLEGROUND edit, meant to pick a fight. Anybody looking at the edit would simply think it is a content dispute and wouldn't know that anything is wrong. Likewise, the talk page comment, "The sources are fine. It is your understanding that is wrong." is not particularly uncivil. It is the unwillingness to engage with the actual subject but nevertheless revert edits that makes it BATTLEGROUND. Even after I reported the issue here, TripWire didn't bother to find out what the issues are, calling it simply "WALLOFTEXT." I am not sure how civility parole would address this behaviour. How am I supposed to engage with an editor that has no clue what is going on?

I rarely recommend topic bans. I argued against the topic-ban for Towns Hill and I also argued with Bishonen against the topic ban for Saladin1987, even though, ironically, the latter was banned for edit-wars and personal attacks against me. If an editor brings up valuable points and looks half-way reasonable, I prefer to reason with them rather than to punish them. In the case of TripWire, none of that works. I think topic ban is the right course of action here.

TripWire is of no particular use to Wikipedia. Other than the Kulbhushan Yadav page, where their contribution is apparently 35%, no other article shows any contribution above 1-2%. Their main participation on Wikipedia has been to edit-war and disrupt other editors that do actually contribute. Before TripWire entered the scene in June 2015, the India-Pakistan space was quite stable. As Future Perfect at Sunrise has rightly pointed out, TripWire's entry has been "harmful to the project." Their presence and behaviour has set a bad example to all new editors and derailed even seasoned editors like FreeatlastChitchat . ARBIPA sanctions are here precisely to take care of editors like them. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 00:51, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

On the proposed IBAN: I have quite a few reservations about the proposed IBAN. But I promise to think about it carefully overnight. Meanwhile, I would like to request RegentsPark and NeilN to provide their input on the viability of the proposal. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
[20]

Discussion concerning TripWire

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

Statement by TripWire

Oh, so may WP:ASPERSIONS. Will humbly try to answer:

  • 9 July 2016. This was a perfectly fine sourced edit by another editor which was reverted by Kautilya3. I, having found the edit legit, reverted him back (my only edit on that page). Per WP:BRD, this is the normal sequence of events, why jump the gun instead of discussing it at talk? Second, there was no 'extensive' discussion as claimed, just a WP:WALLOFTEXT by him. He should have discussed the dispute instead of bringing it here.
And how would I know that some user has been topic banned? And how could Kautilya3 ascertain that it was that particular edit which caused the ban?
I gave FOUR reasons for the revert in the edit-summary, all ignored by him.
It's strange that Kautilya3 himself deletes/reverts sourced content (attributed to three RS: Express Tribune, Dawn and even a Book) in the same article, and when I revert his deletion of sourced content, he uses the same against me here. But when his own poorly sourced edit gets reverted, he ironically uses the same too against me?
Moreover, Facebook example was used to make Kautilya3 understand that online appeals launched by random people cannot be used to build WP, or can it be?? How can an appeal launched at "FB Causes" be synthesized into saying that Facebook "severely" condemns the whatever action stated in the appeal? Especially when the appeal itself does not even use the word severely?? A classic example of WP:FAKE and WP:NPOV.
Last, the edit followed WP:BRD, no edit warring, dear Admins, what's wrong in that?
  • 8 July 2016. This shows Kautilya3's bias. Kautilya3 used this Al Jazeera source and attributed it thrice in the article. But when I used Kautilya3's own source to add portion of info which was deliberately omitted (that the subject was a "separatist fighter"), I am projected as the bad guy?! I even mentioned this in the edit-summary and at the talk-discussion (ignoring of which was fine by Kautilya3, but he accuses me of ignoring talk discussions). How on earth can only Kautilya3 use portions of the source which suits his POV and omit, and then revert the portion of the SAME source (already used by HIMSELF) that does not line with his opinion? How can this be acceptable? Admins???
For clarity, Kuatiliya had made more than 19 edits at BSO in one day, and I made fol 4 edits (not reverts):
  • 02:16, 9 July 2016. add. I removed Kuatilya3's WP:OR which was not supported by the given source and replaced it with what the source said. (The complainant to please remind me which policy did I violate by doing so?)
  • 02:22, 9 July 2016. allegedly. I added the word allegedly which was supported by BBC. (yes, BBC! What's wrong in that when Kuatilya himself has used blogs and Baloch propaganda website frequently to build the article?)
  • 02:28, 9 July 2016. expand per source already used. I added "separatist fighter" by REUSING the source already used by Kuatilya3 (wonder why would he miss it at the first place).
  • 05:32, 9 July 2016. Got a blanket revert by Kuatilya3 alongwith a vague reason.
  • 14:30, 9 July 2016. Removal of sourced content. Did you even read the source? Stop pushing your POV. The ONLY revert that I had made to Kuatilya3. Prior to this revert, I also commented on the talk page. How else does WP work?
Now, everybody is welcome to point out where did I go wrong so that I may improve myself. If not, WP:BOOMERANG will be in order.
  • Regarding this 4 July 2016. One, how can a post about an RfC concerning Pakistan at WP:WikiProject Pakistan be termed 'Canvassing'? I seriously object to Kautilya3's poor choice of words. Two, I had genuinely thought of posting the same to WP:WikiProject India but didnt do it as the issue related to Balochistan and Pakistan. A Pakistani province (unlike Kashmir which is disputed) had no direct link with India, but may be I should have done it because the discussion did involve India. This was my first such post at Country Project Pages so I was unaware of the procedures, and if the Admins think I should have posted the same to WP:WikiProject India, I apologise for not doing it as a genuine mistake.
  • 8 May 2016. This is no diff. Just a facade. But allow me to explain what Kautilya3 wants to say:
Balochistan conflict has contentiously been infested with socks, particularly DarknessShines2, a notorious sockmaster. Just see how his socks have made POV edits at the page and opened up discussions which were fervently supported by Kautilya3:
  • The same sock then again caused disruption which was again supported by Kautilya3 which again led to a lengthy discussion namely "Edits by Freedom Mouse aka Darknesshines". Later, when the second sock got banned the discussion ended with a consensus against Kautilya3.
All these sock-edits were being diligently supported and fueled by Kautilya3. He even removed longstanding content on sock's suggestion and prolonged the discussion until the sock was banned and Future Perfect at Sunrise hatted the entire discussion.
That was me alone Vs 3 x socks and Kuatiliya3 and yet he cannot point out a single policy that I actually violated during the entire discourse. What does this say about me? Am I the bad guy here or the one reporting me? I fight 3 x socks, its supporters, follow polices, the socks then get banned and WP stays as it was before socking, and this is the reward I get in return? Can anyone deny that I wasnt fighting socks or that they werent banned during the discussion or that I upheld WP as a project? I am seriously getting tired of my efforts here. The bottomline here seems that if you fight socks, it's you who would get blocked even though you dont violate any policy but just give lots of diffs for people like Kuatiliya3 to quote here randomly while the socks who doesnt care for a block and its supporters go around disrupting WP.
Now, if challenging socks/vandals all while remaining within WP polices and following WP:BRD is wrong, please penalize me. But if I was able to prevent socks from disrupting WP without edit-warring and by participating in ALL the discussions and by following WP:BRD then why Kautilya3 is accusing me of doing 'seven reverts' i.e. digging up my entire history and cherry-picking random reverts that I might have made?
The real question here should be that why a guy who prevented socks from disrupting WP is being reported by the same editor who have been in support of these socks, and has been let scot-free?
  • Topic ban: I was topic banned a year from now (not 6 months). That's history. No need to bring it up over and again. I have improved, changed and my edit-history is a proof. By posting links to the topic ban thrice, Kautilya3, what were you trying to gain?
  • AE's: Just a way to divert attention. Last time, even the editor who reported me was about to get Boomeranged until he had to apologize and withdraw his AE report against me for the report being frivolous and false. I guess, had it actually boomeranged, things could have been simpler.

