Initiated by Nicoljaus at 10:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive281#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Nicoljaus

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive281#Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

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

• Nicoljaus ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• El_C ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Newslinger ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification El_C
• diff of notification Newslinger

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive281#Result of the appeal by Nicoljaus

• Lift or mitigate a topic-ban

Statement by Nicoljaus

In February 2021 I received an indefinite topic ban. My attempt to appeal it ended in failure. Newslinger dismissed my appeal by repeating the unfounded "hounding" charge. The topic ban is formulated in such a way that it covers all areas in which I have ever worked in English Wikipedia [1] and where my contribution can be useful. I ask you to reconsider the appeal and either remove TB or soften it. For example, I can edit and write articles without participating in discussions, with the additional limit of 1RR (which I already have). Well, or let's restrict TB to some really highly controversial topics (most of my edits do not apply to such topics).-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 10:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Ymblanter: Although this really has nothing to do with this appeal, everyone who is not involved should know that the administrator on Russian Wikipedia, who brought me to an indef-block, was as recently as two weeks ago indeffed for the persistent harassment of another person, the administrator and a member of the Russian Arbitration Committee. There is something very serious, and now Trust&Safety is dealing with it [2]. As for my block evasion, I acted on the basis of WP:5P5, but ArbCom acted on solid legal grounds and I respect its decision. So I cleared my watchlist and won't even react to outright vandalism.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 11:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• but also because what isn't unconterversial when it comes to the WP:BALKANS -- Well, let's eliminate them! No edits in articles related to the Balkans, great. What about other articles from "Eastern Europe, broadly construed"? I am looking at my Top edited pages [3]. Medieval Russian history? WWII military operations? I have not had any problems with most of the articles I have worked on, until I met with Ethno-national socks, like those of of Umertan, Crovata and others. Okay, I will not edit articles that have anything to do with Ukraine either, so as not to disturb these Ethno-national socks.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 20:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• It's rather sad to see, El_C, that you are again imposing a distorted perception of my words on everyone, trying to make me look bad, instead of considering the issue of reasonably limiting the topic-ban. I'm talking about specific Umertan dolls [4], there is no "sarcasm" and "passive aggression".-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 03:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• @ Thryduulf: especially if it impacts an area where they are doing good work -- I do not want to seem immodest )) but perhaps you will take a look at these articles I created and say if it was "good work"? [5] (Note: the article 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism was a joint work with Veverve). And beside that, I have made extensive additions to the articles from this list [6]; they all belong to Eastern Europe, one way or another. If you completely remove the articles related to the Balkans (2 out of 20) and Ukraine (3 out of 20), 15 articles will remain. For example, my work in these articles ( 1, 2, 3, 4) seems to me quite good, and there were no any conflicts at all.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 09:27, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Thryduulf: I beg your pardon, I misunderstood. Of course, I did not agree with such a wide topic-ban and wrote about this in my appeal: guys, seriously, what are the problems if I write articles like Dmitry Krasny, Battle of Belyov, Izyum-Barvenkovo Offensive, Alexander Bubnov, 15th–16th century Moscow–Constantinople schism (except for my poor English, of course)? There this issue was not considered in any way. I hoped that this issue would finally be considered by the ArbCom, as it is recommended here: "submit a request for amendment at the amendment requests page ("ARCA")". I took a break, because somewhere I saw that it was possible to dispute the decision no earlier than six months later (but perhaps I got something wrong here). Anyway, thanks for your clarifications, they helped me.-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 12:10, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Well, since El_C has forgotten, I will write briefly how it was. In 2019 in the article Rusyns I met user Miki Filigranski, who began to push fringe or outdated theories about White Croats. In fact, my interest in the Balkans is rather limited - only as a part of the general medieval history (the origin of the Slavs, the Iron Age, etc.) - but I was aware of the current state of research on this matter. This user’s favorite expression in controversy with someone was “blatant lie”, in addition to pushing fringe theories, cherry picking and so on. He did this for years and did not receive any topic-ban until he was indeffed as a sockpuppet of the user Crovata (I did not participate in this in any way). When MF received a short-term block, Mikola22 came to the discussion about the White Croats to support his POV (first under IP, then he registered). It was almost impossible to convince him, and when I reverted his new, non-consensual edits, I got some blocks. Eventually Mikola22 got an indefinite topic ban from WP:ARBEE [7] (I had nothing to do with it either, we haven't crossed paths for over a year).

Much more later, in February 2021, there was a massive campaign against Navalny [8], as a result of which Amnesty even temporarily deprived him of his "prisoner of conscience" status (they soon admitted their mistake and apologized [9]). Precisely at this time, the user Mhorg began to violate WP:BIO - he use unreliable sources (blog posts), directly distort what was written in sources (for example, the "citizens of Georgia" whom Navalny proposed to deport as a measure of non-military pressure on the government of Georgia, Mhorg turned into "ethnic Georgians"), and defiantly ignored WP:BALASP. Such things in articles about a living person is pretty bad, so when I saw this, I tried to do something with this. This campaign was also attended by user PaleSimon, who received an indefinite block a month later (on another topic, I have nothing to do with this, but it's a pity that completely similar behavior in the topic about Navalny did not receive due attention). I cannot say that my actions in this conflict were perfect, but my intentions were honest. There were no "wikihounding" on my part and no one bothered to prove that this "wikihounding", as of "an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance, or distress to the other editor" really took place. And it insults me that the indefinite topic ban was introduced immediately after Mhorg accused me of editing articles "just to annoy him". But these are all past cases, I understand that it is useless to look for some kind of justice here. What I don’t understand: why these episodes lead to a conclusion about my fundamental inability to work specifically on the topic of all "Eastern Europe, broadly construed". And this is the issue that I am asking the arbitration committee to consider. As I see in WP:ARBGUIDE: "Arbitrators focus on the risk and benefits for the future, not on past issues".-- Nicoljaus ( talk) 13:35, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Last I heard from the appellant was about 30 days ago, on Aug 9 —see latest thread on their talk page ( perm link)— where they pinged me in their response to a bot (!). A weird experience. But besides that exchange, they have a total of like 5 contribs post-Feb. So, in so far as demonstrating that they're able to edit okay'ish outside the ban, it just isn't really a thing that they did. El_C 13:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

WTT, I don't see any sense in adjusting the ban at this time, partly per Primefac, but also because what isn't unconterversial when it comes to the WP:BALKANS? I don't mean that rhetorically, I really can't tell. It's possible that pretty much any BALKANS-covered subject carries within it the antecedents of requiring AE support.