Re Regentspark: Sir, I do agree with you and will surely try to follow your advice. I cant help but mention that this is what I already have been doing - trying to gain consensus constructively by positively engaging with the involved parties including the socks. Surely, per your advice, I will try to improve if there's any shortcoming. No argument on that. As for the socks, well sir, if an info was not allowed to stay in the article previously, it means that there's been a consensus not to include it at some point in the past. Now, using socks to push it again wont solve the matter, nor would it automatically mean that the edit become legit because a sock is repeatedly trying to push it. Not unless fresh evidence is presented which may change the consensus, and I am all for it. Legit edits dont require socks to add them. That's what is observed in remaining Indo-Pak conflict pages. The rules regarding usage of sources were set by Kuatilya himself, and he alone cant selectively follow part of those rules, reject the other part that does not suit him, and then change the rules altogether when other editors try following them in letter and spirit. Thanks.

  • I think Kautilya3 misunderstood The Wordsmith's advice against casting aspersions and that's why he has continued with his mudslinging unabated by even reusing the same diffs that he has already provided for like an umpteenth times. Or may be, his fresh aspersions against me were precisely due the same unbending, churlish attitude Kautilya3 have been displaying that have caused so much disruption on Indo-Pak topic area. I'll leave this for the worthy Admins to decide.
  • I also dont understand how and why is Kautilya3 drawing a comparison between me and other editors, while at the same time he also displays his 'holier than thou' attitude and his ample 'magnanimity' for not asking a topic-ban or some other punishment for editors X, Y or Z during his other conflicts. This misunderstood sense of superiority over other editors and authoritative behavior as if he sits at some higher pedestal among the hierarchy of WP coupled with the false understanding of being perfect and someone who can never go wrong is the actual cause of this commotion and the sole reason behind his impossible justifications which are nationalistic and which he often retracts once confronted. Someone with such an attitude who also provides refuge to chronic socks makes it almost impossible for other editors to constructively engage with them.
  • Lastly, his comments about my contributions to WP is a textbook example of WP:NPA. Who made him the judge to decide that editors who only contribute a certain percentage of content to articles are the only legit editors? Going by his understanding, editors who only add/remove categories, only correct spelling/grammatical mistakes in articles, fix syntax, fight vandalism, prevent sock disruption etc should all be banned from WP, right? My contributions to WP are well documented in my edit-history and seriously I dont require any certification from someone. Speaking truly, it is precisely because of the refuge that editors like Kuatilya provide to chronic sockers which he then also uses to further his POV that editors like myself and those named by him above are unable to contribute much content to WP. One can only do so much in fighting vandalism, preventing sponsored socks from disrupting WP and contributing content. After all, editing WP is not my day job. I take WP as a hobby and apart from building it, preventing it from disruption goes along with my editing experience. That's what we all do at WP, dont we?
  • IBAN: I'll abide by what the worthy admins decide, but what remedy will be there to prevent Kuatilya from willfully/knowingly own chronic socks, barring him for assisting socks in airing their views, comment and actually edit indirectly through him despite being universally banned, and stopping him from using these socks/edits as a cover to push POV, which infact was the main reason behind what had ensued here?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:14, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by TopGun