As an example, check out my latest protection of Medieval Monuments in Kosovo ( AEL diff). I'll quote myself, as I am fond of doing: Ethno-national sock returns to this rather obscure page. Okay ( RfPP diff). Damn, Cyberbot I is getting plumped on treats! El_C 14:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Quoting Nicoljaus above ( 16:55, 10 Sept): Okay, I will not edit articles that have anything to do with Ukraine either, so as not to disturb these Ethno-national socks. What can I say about that passive-aggressive sarcasm (in their own appeal!) except: more of the same. El_C 18:49, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Nicoljaus, I'd have thought you'd at least be at your best behaviour when before the arbitrators (and for a while, it looked like you were). Either way, I'm happy to leave you to your own devices so as not to disturb whatever it is that you're doing at this point. But if you quote me, don't be shocked when I do the same in response. El_C 04:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Newslinger

Statement by Ymblanter

Whereas it has no direct bearing on the appeal, it is useful for all involved to know that Nicoljaus is blocked indef in the Russian Wikipedia, and the ArbCom rejected their appeal as recently as two weeks ago due to ongoing block evasion [10].-- Ymblanter ( talk) 11:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

Speaking in general terms (I have no opinion about this specific appeal) I think that topic bans should be narrowed only in two circumstances:

1. Immediately or very shortly after it was imposed iff there is consensus that the topic ban was far too broad for the disruption caused, especially if it impacts an area where they are doing good work (e.g. a topic ban from "Eastern Europe, broadly interpreted" would not be appropriate if the disruption was solely related to say Poland-Russia relations but they do good work on articles about European rivers)
2. When the editor has demonstrated good work in topic areas not covered but it is unclear whether they should be permitted back into the area of disruption. In such cases allowing the editor to contribute to the fringe of the area can be a good way to demonstrate reform or otherwise.

Outside of those two situations though, topic bans should be either retained as enacted or removed completely. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:12, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Nicoljaus: you appear to have overlooked the "Immediately or very shortly after it was imposed" part of my comment. If you don't appeal the scope within that timescale it is reasonable to assume you accept it as valid and appropriate, and so to get it narrowed later you need to demonstrate good work in topic areas not covered by the topic ban as imposed. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Mhorg

I intervene here as the user Nicoljaus talked about me and pinged me. Nicoljaus is bringing things into the speech that have nothing to do with his ban:

1. He was not banned for intervening on Navalny's article, but because, following "clashes" on the dissident's discussions page, the user began to target to my old contributions from almost a year before, and did not do it alone, [11] in fact in this AE Request [12], which I opened against User:My very best wishes, I listed what in my opinion were 6 cases of wikihounding against me (the user even began to interfere in discussions on my talk page with other users, and for this he was warned by an administrator [13]), in some of whom Nicoljaus was also involved. Note that I had not opened the AE Request against Nicoljaus (despite an admin had warned him not to cast aspersions against me [14]), but I was only asking him to stop following me along with "My very best wishes".

2. Nicoljaus then, aggressively, even comes to ask me to open an AE Request against him (which I have not done anyway), acting in defense of "My very best wishes". [15]

3. Just to point out that the user has a battleground mentality, he even intervened in a (crazy) SPI against me, [16] opened by "My very best wishes", after 3 months of inactivity [17] only for what seems like a revenge.

Instead, analyzing the way in which he reported the story of the heated debates on Navalny:

1. Precisely at this time, the user Mhorg began to violate WP: BIO - he use unreliable sources (blog posts) For real? The post came from Navalny's official blog, and served to explain precisely what he had stated. Also, Nicoljaus had no problem expanding that part which contradicted what the secondary sources reported (incorrectly), using Navalny's own blog as a source. [18] Inconsistency.

2. directly distort what was written in sources (for example, the" citizens of Georgia "whom Navalny proposed to deport as a measure of non-military pressure on the government of Georgia, Mhorg turned into "ethnic Georgians" It was my translation error, when Nicoljaus pointed it out to me I promptly corrected the part. [19] Nicoljaus is talking about it as if mine was a bad faith act.

3. This campaign was also attended by user PaleSimon, who received an indefinite block a month later I didn't understand why the user wants to associate me with this user PaleSimon (who only released 5 short comments on that discussion page), perhaps Nicoljaus should be reminded that in the same discussion, he was backing User:LauraWilliamson [20], a Gordimalo sockpuppet (and Gordimalo continued the fight in the discussion with an another sockpuppet, Beanom [21]).

I hope not to be forced to intervene again on this topic, despite the desire to tone down, I have already wasted a lot of time in not very constructive discussions with this user.-- Mhorg ( talk) 18:33, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Nicoljaus, indef topic ban: Clerk notes

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

Nicoljaus, indef topic ban: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I would like to hear from others (especially User:El C) regarding the possibility of a "softened" topic ban, but I don't see any reason to overturn the action outright. I also don't particularly see that softening is the right option, but am willing to listen to further opinions. Worm^TT( talk) 14:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thank you El C, I appreciate the thoughts, which tally with my own. I'm also a "no" on this request. Worm^TT( talk) 15:43, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

• This is pretty darn similar to the other open request - a topic ban six months ago with only a half-dozen article/talk edits since then; no indication that the user can be productive outside these areas, which is the whole point of a topic ban. Primefac ( talk) 14:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• DS does not work if the Arbs substitute their judgement for that of the levying admin. So I hesitate to overturn a sanction except if there has been a substantive error in DS policy or it is a WP:ROPE kind of appeal. My analysis of the diffs suggests that there was disruptive behavior aimed at another editor (Mhorg) and that this behavior continued after a clearly worded warning. Nicoljaus does not seem understand why multiple people have reached a similar conclusion which means a sanction remains necessary. So I will not be supporting this appeal. What's not clear to me is if a 1-way interaction ban would have the same effect or if there has been disruptive behavior aimed at other editors that necessitates a topic ban. I throw that question out there for El C to consider but on the whole find the sanctions levied to be not only with-in policy, as a topic ban is an appropriate next step for someone already under a 1RR restriction who causes further issues in an area, but that some sanction was clearly necessary given the evidence. So I am a no on procedure (not sufficient evidence to overturn a DS sanction) and a no on merits (the sanction is a good use of DS given the evidence). Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• I fully agree with what Barkeep49 said. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:42, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agree with Barkeep. -- BDD ( talk) 15:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
• Although it is obviously a minority opinion here (as on the other pending appeal), I'd be willing to narrow the scope of the topic-ban to cover editing on disputes or controversies involving Eastern Europe, rather than any and every article about an entire subcontinent. (After all, we don't typically ban American editors who misbehave while editing about American topics from "all editing about the United States, broadly construed.") Newyorkbrad ( talk) 04:46, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  NYB, we give our uninvolved admins the leeway to make the decision they feel is right on DS. I would need a VERY good reason to modify one. Overturning I can understand, if some requirement was met, but modification just implies that "I wouldn't have done it that way", well - that's the discretion part of DS. Modifying would, in my opinion, do far more damage to confidence in the system than it would benefit anyone. Worm^TT( talk) 08:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  I 100% agree with Worm. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think Barkeep49 and WTT are spot on in their assessments. Modifying sanctions by ArbCom should be limited to cases where the sanction is objectively indefensible in order to for the "D" in "DS" to work. Regards So Why 19:22, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• I can think of only two reasons to modify a topic ban: either it was wrong on it's face when enacted, or the user has successfully demonstrated they can contribute positively by editing in areas outside the bounds of the ban. Neither seem to apply here. It is an unfortunate risk of such sanctions that they do sometimes drive an editor completely off of the project, but we have to consider the community as a whole as well. I would encourage Nicoljaus to find some other area that interests them, something less fraught and emotional, there must be something, and to just ignore this topic area entirely for a while. You may find that editing in a topic area you don't have stong opinions about it a good deal more enjoyable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblebrox ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with WTT, Primefac, and Barkeep49. Maxim_(talk) 14:45, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Initiated by Unicornblood2018 at 06:19, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Unicornblood2018 unblocked following successful appeal

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
2. Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

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

• Unicornblood2018 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

N/A

Information about amendment request

• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

• State the desired modification

• Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment

• State the desired modification

Statement by Unicornblood2018

I was unblocked with the condition that I am topic-banned from any pages or edits related to (1) China, or (2) new religious movements, broadly construed. And that my topic ban may be appealed after one year has elapsed. I don't understand why I am actually banned from those two topics in the first place. The one and only topic that I had alot of problems with was Falun Gong. Just like Ben Hurley, our dislike on falun gong has nothing to do with China (politics or people) or even religions. It was purely and solely based on how dangerous the teaching really are. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/the-abc-is-right-that-falun-gong-teachings-are-dangerous/12538058

Falun Gong was the only topic that I felt personally conflicted towards and just wasn't able to accept certain editors hiding real info. The edits I had worked so hard to add to Falun Gong article. Was predominately about including their belief that aliens walk the earth, that practitioners were told to have total faith in Li and reject modern medicine if they hope to get better from serious illnesses. And that their (still alive) leader outright claimed to have legit supernatural powers like telekenesis but refuses to demonstrate. Such info is not even false. However I apologise for the trouble I have caused others back then and I have no interest or intentions on editing falun gong anymore. There are plenty of other topics outside Falun Gong that deserve my attention. I really had good intentions to add in real info that others were unwilling to allow the pubic to even be aware about but I wasted too much time on FG.

I wanted to edit china high speed rail earlier today but then realised I actually cannot. And it doesn’t seem to make a whole lot of sense to also topic ban me on all religion and china related topics as if implying somehow I had numerous issue with those topics. I don’t. If you want to put a permanent topic block on me for Falun Gong. I am cool with that albeit still not postive on it. But I feel that the editor who put such a wide topic block on me for new religions and china related, did not really take the time to look at the context. I don't go to Tai chi or spiritual Tantra pages and edit mishieviously. I also never had a single dispute or edit war on any china related topic outside of falun gong on wikipedia. The only page that I had lots of disputes over was one topic. (Falun Gong) and even then, I don't think I should be banned from editing falun gong because none of my proposed edits were of bad faith but factual and well sourced.

Why am I today allowed to edit American economic politics, japanese trains, nazis etc but not allowed on Religion and china topics? I think having such a wide topic ban is oddly disportionate since the only topic I have ever had actual conflicts in were on Falun Gong and only that topic alone. P.S - it's honestly confusing for me to actually fill out this request. I am certain that I would most likely and unintentionally done it incorrectedly. Sorry about that in advance if that is the case.

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Unicornblood2018: Clerk notes

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

•  Clerk note: I've renamed the ARCA request to "Unicornblood2018" as requested. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:44, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Unicornblood2018: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Only 5 article-space edits since the unblock and related in April 2019. The point of a topic ban is to remove an editor from a problematic area in order to let them demonstrate that they can collaborate effectively on the project, hopefully allowing them to eventually return to that area at some point in the future. The first part of this has not been done, so the second part should not either. I will agree, though, that "China" as a whole is too broad of a topic, and I would be okay (unless convinced otherwise by my esteemed colleagues) with narrowing the restriction to Chinese politics and and religion, broadly construed. Primefac ( talk) 11:02, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Struck per WTT; clearly the previous committee could have done that and didn't. Primefac ( talk) 13:36, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  Un-struck, but I will say that I am okay with either option (keeping it as-is or dropping to only religion/politics). Primefac ( talk) 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• Topic bans should not be removed simply by waiting them out. You were unblocked in January 2020, but the first edit you made was 3 days ago, over a year and a half later, specifically to request removal of the topic ban. So, my answer is no - and what's more, I'd be voting against any reduction, I'm not going to put my opinion in front of the committee that made the past decision when nothing has changed besides the passage of time. Worm^TT( talk) 13:33, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with what Worm said all around. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:03, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ Newyorkbrad: I am sympathetic to the concept that when we restrict someone from American Politics we don't restrict them from American railroads (as an example) and so taking the country of China off the table might be too broad. What do you suggest is an appropriate scope given this user's past? Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:06, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

  Perhaps Falun Gong, or if that is too narrow, Chinese religion and politics? Newyorkbrad ( talk) 15:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

• In this appeal, I see reiteration of the behavior that caused the topic ban, and a lack of understanding of its purpose. I also agree this is not the time to lift the topic ban. If you want to succeed with this in the future, demonstrate positive editing in the many areas where you are allowed to edit. Make it plain to the next committee that reviews this that you're a net positive to the project, that removal of the topic ban will benefit and not harm the encyclopedia. -- BDD ( talk) 17:48, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• Being allowed an appeal does not mean the appeal will automatically be granted. As my colleagues rightly point out, the Committee cannot in good conscience repeal a topic ban without any evidence to support the assumption that the ban is no longer necessary. Even if it were not an attempt at gaming the system, it can't work for all those reasons mentioned. Regards So Why 18:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• No, per Worm. Clerks, could someone rename this (e.g. "Unicornblood2018")? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• I would be willing to reasonably narrow the topic-ban, despite the very legitimate thoughts above. "Banned from editing about anything relating to China" is presumptively an overbroad restriction. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:13, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Topic-ban amendment

Unicornblood2018 is 
topic-banned from any pages or edits related to 1) Chinese politics and religion, or (2) new religious movements, both broadly construed. This replaces their topic ban from January 10, 2020.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Support