I commented on the last TripWire AE and generally know most users/socks and disputes in this topic area so the admins might benefit from my views on this. I've been following three sets of socks closely and trying to get them blocked for a year now: [21] [22] [23]. All three of them are disruptive, persistent and try to create this kind of mess each time they return. Unfortunately, there are not many active editors who recognize them and by the time I or another experienced editor report them, the victim articles are under complicated disputes. The balochistan conflict topic area is facing the exact same situation. To add to the fuel, Kautilya3 has demonstrated that he wants to assume responsibility of all edits of socks (in wholesale) as he said here. This can not be done without him having to clear WP:BURDEN instead of asking others to do so and is an issue per se as well. The Darkness Shines sock was just blocked after my report and his threads were hatted (as it happened in his previous attempts at disrupting the same article)... however the same is happening here with the dispute dragging on and Kautilya3 taking up the dispute. It's over and there's no need to drag it and if an editor thinks another user is not agreeing to their arguments, it's the basic right of an editor to participate in consensus in that way as far as they are civil and WP:DRN exists to resolve that to form a clearer consensus as already pointed out by an NeilN at the end of that discussion, not AE. If the traveling circus continues even after the sock is blocked, their purpose is achieved.

  • Furthermore, notifying WP:PAK is not canvassing. This was established at this proposal that was infact made by me: Wikipedia_talk:Canvassing/Archive 5#Canvassing Country / Nation level Wikiprojects. If I, even being the proposer of a policy against such notices, can accept that consensus is against terming such notices canvassing, it should be easy for others to follow. WP:PAK is infact the right venue to notify per consensus. Canvassing would have been posting talkpage messages to select editors.
  • This report is not as complicated as it seems and has been plagued with sock disruption which is common in this topic area.
  • Both editors should be recommended to go to WP:DRN and if they can not resolve their issues by discussion, I would recommend a simple interaction ban where both can edit the article(s), participate in RFCs, discuss on talkpage (not with each other) but not interact with each other, reverting/reporting each other or edit parts of an article edited by each other. We need to get rid of reporting editors for the sake of reporting so add to this ban any other editors who are bent on wasting every one's time here at AE.

--lTopGunl (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Bharatiya29

TripWire's behavior at Talk:Balochistan conflict has been disturbing. He has constantly tried to block any attempts at making the article neutral and has objected to the addition of those contents which are not in agreement to Pakistan government's POV. The article has a section dedicated to Pakistan's allegations on India of supporting Baloch separatist groups. When I have tried to mention Baloch group's denial of this allegation, TripWire reverted me just because he maintains that the group is not reliable since it has been declared as a terrorist organisation by Pakistan government (although he hasn't cited any third-party sources to prove this). TripWire also seems to have an unfounded assumption that Indian media constitute Indian propaganda. His sole motive here is to confine WP to the views of the Pakistan government and he has argued against all other editors asking for NPOV.. Bharatiya29 13:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to TripWire's comments:What’s more disturbing than pushing a nationalistic POV? I never said that only third-party sources should be used; rather I have always said that the views of all the stakeholders should be mentioned with due weightage. Would you please explain to me that what does the Indian government have to do with interviews of notable Baloch nationalists by independent media houses? If you are really convinced that all the Indian media coverage is influenced by the Indian government then you must prove your point. I have repeatedly told you that the fact that Pakistan has declared BSO as a terrorist organisation is not enough to prove its non-reliability. Bharatiya29 08:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to TripWire's new comments:I have never said that only third-party sources should be used, instead statements by all the parties should also be given space. You should know that even if Karima Baloch is not notable as an individual, she is the chairperson of an involved party, and that is what makes her statement worth mentioning. I am being forced to discuss about all these stuff here since you are accusing me of having an biased approach. The discussion here is regarding your behavior, and so this was the last time I responded to your baseless allegations. Bharatiya29 15:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SheriffIsInTown

Being an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is about fact telling and should be about fact telling. It should not be used for political propaganda. Using an encyclopedia for political propaganda defies its purpose of being an encyclopedia. Kautilya3's editing has been nothing but political propaganda. He tries to find less than encyclopedic information which suits his POV and adds it to encyclopedia. He calls founder of a nation as "internet beast", a clear indication that he personally considers him a villain for pursuing to create modern day boundaries in South Asia. He also at one point said that he does not recognize modern day boundaries in South Asia and it seems like his edits are more centric towards an undivided South Asia. Not recognizing the present day boundaries in South Asia makes the region look like the map in Akhand Bharat article where there is no other country except India in South Asia. Going in with that state of mind and editing a contentious topic area such as WP:ARBIPA can only create neutrality issues. Neutral editors like TripWire are needed to ensure that articles are not sidetracked by editors who display such political prejudice. If we will start banning editors like TripWire who did not violate any principle set forth in WP:ARBIPA but only challenged less than neutral edits of Kautilya3 who clearly displayed political prejudice at several times in their editing then we will only make Wikipedia, a non-neutral politically motivated information portal which is not what an encyclopedia should be. If anyone who deserves to be topic-banned from WP:ARBIPA is Kautilya3 and not TripWire. I am not sure if these findings can call for a Boomerang but if they do then I will suggest one against the nom. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by D4iNa4

Report is legit and action is necessary, since TripWire came off from a topic ban just some months ago, he had to be more careful but he is not. D4iNa4 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

@Lord Roem: IBANs just create more drama, as is nowadays frequently noted at ANI. Such a remedy will achieve absolutely nothing here. I could have predicted where this will end up even before TripWire's previous sanction and I really shouldn't have to spell it out: sooner or later they will be indef'd, unfortunately. And if there is blame to be attached to Kautilya then any remedy should be proportionate, bearing in mind the concept of first "offence".