1. As proposer Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:43, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

   Seems reasonable. Primefac ( talk) 15:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC) (move to abstain)

2. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 12:39, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

1. The current topic ban is broader than I would've come up with, but I don't mean to second-guess last year's committee. The appellant has barely edited at all since it was placed; if there were a pattern of positive edits to weigh against, I would probably feel differently. -- BDD ( talk) 20:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
2. Given all the past disruption from this editor, the unblock last year was extremely generous of ArbCom, and I see no compelling reason to revisit it at this point. I would prefer to see a strong history of collaborative editing in completely unrelated topics before we loosen any restrictions. – bradv ^🍁 20:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
3. per my colleagues and my comments above. Worm^TT( talk) 22:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
4. Per Worm and Brad. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
5. Per my comment above. There is no data to allow us to make any informed decision if the editor has simply waited for the appeal period to expire without any other edits. Regards So Why 19:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
6. I would rather see some sustained editing in other topics, even as little as 6 months, before considering changing the topic ban. Maxim_(talk) 14:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
7. Hasn't shown even the slightest inclination to prove that the sanction isn't justified. Katie ^talk 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
8. I would have been inclined to grant if the user had made practically any effort to show they were a valuable contributor. They have done nothing though and simply expect us to shrink their topic ban without evidence they will play nice. Edit for six months and ask again. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 16:25, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Abstain

1. In re-reading my original comments I realized that I did in fact say I was fine with either option, so I am moving down here so as to not conflate the support votes. Primefac ( talk) 14:51, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Initiated by Davidships at 11:21, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

COVID-19 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:

• Davidships ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Davidships

The COVID-19 standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all articles related to, COVID-19, broadly construed. What was intended by "broadly construed"?

There are now hundreds of thousands of pages which mention "COVID-19", including a very large number of biographies of victims, locations where restrictions have been imposed, transport links affected (including cruise and other ships), yet it seems that under 700 have had the sanctions template added. Those do include quite minor mentions, for example MS Aegean Myth. I assume that the sanctions apply to all articles, whether or not the template has been applied to talk pages.

With this kind of article is it necessary for the template to be specifically included?

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.

COVID-19: Clerk notes

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

COVID-19: Arbitrator views and discussion

• The same standards apply here as in other DS authorization areas:
  • All pages that are wholly or mostly related to COVID-19 (broadly construed) are fully covered by DS. If only portions of a page are related to COVID-19, those portions (and edits related to those portions) are covered by DS.
  • Anyone can place a {{ ds/talk notice}} template, but use common sense: if the page is only marginally related to COVID-19 and there's been no COVID-19-related disruption, it's probably fine to omit the template.
  • And yes, regardless of whether the {{ ds/talk notice}} template is present on a talk page, if a page (or edit thereto) is related to COVID-19, the DS procedure applies.
• (It might be useful to make a version of the template that is specifically designed for use on pages with only a small amount of related content but that still warrants a template because that related content has been the subject of much disruption – might be something for WP:DS2021.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:35, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with all of Kevin's comments above. If we make such a template, it could take some inspiration from {{ BLPO}}. -- BDD ( talk) 18:30, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
• I neglected to endorse Kevin's points before so let me do so now. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:36, 28 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the others above. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

India-Pakistan arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. WP:ARBIP#Remedies

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

• RGloucester ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• WP:ARBIP#Remedies

• Addition of the new extended confirmed restriction as found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Extended confirmed restriction, replacing the existing community-imposed 500/30 rule at WP:GS/IPAK.

Statement by RGloucester

Following the adoption of the extended confirmed restriction omnibus motion, I would like to request that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee consider taking over the community-imposed 500/30 restriction in the India/Pakistan topic area ( WP:GS/IPAK), and incorporating it into the existing ARBIP case as a standard 'extended confirmed restriction'. The reasons for this are as follows. Firstly, in the interest of reducing red tape, it makes sense to adopt the new procedure in this topic area, rather than leaving the old IPAK restriction as an isolated example using different and outdated rules. Future community-imposed EC restrictions will most likely mirror the new ArbCom standard, negating this problem, but given that an existing ArbCom sanctions regime exists in this topic area, it seems to make a lot of sense to take this opportunity to simplify enforcement overall. I think most will agree that standardisation, rather than fragmentation, is desirable. I have filed this request for amendment at the suggestion of the honourable Bradv. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration. RGloucester — ☎ 16:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a very strange opinion on the part of the Committee. If there is anything that the community wants, it is to break free from overlapping jurisdictions with separate rules and overwhelming complexity, creating grounds for conflict as was seen in the ARCA that led to the recent omnibus motion. Who does it benefit to have separate ArbCom and community general sanctions regimes, with different rules, in the same topic area? It benefits no one at all, and is strikingly convoluted. ArbCom has the ability to prevent future conflict and simplify this situation, making life easier for both enforcing administrators and editors alike, but instead, it seems that the members here are reluctant to be seen as 'heavy-handed'. If anything, I think, the community would prefer if it could propose sanctions regimes through its own processes, and then submit its proposals to ArbCom for ratification and enforcement under the existing processes, rather than having a parallel infrastructure, but I suppose that's a discussion for another day. RGloucester — ☎ 15:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49: The problem with that suggestion is that ArbCom has not established a process by which community consensus for ArbCom intervention in a community sanctions regime can be demonstrated. You cannot reasonably ask that I put such a consensus on display, when there is no established method by which this can be done. Instead, perhaps consider the numerous, numerous comments you received in the recent DS consultation about the complexity of the present system, and the words of the esteemed Newyorkbrad at the recent omnibus motion. RGloucester — ☎ 15:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49: Indeed, if this proposal fails, I will propose an amendment at WP:AN as such. However, even if such a change is enacted, it will not eliminate the problem of separate ArbCom and community regimes in the same topic area. This is a problem that only the Committee can tackle. If there were no such overlap, I would of course not be proposing this here. RGloucester — ☎ 15:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Nosebagbear: Unfortunately, no amount of community consensus can eliminate the problem of having the ArbCom DS regime established by WP:ARBIP and the WP:GS/IPAK community ECR regime co-existing together in the same topic area. Only ArbCom can solve this problem. There is currently no process by which the community can appeal for ArbCom to take over a GS regime other than ARCA, and there is also no process of any kind by which the community could take over the ArbCom GS regime. It shocks me that people are taking this suggestion as being equivalent to either a power grab by ArbCom, or an attempt to subvert consensus. In practice, this change would only be a formality. The community's regime would function as before, in line with its intent in establishing the regime, the only difference being that it would be incorporated into the package of existing ARBIP restrictions so as to avoid confusion and overlap, which has been demonstrated to cause problems numerous times. RGloucester — ☎ 17:59, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• Considering the statements by other editors here, I think that, rather than have ArbCom take over this sanctions regime, it would be better to have a wholesale community review of its function and necessity. In practice, the regime is not functioning as was intended, and it is not clear if the community still supports its existence. Therefore, I hereby withdraw this request. I will open a section at AN to consider the future of this regime. If the conclusion of that discussion suggests that the regime should continue to exist, I will open a new ARCA. Thank you for your consideration. RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