I think you (all commenting admins) might benefit from giving NeilN some time to respond as they're relatively familiar with the subject matter and the participants (both those specifically named here and more generally in the context of South Asian articles). - Sitush (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

And this comment from TripWire after my message above says it all. If they think Kautliya is tag-teaming/meatpuppeting then they need to prove it, and ditto for the ludicrous claim that K is socking - WP:SPI is >>>> thataway. It is demonstrative of the battleground and nationalist-centric position that TW adopts and it needs to stop. Just do that topic ban, please, and if deemed necessary then give K a slap. - Sitush (talk) 00:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning TripWire

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The last time an Enforcement request was made against TripWire, it was dismissed as frivolous and was about to boomerang when another admin allowed the filing party to withdraw. This one is more complicated. As I am not an expert in India-Pakistan relations, I'll reserve judgment until some other editors and admins weigh in and hopefully offer more context. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @TripWire: Your statement is far beyond the limit. Please refactor for length, or hat unnecessary parts. Thank you, The WordsmithTalk to me 21:53, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm going to leave this to someone else to judge but TripWire should note that reinstating edits made by sockpuppets is perfectly valid and repeatedly invoking the fact that the edits were originally made by a sock is not constructive. At some point, you need to accept that there is support for that content and get down to the business of seeking consensus in good faith. If this closes with no action, I urge TripWire to constructively engage in the compromise discussion or resort to dispute resolution where sources can be evaluated, npov can be judged, and consensus wording hammered out. It is true that this area is plagued by socks and that their presence is disruptive, but that should not be used as an excuse to avoid a consensus seeking discussion. --regentspark (comment) 15:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've rescued this from premature archiving. The diffs I see here could be interpreted as tendentious editing, but they could also be seen as good faith efforts to improve these articles. I'm far from an expert in this topic area, so I'm unable to decisively determine which. The rhetoric from editors on both sides of the nationalistic conflict further obfuscate the matter. That being said, I don't see anything that rises anywhere near the level of making a block or topic ban necessary. My instinct is that it would be best if TripWire were admonished for tendentiousness, and works to be more careful in the future. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
  • After reading the walls of text here and on my talkpage, plus the copious diffs presented, it is clear that there is a huge problem in this topic area. The battleground mentality is pervasive, and nobody here has entirely clean hands. Something obviously has to be done. However, I'm not convinced that handing out a few topic bans will actually solve anything, and there are a number of editors who have terrible attitudes but nonetheless contribute quality content. I'm thinking that we need to get more creative with Discretionary Sanctions than we ordinarily do. I'm not sure what the exact solution is, but I'm thinking something along the lines of a topic-wide ban on casting aspersions. There is also precedent for a civility parole placed on individual editors, with varying results. I would rather not have to go there, but I won't hesitate if I think it necessary. Before actually enacting anything, I'd like input from some other AE admins. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:14, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I've taken the time to go through this as well. I'm with The Wordsmith on their hesitation for a new topic ban here, but I do like TopGun's suggestion for an interaction ban. This would allow Kautilya3 and TripWire to edit the content in dispute and seek content dispute resolution while cutting off an aspect of their editing which is disruptive. If tendentious editing continues after a sanction like that, I'd then come to the conclusion that a topic ban is necessary. I'd like to hear The Wordsmith (talk · contribs)'s views on this idea before implementing it. As for your proposed civility/casting aspersions restriction, I personally would prefer a more focused remedy than something topic-wide, at least at this point. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    I would be willing to give a more conventional two-way IBAN a try. We can always revisit the civility parole idea if necessary (and I'm sure this topic area will be back at AE again), there's no need to be hasty to impose an old restriction that hasn't been tried in years until the conventional means have been exhausted. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:43, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    Definitely. I'll hold this open for another day to see if there's additional feedback from other admins or the editors involved. Otherwise, I'll close this with a two-way IBAN under the usual parameters: "banned from all interaction, undoing each others edits, making reference to or comment on each other, replying to each other in any discussion, editing each others user talk space, or filing ANI or AE reports about each other except to clarify or abolish this interaction ban or to report violations of the interaction ban." Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Pinged here. While I'll be on here, it will be only for short stretches of time. I might be able to go through this in the next day. --NeilN talk to me 21:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Ping response. I'm not a big fan of IBANs because they end up creating more drama than is good for Wikipedia, especially when the editors in question overlap in editing interests. I'm busy in real life and cannot look into this in detail but, and this is in extension of what I've said above, it does seem to me that Kautilya3 has been making a good faith attempt to seek a consensus solution while TripWire has been stonewalling (re the discussion on 'compromises' in Talk:Balochistan conflict). The easiest short term suggestion is to topic ban TripWire from Balochistan related articles for a brief period (3 months) and put both editors on an aspersion restriction (no commenting that any editor is biased or has a nationalistic pov). I implemented an aspersion restriction on Kashmir conflict related articles which worked well there (though it seems to have driven the problem into other areas) and making it a blanket restriction may not be a bad idea. --regentspark (comment) 00:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • The aspersion restriction is an interesting idea, RegentsPark. How did you phrase that in the past? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 05:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
  • To preserve my sanity I refuse to admin or edit in this area but I think RP's suggestion on the aspersion restriction is probably the best way to go and it should be applied to any and all articles in the India-Pakistan conflict area. The text of that is in this diff. —SpacemanSpiff 05:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Debresser

TH1980

David Tornheim

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

Request concerning David Tornheim

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
David Tornheim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Discretionary_Sanctions

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#1RR_imposed

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 

David has previously been warned multiple times at ANI and by admins for battleground, edit warring, aspersions about COI, and general tendentiousness:

  1. Warned March 2015 at ANI of a block for battleground behavior in GMOs with another ANI a week later.
  2. Warned Feb. 2016 by Spartaz.
  3. Warned May 2016 by Laser brain.
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Battleground

  • Taken to Jimbo Wales talk page to rant and cast aspersions with the talk section labeled Monsanto must be pleased while opening talk sections on this non-content discussion at article pages.[54][55]
  • In the midst of doling out battleground and aspersion comments, they also accuse editors of not trying to work with them [56] (i.e. WP:POT).
  • Often refers to editors as "pro-industry" as a vague aspersion as part of the battleground mentality even in their responses below.