• @ Barkeep49 and Bradv: I've opened a community review at WP:AN. While it is not certain yet, the general consensus thus far is that it would make sense to abolish WP:GS/IPAK and relog those few pages that are ECPed under GS/IPAK at WP:AEL under WP:ARBIP. I would like to confirm, since the question arose in that discussion, that the Committee would not object to the closing admin relogging these EC page protections in this manner if consensus reaches such a conclusion. RGloucester — ☎ 14:01, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

I have to oppose this proposal, and do so on a couple of grounds.

Firstly, I concur that this is a very heavy way to acquire a change - raising a request at AN either to change this specific GS in nature, or update all GS, would be the logical route. Doing so would not be particularly onerous, and as such I'm genuinely confused why *this* would be the logical route.
Beyond that, while ARBCOM has an exemption to consensus, that is within its own remit. As such my own personal viewpoint is that ARBCOM doesn't have any grounds to strip GS in any regular set of circumstances (it can, of course, layer DS on top as it sees fit). My preference would be, in the recent cases where we've seen them remove it, would be to add DS and then ask the Community to remove GS as not necessary, and see if the Community agrees. Not remove it themselves.

That said, even if that particular position is not felt to be accurate, I believe most would agree that wherever possible, consensus should be the form taken, and it must be fairly clear that discarding it is necessary for ARBCOM to exercise their exemption. As such, doing so without a case would be heavily insufficient in terms of vetting - and, per the above, still unneeded. Nosebagbear ( talk) 17:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

@ RGloucester: per Wikipedia:General sanctions#Community_Sanctions, the relevant line is Requests for amendments, clarification, or revocation (if sanctions are no longer required) should also be discussed at the administrators' noticeboard.. Wanting it to be subceded to ARBCOM DS would be a form of amendment, and therefore should be raised at WP:AN to get a consensus. While it would be an interesting jurisdictional question to determine whether the Community could directly add an additional topic to DS, in practical terms the arbs could just hold this motion as pending while the Community then discussed it. Probability approaches unity that the arbs would gladly supercede the GS into a single DS should the Community request it. To say that we don't have a mechanism for this to me requires such a strictly literalist interpretation of the text that it should also rule out the method currently being attempted. Nosebagbear ( talk) 19:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Just for clarity's sake, obviously this has been resolved, gordian-knot style Nosebagbear ( talk) 10:30, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

The philosophical aspect (that the community should be able to pass remedies without ArbCom's help) is not really supported by the evidence. Community-authorised discretionary sanctions ("GS") are, per the GS logs, often ineffective. That's presumably part of the reason this Committee took over the COVID GS, and that has been more effective since it became a DS. The reasons why are speculative, the common idea that it's due to access to AE is not supported IMO --

The IPAK remedy is identical to the Israel-Palestine 30/500 restriction. Except, there are literally thousands of pages protected under the auspices of the Israel-Palestine ArbCom sanctions (regardless of actual or potential disruption, which for many of these protected pages is zero). In contrast, there are ~25 pages protected under WP:GS/IPAK. Unless we think Wikipedia only has 25 articles related to any conflict between India and Pakistan, it's pretty safe to say this is a largely unenforced GS, and in practice protections are more or less ECP protections under admin discretion (i.e. DS).

This amendment is probably not just clerical. If the Committee takes over this restriction, it will probably be enforced better. In part because more admins will be aware of its existence (how many know GS/IPAK even exists?). So on the topic of community control, this poses the question whether the community really wants it enforced better? I imagine an AN section to revoke this authorisation would fail, but at the same time I doubt there's community support to actually enforce the restriction the community passed, nor do I think proper enforcement would improve the project. The remedy just seems questionable. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 22:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RegentsPark

I don't think this is a good idea. Community sanctions tend to be passed by a small group of editors and don't receive the level of scrutiny that a full arbcom case does (Disclosure: I was one of the few editors that opposed the ECP sanctions). In this particular case, the facts on the ground (so to speak!) are that very few pages are actually under ECP and the level of disruption is, at best, minimal (many pages see hardly any traffic at all). A wholesale ECP protection would not be in Wikipedia's best interests. -- RegentsPark ( comment) 14:03, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Arbitrators, I've tentatively closed the discussion at AN ( perm link) that saw consensus to dissolve the IPAK GS regime, with the view that ARBIPA suffices. Please review my work. Thank you. El_C 15:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

India-Pakistan: Clerk notes

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

India-Pakistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I would prefer that the community do this instead of us. Is there anything preventing the community from modifying its restriction to mirror the new language? It seems a bit heavy-handed to exercise the authority of the committee to overrule consensus when there seems to be a much less intrusive way (go to WP:AN, start a thread, and get consensus to change it, which probably wouldn't take much effort at all). ArbCom's authority, and ability to overrule consensus, is justified by us focusing on disputes that the community is unable to resolve, which is less present here. (And this doesn't quite parallel the practice of superseding community-authorized DS ("GS") when it's not working, because when we authorize DS we bring enforcement over to AE.) Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
  • At this point, the community seems more inclined to abrogate its 500/30 restriction than to ask us to assume it ( Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard § Community review: WP:GS/IPAK sanctions). Assuming that's how it ends up, I think this can be closed without further action. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:37, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

    @ BDD: There could be (and currently is) substantial opposition at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_review:_WP:GS/IPAK_sanctions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 15:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Kevin. I don't want to absorb a community-enacted sanction simply because we changed the language of our own similar sanction. Katie ^talk 14:09, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• Agreed with the above. Primefac ( talk) 14:12, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• I think that community led "general sanctions" are a Good Thing^TM and should be encouraged - it's yet another way that the wider community has managed to deal with long term problems without going through Arbcom. The last thing I want to do is subsume them into DS. I understand that it's sometimes necessary (as part of a wider Arbcom decision), but I'd rather not. Worm^TT( talk) 14:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the above and also will note my more general desire to see a way for GS turned into DS as a community request. Doing it as part of a full case, like we had for IRANPOL, seems OK but we've also done it by motion owing to a desire to access AE. In this latter case I wish there was a way we could show actual consensus, rather than just some people showing up to ARC, before making such a change. Barkeep49 ( talk) 14:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ RGloucester: in terms of your assertion about what the community wants, I would suggest that getting that consensus first might lead to a different sense of perspective here. Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ RGloucester: I am taking NYB's comments seriously. It's why I am reluctant to add more instructions in places that we're not already responsible for. As I see it, either community GS works, in which case ArbCom should only rarely be turning them into GS and considering our overall caseload 3 times this calendar year doesn't strike me as rare, community GS doesn't work, in which case I would prefer to see this gain consensus through a community process rather than an ArbCom process, or community GS works sometimes but not others, in which case I think the community is just as responsible for identifying the distinction between working/not working as ArbCom if not more so. In this particular instance there is nothing stopping you, or anyone else, from proposing an amendment to the community GS, through a community process, to bring the wording into alignment with what ArbCom did. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  @ RGloucester: I am in general skeptical that many indef protections under DS need to be indef so I would, as I noted at AN, prefer to see the ones needed moved over. But if others think we should bring them all I would support the motion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:06, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

• I think that subsuming GS into DS is a good idea which allows us not only to respect the will of the community but also streamline our very confusing sanctions bureaucracy. I remain firmly of a mind that GS should share the same processes as DS, except that the community may will them into being at AN. RGloucester's idea is a good one. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 16:32, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

  I also believe that community GS should follow the same rules as DS. Except that I don't think it's up to me, or ArbCom, to force those rules on the community. To RG's point above I do think the committee could use our expertise/experience to draft a model statement that the community could use when adopting GS - something along the lines of "General sanctions will be imposed on Foo topic area, broadly construed. These sanctions will follow the same procedures as DS, including any subsequent changes/updates." But just because it's easier to get 7 Arb votes to do cleanup than a real community consensus doesn't mean that the cleanup falls with-in ARBPOL, in my mind. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:39, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

• A maze of overlapping sanctions benefits no one, and we passed the new language about extended-confirmed restrictions in order to streamline procedures and reduce bureaucracy. According to those same principles, we should grant RGloucester's request. – bradv ^🍁 18:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with CaptainEek and bradv here. Having too different sanctions regimes for the same topic area is unnecessary confusing and taking over the GS as DS seems a good way to make it less so. Regards So Why 12:26, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
• I'm also more of the opinion that requiring a separate community motion to do this would be overly bureaucratic. If I had any thought that there could be significant opposition to the idea, I'd be much more inclined to recommend a separate discussion. -- BDD ( talk) 18:27, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, Kevin. Hadn't considered that there would be such strong support for a third option. I suppose that leaves us nothing to do here. -- BDD ( talk) 20:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

• I gather that this matter is now resolved. Does anyone disagree? Thanks, Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Initiated by DGG at 16:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Fringe science arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

   Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

   Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

   Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

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

• DGG ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

• To the clause In this ruling, the term "fringe science" refers to matters which purport to be science, or use its trappings and terminology but are not usually regarded as such by the general scientific community; and to matters which do not claim to be scientific but nevertheless make claims that are normally considered within the purview of science. should be added "This should be interpreted according to the community guideline at WP:FRINGE''

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

• Replace the statement Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. should be replaced by Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas." in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Prominence

• Add a clause: In particular, WP:NPOV requires that High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent. Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent. Likewise, WP:V requires that every statement in an article be directly supported by a reliable source. Material must not be included in articles only on the basis of communicating the "correct" view, if it is not supported by the sources it cites."

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Fringe_science#Fringe_science

• Add a clause: Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science. The above definitions do not apply. The fundamental policies WP:NPOV and WP:V do apply ; in particular, WP:NPOV requires that sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent.

Statement by DGG

The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arb com rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources. This includes among others recent discussions in the scientific areas of Covid, Race & Intelligence, Genetically modified organisms, climate change, and various aspects of medicine, and in the areas of American and other national politics, nationalism in different regions, and various conspiracy theories. See WP:DSTOPICS

The hope is to focus the arguments over sourcing, decrease the need for AE and discretionary sanctions, make further requests for arbitration cases in such areas unnecessary--and possibly even reduce the need for some of the discussions and arguments that arise.

I am not necessarily saying that all of the areas mentioned should rightfully be included under WP:FRINGE; I am certainly not saying that all or most of the arb com decisions or the community decisions based on them were improper, or led to incorrect conclusions. I have been involved in many such discussions at WP:RSN and elsewhere; sometimes the views I supported have been upheld, and sometimes not. I have no intention of re-arguing any of them here, or of using this request to challenge or overturn any previous decision by arbitrators or the community. The purpose of this request is to act as a guide for future discussions.

I am not naming parties, as this applies to everyone who might be working in these areas. I am notifying WP:RSN and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard

@brady: you are being asked not to "reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" but by letting other sources be used to a limited extent in a proper qualified way, instead of being rejected out of hand. Rather than "denying them priority", I would say "reducing their priority when necessary for NPOV. " I am not suggesting removing the key prnciple in the case Scientific focus: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and its content on scientific and quasi-scientific topics will primarily reflect current mainstream scientific consensus.

@Sowhy, About half the arb com decisions have been indirect rulings on content This is to some extent inevitable because content disagreements are at the root of most of WP's long standing disputes Every case dealing with ethnic or nationalist issues is at heart a dispute over content, carried out by attacking sourcing. I certainly was aware of the content implications of the cases in my 5 years, and I think other arbs were also. One tries to not let it over-influence one's decision, but an awareness is always in the background.

@David Gerard, re-analyzing all of the fringe-related disputes at RSN over the last 12 years would take many times my 1000 words; even just discussing the other fringe-related arb cases would; and the responses of everyone interested in all of them would make a discussion here totally impossible. That's why I decided to keep this as general as possible, and why I decided not to challenge here the results of any of the discussions..

Based on the comments of various arbitrators, the principles and FoFs in this case should not be used to justify actions regarding individual articles or sources. However, @brady has also commented that they would want to see how these changes would affect particular controversies, which implies they are authoritative principles . Perhaps this should be treated as a request for clarification? Perhaps it would be a good idea to clarify in arb policy that the statements in any one case apply to that particular case only, but not to any future instance involving the same principles. But presumably that would only apply to decisions not resulting in DS or similar sanctions about specific articles and topics--since in such cases the principles and FoF are specifically or implicitly used as the basis for the sanctions. Is that the intended meaning? DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Would it help if the wording didn't say Non-academic, but minority academic? DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: To a considerable degree, you are right. What is said by arb com doesn't always necessarily make a difference in how things work, any more than does the wording of policy and guidelines. People do quote what they want, and interpret it however they want. The only thing that actually matters in the end is what gets decided in individual instances about individual articles, and that tends to be quite variable. (I've said myself that for many articles at AfD, I could equally well make a policy-based argument to keep or delete), PerhapsI should have continued my usual course, which is to concentrate patiently on these.