Edit warring and WP:DRNC

1RR was imposed in this topic, and arbs mentioned that WP:GAMING of it should be handled by DS. That sanction was meant not only to allow quick action on simple violations, but crack down on long-term edit warring behavior that doesn't explicitly cross 1RR.

David very often reverts basically demanding in edit summaries that material cannot be changed without their approval even when they don't attempt to open up initial talk page discussion on it, which runs entirely against WP:DRNC.(just need to read edit summaries here)[57][58][59][60] However, when it comes to David's own edits, they pull a full 180 and try to edit war content back in they are already aware didn't have consensus such as this string (some intermediate edits not included).[61][62][63]

A recent example of this pettiness is at Atrazine. A new editor added a few wikilinks,[64] but also added one to a reference title that I removed while leaving the others in the body. [65] David again resorted to a revert and ask questions later approach, but was quickly reverted by another editor reiterating that wikilinks in reference templates are problematic.[66] In the meantime, David took to the article talk page to cast aspersions towards me because the specific edit I reverted had a somewhat ranty edit summary[67] rather than David focusing on the extremely minor content issue at hand of ref formatting.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on September 2015.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

After patiently trying to work with David Tornheim in the GMO topic for years now, it appears they cannot edit in the topic calmly without engaging in WP:BATTLEGROUND that only serves to agitate the topic. A lot of this has not been single acute events easily dealt with at AE, but persistent under the radar sniping, etc (also quickly hit the maximum diff and word space because of it). This has become especially pronounced after the admin-moderated RfC closed where their behavior has continued inflaming the topic while other editors try to focus on content and keep things civil. I'm at a minimum (i.e., WP:ROPE) suggesting a 0RR restriction for David to reduce at least some of their behavior issues, but I'll leave it to others to discuss how to address the larger battleground behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments on aspersions towards me at this AE
:There are a number of aspersions below by involved editors towards me I cannot address entirely due to the word limit (this will ideally be my last comment with that in mind unless admins ask for more clarification). However, I will remind reviewing admins that at Arbcom, we specifically drafted this principle: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. This especially applies to accusations of being paid by a company to promote a point of view (i.e., a shill) or similar associations and using that to attack or cast doubt over the editor in content disputes.[68] It was passed so admins at AE could crack down on this behavior instead of passing it back to ArbCom. AE is where the buck needs to stop, and the principle needs to be enforced rather than encouraging editors to continue these aspersions. Enforcing it will reduce this situation of editors creating a toxic atmosphere and then turning around and accusing the editors trying to work with all of that of battleground behavior.
In fact, I actually drafted that part of the language in large part because of evidence at Arbcom that EllenCT would follow me around to boards casting aspersions exactly like below and blatantly misrepresent me when I explained how I actually used the source in question even though they are fully aware there characterization of me below is false, directly calling me a paid shill, etc.[69] The fact that EllenCT is still doubling down this after being warned at ANI and having the Arbcom principle passed in concerning, but I'm not going to engage that further for now since this particular AE is about David Tornheim's behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
@The Wordsmith: I overall like your sanction idea over a broad topic ban (it would also work if we ever get people casting aspersions about the parallel organic industry too). Whether it's a warning or this sanction, more severe sanctions are expected if an editor continues problem behavior after either instance, so I'm curious how this would functionally differ from yet another (would-be-4th) warning. Just procedural things for admins to mull over, but I'm hopeful it will cut out this toxic behavior that has persisted after the RfC. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[70]

Discussion concerning David Tornheim

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

Statement by David Tornheim

Notice of Appeal and Stay of Proposed Decision

I have filed two actions at WP:ARCA regarding this case (action 1,action 2). The first case is a request of a STAY of the Proposed Decision below.

--David Tornheim (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Old Introduction

No surprise here. King has long sought sanctions for me. I am not alone, King and Tryptofish are constantly asking editors to be sanctioned for pointing out or challenging pro-industry POV edits. This constant push from these two started at GMO ArbCom and picked up ([71] [72]) right after Jytdog was topic banned from GMOs (e.g. against Prokaryotes (here), Wuerzele [73], Vergilden [74], Minor4th [75], DrChrissy [76], SageRad [77], Petrarchan47, etc.). Yet, King files here saying I have the WP:Battleground mentality. His first diffs are from a year ago where Jytdog was harassing me for standing up to his behavior that has been so aggressive that he has been indef. blocked.

King cannot stand when I point out pro-industry edits that remove well sourced RS. When I recently pointed out his editing habits here, one of the closing admins said that his edits "twisted" the result of the RfC [78], yet he continued [79]. Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning [80].