There is a reason I went back to this case from 12 ago: it has been the basis of most decisions in the general area since then. Checking User:Bradv/Arbitration cases by creation date there were earlier ones, but what may be the first Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Neuro-linguistic programming (2005), is from just before my time in WP. In 2005-07 WP was contending with the pushers of some really absurd doctrines--see in particular Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal (2007), which I do recall. A rather strict adherence to rules for sourcing was justified, though I remember even then saying how they could potentially be misused. . More recently, we know how to deal with the really strange conspiracy theories that arise, and arguments have usually concerned matters where the minority view has some degree of rational support--very small in some cases, but still within the bounds of the rational. I think with these the approach needs to be different--to be quite inclusive with both topics and sources ,while still avoiding veering off into nonsense. At RFCs at RSN, a majority does in practice have the power to shut out the views of a minority, and at AE it is very difficult to over-rule admins willing to remove editors of whom they disapprove; we need to at least specify some limits, even though we realize we can not fully enforce them. DGG ( talk ) 08:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Without going into the specifics of individual sources, the material cited by Ferahgo is a clear recent indication of my key points here : the error of narrow restrictions on sourcing, and the error of too broad an application of fringe to cover minority viewpoints. It also raises another issue I intended to deal with separately, the danger of how wording of arb com decisions can be used by individual admins at DS. It additionally shows the extreme risk to NPOV from the decision of arb com in their most recent case WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics#Final decision, whereby DS may include ... moratoriums up to one year on initiating RfCs on a particular dispute, which can prevent reconsideration of even the most biased closure. (as written it would seem to apply only to that case, but some arbs have said they would like to have it as a general rule, or that it already is a general rule). See WT:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian_politics/Proposed_decision#Levivich's_section and User_talk:Barkeep49#Recent_Arb_Decision_on_RfCs . DGG ( talk ) 22:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I notice that, referring to the Principles and FoF under discussion, @Worm says that it may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia while @Captain Eek says "Seeing as these have stood for over a decade, it appears they were correct and factual. ". It seems to me that those two statements are contradictory. There is not necessarily anything wrong or surprising in that-- there have always been disagreements, as any examination of proposed decisions will show. Perhaps @Barkeep's statement is correct that It only has weight if other people agree it does'

So far we've heard from 7 arbs--- it might be helpful if the other 8 were to give their opinion also. -DGG

Since it seems there are unlikely to be further developments, and sentiment seems clear, I'm withdrawing the request

In conclusion, I thought there was a chance this request might succeed, but from my knowledge or arb com I did not think it very likely--I've been a minority of one when I was a member several times. What I do hope is that it may lead other people here to reconsider the questions. Normally I work by trying to affect opinion in individual cases, not general proposals like this; I fail to win many of the cases, but opinion nevertheless shifts. That's what I am trying to accomplish here also. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Replying to CaptainEek's request : There are 5 recent situations that might make good examples, all of which the committee has had before it in some manner.

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19 which was closed by motion without any attempt whatsoever to address the problem, except a reference to an earlier general ruling on Covid dealing appropriately with the non-scientific theories put forth by far-right sources. (As a result, I haven't the least idea of the views of arb com on the matters raised.) The problem is adequately discussed in the case statements, and epitomized by Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis, but I can summarize them as Consensus has changed and what was originally a far fringe theory from sources associated with conspiracy theories, became one seriously considered by both the medical establishment, and the most reliable possible news sources (WSJ, NYT--in a series of major articles). Various excuses where put forth for not covering it until it had been resolved by peer-reviewed medical sources in the future. This was a classic example of attempts to hide a minority view by over-strict interpretation of sourcing requirements. It differs from most similar cases in that I am unable to imagine any possible Real World motivation for the rigidity (except, conceivably, support for the PRC and its censorship apparatus, but I very much doubt that) See also [22] . This was also extensively discussed at [23], [Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information], and an RfC [24] where it was at least decided that history is not subject to MEDRS. (this entire series of discussions is marked by attempts to decide the scientific issue on a WP talk page based on OR from the primary sources.)

2)Race and Intelligence, adequately discussed below by Ferahgo --see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race and intelligence This is similar to Covid, in that the difficulty is that Consensus has changed in the RW, but complicated by the discussions involving charges of racism. There's an understandable sensitivity to the horrific history of the misuse of this combination of concepts in the past (and in some circles, extending into the present). This can be seen as some explanation for the refusal to reconsider, though I do not consider this a reason to abandon NPOV.

3) American Politics, (too many links to quote here) where the bias in our coverage has been widely noticed outside WP. (again, too many links, but can be given if it becomes relevant) (This is a little complicated for me, because I agree very strongly politically with the side to which our coverage has been biased. I have argued on the basis that the best way -- and the only way compatible with nPPOV-- to show the absurdity and evil of the other side , is to let its proponents speak,, and that the refusal to do so indicates a fear that the other side might have a convincing argument if they were allowed to. Suspicion that this might be our motive would cause anyone not yet convinced of either side to distrust our coverage, and to consider it just an editorial.)

4) and 5) I could also mention Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine#Final decision, where the committee resolved questions of content by topic banning the principal advocate(s) on one side of the position, while simultaneously stating that "it is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors." (I should mention that I personally agree very strongly with the eventual result in one of the cases)

How this should proceed--whether by arb cases, or otherwise, is clearly beyond my ability to resolve. I thought it could be done by attacking what I consider the root of the problem, but the consensus seems to be that this was far too general an approach.

If there are to be proceedings on any one of the individual matters, I see no real need to deal with the Covid matter, for the consensus seems to have turned; if Ferahgo would like to proceed on R&I I think she has a very strong case, but handling it would be up to her, for she knows the state of the scientific literature better than I do; American Politics will surely come before the committee again at next year's midterm election, and then at the presidential election next following; the other matters have been settled for the time being. My inclination would be to wait until the next time we encounter an attempt to manipulate the rules on reliable sources so that Wikipedia reflects what used to be academic view in the past, or what some people would otherwise prefer to imagine as the NPOV.