If it doesn't conform with the industry view, King identifies the source as "fringe" to justify removal from articles:

  • GMO labeling is "fringe" and "psuedoscientific":
"We really don't even need to give the viewpoint the time of day in this article (GMO food), so there's no reason to bring it up." [81]
  • Precautionary Principle and GMO [82]
  • Intellectual property rights [83]
  • Regulations on GMOs abroad [84]
Example contracted to reduce word count

Example:

  • Original: "studies found a conflict of interest to research outcomes."
  • King's revision: "Other concerns include research outcomes being affected by general conflict of interest, but there is no evidence of study outcomes being affected specifically by financial conflict of interest." [85]
  • Abstract: "While financial conflict of interest alone did not correlate with research results (p = 0.631), a strong association was found between author affiliation to industry (professional conflict of interest) and study outcome (p < 0.001)."

This filing is retribution for shedding light on pro-industry editing [86].

--David Tornheim (talk) 23:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


Casting Aspersions

WP:NPOV is policy.

The "Casting aspersions" sanction is being used here to prevent anyone from raising issues of edits that violate the WP:NPOV policy, if the POV edit favors industry. Unacceptable.

King even admits he wrote the sanction to keep people from calling attention to his editing.

This logic of "casting aspersions" appears to be:

(1) if editor X claims that editor Y makes an edit that favors industry, then
(2) editor X is *always* wrong for saying so, even if the edit favors industry.
(3) editor Y's edit need not be reviewed to see if it is pro-industry.
(4) We must assume good faith that no edits are ever pro-industry or lack WP:NPOV.
(5) calling an edit pro-industry implies the editor is paid by industry or a "shill"

I hope it is obvious such logic makes it impossible to address pro-industry POV issues.

Item (5) ignores other explanations:

  • We cannot infer motivation of anonymous editors. I did not ascribe motivation; I showed evidence of POV with diffs.
  • Does an American Zionist's pro-Israeli edits imply payment from Israel?

Now, Can anyone look at my diffs above and with a straight face say those edits are not pro-industry?

--David Tornheim (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hiatus

Per Lord Roem's request, I started 1 week break from GMO article/talk page editing. Tryptofish who talks about WP:battleground below continues. [87] --David Tornheim (talk) 00:13, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EllenCT

I have not edited on these topics for at least a year, until today, but I strongly approve of David Tornheim's recent work on the issue. I am a proponent of genetic engineering, which I see as no different in principle than animal husbandry and crop hybridization, but I am opposed to the present commercial situation where rampant consolidation has led to monoculture issues in agriculture instead of robust competition between seed producers.[88][89][90]

My primary issue is with Kingofaces43. My first interaction with this editor was in asking his opinion of the most reliable WP:MEDRS-grade source on the relationship between bee population decline and neonicotinoid insecticides. He responded with Fairbrother, et al (2014) "Risks of neonicotinoid insecticides to honeybees", which is not a comprehensive literature review, and the meager review it includes is not on the title's topic. In fact, it includes only a short review of very select sources on, "guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees" -- not at all on the risks themselves. The paper says, "Funding for the development of this manuscript was provided by Bayer CropScience Ag Research Division." Bayer CropScience is the largest producer of neonicotinoid insecticides. Kingofaces43 has never explained why he considered that the most reliable source on the topic, saying, "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies, it's the content that needs to be addressed." [91] But he never addressed the fact that the review was not on the title's topic, and has since joined attacks on me at every opportunity, even when they pertained to areas that he has never edited on.

It is obvious that Monsanto engages in coordinated and sustained efforts to astroturf.[92] I recommend sanctions against those who try to censor contrary efforts.

Reply to Tryptofish
@Tryptofish: I am not stating or trying to imply that Kingofaces43 is personally editing on behalf of Monsanto. The evidence I have presented stands by itself. I note that he claims on his user page to be employed working on pesticides. I do not understand his perspective on these issues, and I have even less understanding of yours. EllenCT (talk) 21:58, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Response to Kingofaces43
I withdraw my comment from September 2015 regarding being convinced Kingofaces43 was a paid shill at [93]. I stand by the remainder of the statement, and until an explanation is forthcoming, I remain very suspicious of the possibility. Perhaps if Kingofaces43 didn't show up to demand sanctions against me every time anyone else has ever complained about me, especially regarding topics on which Kingofaces43 has never edited, I would likely feel considerably less hounded. EllenCT (talk) 04:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Jusdafax

It is my strong belief that David Tornheim is not the problem editor here. In brief, any careful examination of the edit histories of his detractors show an obsession with the GMO topic, and with creating an environment which is toxic to anyone who questions their methods. I'm hoping this clear overreach by the filing party will make it obvious that we are dealing with a case of tendentious editing, per WP:TEND. Again, just looking at a few diffs is insufficient, what needs to be considered is the larger pattern. I thank all Arbs and admins considering my statement. Jusdafax 19:56, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

  • I see both The Wordsmith and Laserbrain are commenting in the "uninvolved admins" section. The content aside, I ask that they remove the comments at once, and if they fail to do so that a truly uninvolved administrator redact their comments. Again, these two admins are hardly uninvolved, despite claims to the contrary. Jusdafax 19:17, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I see that David has pinged, at User talk:Coffee, all of the administrators who were involved in supervising or closing the GMO RfC, [94], and that's a good thing. I'll add a ping to Laser brain, whom he overlooked. I suggest that any decision here should wait for their input.

David cited a diff by one of those admins (KrakatoaKatie). I'd like to add a diff of what I said in response at the time: [95].

I see editors seem to be saying that Kingofaces is editing on behalf of Monsanto, or at least strongly implying it. It would be helpful if they would actually present evidence to back those accusations up. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

David has added a diff for his statement that "Even Tryptofish said King's edits were concerning": [96]. I urge administrators to see what I actually said there: I wasn't criticizing King, but rather trying to reach out to David after the RfC in what I hope you will agree was a friendly and well-meaning way. (I ended up reverting it, by the way.) Here is how David responded to me the next day: [97], [98]. And what's "Even Tryptofish" about (rhetorical question)? And David says that I'm always trying to get other editors sanctioned, which is strange given that just a few days ago I posted this here: [99]. When I saw this AE filed, I didn't want to escalate it, because I hoped that things would calm down, but seeing what David is continuing to say about me, I've brought up these things that have, indeed, been bothering me. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:09, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, with each passing day the GMO thing is getting more and more battlefield-y. Now, from EllenCT: [100]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
For Admins who want to look at pages where disputes are most active at the moment (besides Jimbo's talk), I think it's Genetically modified food controversies and Kevin Folta. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

I think this post by EllenCT goes beyond aspersions, into a direct personal attack: [101]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

In saying he is taking a hiatus, David also said that he thinks I'm battlegrounding, but I do not understand what he means, because he only linked to my contributions, not anything in particular. Does he mean that I've made edits? I don't think there's anything problematic about the edits that I made. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Random IP

I stumbled onto this page from Jimbo's page. The pro-monsanto person that made the initial complaint wrote 900 words and (by my rough count) 32 diffs. The top of the section says he's supposed to keep it to less than 500 words and less than 20 diffs. 209.197.171.107 (talk) 02:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by KrakatoaKatie

My involvement here begins and ends with closing the RFC. I agreed to help close it because this is not a subject area in which I have any edits and no history of enforcement in the area (to my knowledge and recollection). I fail to understand, however, how the RFC can be interpreted to delete or add additional text other than what was agreed to by consensus over a month of discussion.

The results of the RFC now need to be enforced by uninvolved administrators, and I have no desire or plans to comment further in this AE request or in the GMO area. Katietalk 15:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Capeo

It's long past time David be topic banned from GMOs and Monsanto and anything related. As he states on his user page, he's an activist in the real world and taken part in many anti-industry campaigns. That activism has now firmly found its way into his editing as shown by King's diffs where he's soap boxing the same stuff in multiple places. Similar behavior was displayed during the recent GMO RFC where kept posting the same arguments in multiple areas of the talk page. The same arguments he's posted above, that confuse regulation with scientific research, which most editors clearly didn't find compelling. That fact didn't stop the bludgeoning. Capeo (talk) 16:22, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis

I think we should take a conservative attitude when considering intervening to deal with less than ideal ways of arguing. I'm mostly against the arguments of the anti-GM movement, they do make some valid points, but on most issues I disagree with the political stance taken in Europe against GM-foods. The way David argues can have some tabloid-like elements in it, ArbCom may have ruled that this isn't actually allowed. However, in principle, it's better to let the community itself correct someone who steps a bit over the line and steer that person back toward presenting his/her arguments in an acceptable way. It's best to only intervene when such feedback doesn't work and what we see is a degeneration in the topic area due to the contributions of that person. I don't think that's the case here.

E.g. the thread title used on Jimbo's talk page may not be ideal when judged by rigorous standards, it's not something you can use in a scientific paper, but it's not all that untypical for tabloid style newspapers. So, it is actually within the editorial standards of how people in daily lives like to communicate. The scientific nature of this topic also adds an extra layer of protection. The community has already decided to apply strict guidelines that give priority to scientific articles, this automatically creates a solid wall protecting the topic area from degenerating due to bad arguments. If this were a political topic without a hard scientific core, e.g. Scientology, or Israel/Palestine, then one has to be far more proactive in intervening to prevent the editing in the subject area from degenerating. Count Iblis (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Laser brain: I agree that one should intervene using sanctions where necessary, but don't underestimate the positive effects of a minor infraction triggering a response from the community like this response by Jimbo Wales, this can work better than imposing a sanction. Count Iblis (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cathry

I read David Tornheim's propоsals in the last RFC(GMO). As for me it was detailed analysis with reference to the reliable sources. I was very disappointed when any sources from peer-reviewd journals with criticism were simply ignored by community. Just as was ignored last scientific review on this topic by toxicologist (Domingo, 2016)

As to Kingofaces43 I was faced with his behavior here when he without a rational explanation moved significant data from lead and here when he stated that it is "original research" to compare 64%-101% and 23%-33% (protective impact of conventional and GM soybean) and that "the actual percentages are undue weight (simply not needed information for our audience)". Despite the fact comparison was in other source. As far as I see, I am not only one who noticed Kingofaces43 non-neutrality. Personally I'm not very interested in Kingofaces43 motives. But it is obvious for me, Kingofaces43 edits pull topic into biotechnology and pesticides advertising, especially it they continue without balance from editors like David Tornheim.Cathry (talk) 02:27, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning David Tornheim

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Sigh I was hoping the RfC would solve these issues, but it seems I was wrong. There have been multiple editors on all sides of this topic area behaving poorly for quite a while. I would really rather not have to topic ban anyone; most people involved here contribute good content. Still, something needs to be done and I doubt admonishments will achieve anything. I'd rather find another option that has more surgical precision. I'm going to continue researching this dispute and try to find another path. Other admins are welcome to chime in. The WordsmithTalk to me 18:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm disappointed that this topic is now being prosecuted on Jimbo's talk page, and I'm unclear about the motivations for doing so. He rightly pointed out that the statements that Monsanto is "pleased" and that this filing is retaliatory are unhelpful. I believe they indicate continued battleground us-versus-them mentality in this domain. I'm likewise disappointed that involved editors continue to be comfortable labeling each other's edits as "fringe", "pseudoscience", "pro-industry", etc. The continued insinuations that editors are involved with or motivated by Monsanto are very troubling, and if anything requires sanctions, it's that behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 18:41, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Count Iblis: I don't want to see anyone sanctioned, and I share the sentiment expressed by The Wordsmith just above that I was hoping this wouldn't appear here again (the heavy "sigh" as well). However, I'm quite fed up with this practice of bringing up Monsanto's financial interests and implying that some editors are so-aligned. ArbCom was quite clear that such accusations were not to be made without evidence, so David and EllenCT (currently) and others (in the past) are trying to shimmy around it by name-dropping Monsanto in the vicinity of editors' names and then walking away whistling with their hands in their pockets like nothing happened. --Laser brain (talk) 19:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    How about crafting a sanction along the lines of "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed"? The wording would probably need to be tweaked, and maybe some exception for specifically discussing article content (you can't edit Monsanto if you can't talk about the actions of Monsanto), but I'm thinking something like this might be applicable to multiple editors and could cut out the aspersions without issuing a heavyhanded ban. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    @NeilN, Lord Roem, Coffee, Newyorkbrad, and EdJohnston: Pinging recently active AE admins to offer counsel on the best way to move forward. The WordsmithTalk to me 04:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    @Jusdafax: I have a hard time believing you're not familiar with WP:INVOLVED, but please note that The Wordsmith and I have dealt with this topic only in an administrative capacity and are therefore uninvolved. Familiarity != involvement. --Laser brain (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    One could argue that Jusdafax's comment is blatant aspersion-casting, no? Making unsupported accusations about other editors? The WordsmithTalk to me 20:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
    It seems that way, yes, and I'm awaiting his response to Seraphimblade's comment below. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jusdafax: You have, in this request, accused two administrators of inappropriately acting while involved. This is a serious accusation, and without any evidence, constitutes casting aspersions. Please either provide your evidence for this claim, or retract it. This similarly applies to anyone else who is participating in this request—if you are going to accuse other editors of misconduct, you must present evidence to support your accusation. Seraphimblade Talk to me 20:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Got pinged, so I took a look at all the statements to wrap my head around this. I'm of a similar mind with The Wordsmith: I don't think a topic ban would be helpful here. Your suggestion of a restriction on discussing motivations is interesting, but I wonder how enforceable it'd be in practice. Also, it seems like it could be easily circumvented? I'd need to really see some specific wording on that, though I'm open-minded on innovative solutions here. At this point though, I feel tossing out a tban would be handling this with too blunt an instrument. There's certainly battleground behavior here and if it continues after the discussions spurred by this AE request, I'd then be open to imposing a short-term ban. Right now? Everyone needs to chill, take a step back. It wouldn't be a bad idea for all involved to voluntarily edit in other areas for a week to let things cool off. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    The ideal enforcement would be escalating blocks if broken, and the "broadly construed" should take care of gaming. "Civility parole" and ideas similar to it were popular 8-10 years ago, and were successful more often than not. My draft wording would be "X is indefinitely prohibited from discussing the potential motivations of Wikipedia editors, as well as the actions of corporations or persons related to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed. This restriction does not apply to discussing these organizations or persons as part of the normal editorial process for article content. If this restriction is violated , or an attempt is made to game them, any uninvolved administrator may impose a block of up to one week. After repeated infractions, escalating blocks may be used up to six months. All blocks under this restriction are to be logged as a Discretionary Sanction." If it works, it might be worth bringing back for other editors and areas where casting aspersions are common, like ethnic conflict topics. The WordsmithTalk to me 14:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    The more I think about it, the more I'm liking this kind of focused remedy. I'd want to add something in the second part of the restriction, the "as well as the actions of corporations," because as written that might be too broad? My rough read on the policy debate is that there's a dispute as to the legitimacy/illegitimacy of different research on the topic. There's definitely a way to debate that without impugning the character or motivation of other editors. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    A major issue here is that various editors are accusing each other of being paid shills, or just sort of indirectly implying that Monsanto must be manipulating the content, saying another editor's name casually, and claiming they weren't making a specific accusation while the implication was obvious. I'm open to rewording that part if you can think of a better phrasing. The WordsmithTalk to me 16:47, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    I think the restriction on discussing each editor's motivations in and of itself captures that? If someone says 'you obviously support Monsanto' or 'you're an activist and are trying to ruin the research' or whatever, that's already included. Perhaps adding 'on the wiki' into the second part to clarify this is about alleging company manipulation of article content, not a ban on discussing the company itself (because it's obviously going to come up in terms of the actual merits of this debate). Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    My concern is stopping things like this, where for the most part editors aren't mentioned by name but the insinuation is clear. The WordsmithTalk to me 17:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
    Fair enough. What do you think about adding 'on the wiki' (or something like it) to that second phrase? Lord Roem ~ (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The best way to incorporate that, I think, is to change my sample "...as well as the actions of corporations or persons..." to "...as well as Wikipedia-related actions of corporations or persons...". Does that sound better? The WordsmithTalk to me 17:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that works great. I'm on board with your proposed sanction. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree, also. --Laser brain (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Good, that's settled. Now the last question is who to apply the new sanction to. I believe David is the obvious choice, however I think this edit probably merits giving EllenCT a warning for battleground conduct. The diff of her being convinced Kingofaces was a paid shill was over a year ago, plus in Arbcom-space. Stale and out of our jurisdiction (plus retracted), so I see no evidence presented that would justify placing her under the same restriction. Jusdafax was warned by Seraphimblade for aspersions in this very thread, and has not repeated it, so I also don't see any reason to apply it there. Are we in agreement? The WordsmithTalk to me 19:22, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. --Lord Roem ~ (talk) 19:50, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm agreeable to applying the sanction to David and warning EllenCT. --Laser brain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Herr Gruber