As for me, I will do as I said a few paragraphs earlier, return to dealing with individual articles and sources. DGG , 28 October 2021

I wasn't going to say anything more, but since Generalrelative asks, rather than use a vague term such as "believe", I know that it is impossible that there is any phenotype whatsoever of any living organism which is not subject to genetic selection , and consequently I know that all characteristics will be influenced by genetics. The real questions for any characteristic, for all living beings whatsoever, are to what extent there is a genetic influence, how exactly the influence works in terms of the physiology, and how it interacts with environment--these questions constitute the subject of biology. In the case of humans, or other social animals, this includes the social environment. In the case of humans, distinctively, it also includes the cultural environment, and these aspects constitute the social sciences. The only way it could be otherwise is if evolution does not apply to humans. There are those who do think so, and they are the true fringe. DGG ' , 29 October 2021

To avoid confusion, I should add that of courss "race" iscomposed of more than bioloical phenotypes. But it is the ability to define he part that is biological phenotypes that's particular relevant to Ferrango's discussion. And a refusal to admit possibilities from new knowledge seems to be a common thread here. `` -- DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC).

Statement by Alexbrn

I don't think arbcom should have jurisdiction over content decisions, so the current ruling is an unfortunate artefact from the past. Revoking it may, however, give the impression that somehow restrictions are being lifted. The proposed amendment looks even worse, in that in some respects it seems to want to make an end-run around core policy. In particular, for fringe topics the proposed text "WP:NPOV requires that High-quality sources should not be excluded from articles purely on the basis of the viewpoint they represent" is simply wrong, since for fringe topics WP:GEVAL has:

... plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it ... (emphasis mine)

The proposed amendment would allow the pseudoscience in apparently "high-quality" sources (e.g. peer-reviewed articles in homeopathy journals) passage into Wikipedia, or at least fuel drama over arguing for it. It is important that Wikipedia does not include fringe ideas except through the lens of accepted academic scholarship, where it exists.

If there's an issue with policy, fix the policy text. I say: don't try and provide additional layers of amendement to an area which is already plagued by WP:WL and drama. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:18, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Ferahgo the Assassin: Your long post about NightHeron's (and other's) editing is all very interesting, but what has this to do with the proposal at hand, on amending historical arbcom rulings? What you describe seems to be a dispute in a topic area under WP:AC/DS: if editors are misbehaving there, open a WP:AE case. Alexbrn ( talk) 05:53, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Pyrrho the Skeptic

 Clerk note: the below was to respond to bradv. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused over point 6, because WP:MEDRS states: The popular press is generally not a reliable source for scientific and medical information in articles, but this amendment seems like it would state that popular press is fine in fringe medicine, if that same source is used for, say, politics. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 17:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

ADDING: There appears to be some conflict regarding defining "fringe theories" vs defining "quackery" in medicine. If the amendment is made to be consistent with this language from WP:FRINGE ...but material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas., then that makes sense. But then I feel like a distinction needs to be made between WP:FRINGE being applied to "fringe theories" and WP:MEDRS being applied to "quackery". Otherwise you might always have disputes with editor 1 using ArbCom/WP:FRINGE language to justify "non-academic" sources and editor 2 using WP:MEDRS to claim only peer-reviewed, medical, secondary sources be used in a given content dispute. Pyrrho the Skeptic ( talk) 18:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Ferahgo

This request relates to an issue that I recently discussed in general terms on the Arbcom mailing list, and also in more specific terms with Arbcom member Barkeep49. There are a few closely-related issues that need to be addressed, but I think this request is mostly directed at the fact that there are a few topics where journalistic sources (such as articles in newspapers and magazines) are being given priority over academic journals and textbooks. In some cases, the academic sources have been declared unreliable sources on the basis of the viewpoint they present, because they contradict the view presented in journalistic sources, which is assumed to be the mainstream one.

I am not sure what the best way to address this would be. The matter of general policy raised here needs addressing, but there is also a behavioral aspect. Over the past year or so there have been several cases of editors adding material to articles that misrepresents its sources, with the justification that WP:FRINGE requires this material to be included, and every attempt to challenge or remove the material has been rejected on the same grounds. There have been a few attempts to raise this issue with the broader community, but none of the discussions about it at noticeboards have resolved anything.

I would rather not get into specific examples, because I'd like to keep this request focused on general matters of policy, instead of specific topics. But I can provide more specific details about the background if necessary, either here or on the Arbcom mailing list (I'd prefer the latter). - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 17:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49: The problem is something like this: several topic areas have recently had similar problems in which WP:FRINGE has been used as a justification for ignoring other content policies, such as requiring the inclusion of material that misrepresents its sources. There are two topics in particular where this has been happening over the past year. My understanding is that in the past few months one of the two topics has improved somewhat, but the other has not.

I think this request ought to stay focused on general issues of policy, but I've gone into more detail in our email correspondence. As I mentioned in that correspondence, there have been multiple noticeboard discussions that tried and failed to resolve the issue, and one of the recent discussions about it concluded that it could not be resolved without Arbcom's intervention. DGG's and my hope with this request is that Arbcom could address it by addressing the policy principles, which apply to multiple topics, instead of the specifics of just one or two topics.

If you feel that the proposed amendment is not the best way forward, other solutions such as opening a full case with a narrower scope may be more viable. But I request that Arbcom please not pass the buck back to the community, because the community has already tried and failed to resolve this issue several times. I think you're the arbitrator who has the greatest familiarity with this background, so I'd appreciate your guidance on the best way to address it. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 20:07, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49: Alright. If you need specific evidence of something within Arbcom's remit, then I suppose keeping this request focused on general issues of policy won't be possible - and Generalrelative has already linked to one of the earlier discussions anyway, which makes it obvious what topic area precipitated this request. I'm going to focus on the issue of misrepresented sources here, because while it isn't the only behavioral issue in this area, it's the one where Arbcom is most likely to understand the nature of the problem.

• 26-27 April 2020: NightHeron changes the lead of the race and intelligence article from "there is no direct evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component" to "there is no scientific evidence that these differences in test scores have a genetic component". [25] On the talk page, he argues that sources aren't required for this change because the hereditarian hypothesis (that group differences include a genetic component) is classified as a fringe theory. [26] [27]

• 2 May 2020: NightHeron makes the same alteration to the body of the article, changing "no direct evidence" to "no scientific evidence". In this case the original wording was supported by three sources, and NightHeron changed the text without changing the sources that it cited. [28] "No direct evidence" had been the exact wording of the three sources cited there, or a very close paraphrase (see Gardenofaleph's summary here). This distinction between "evidence" and "direct evidence" is more than just a semantic change: for example, James Flynn's well-known book Race, IQ and Jensen contains a chapter titled "Direct evidence and indirect", in which Flynn argues that there is indirect evidence for a genetic cause, but direct evidence for an environmental cause.

• April-May 2020: NightHeron removes most of the material from the article that had been cited to Earl B. Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence. [29] [30] [31] NightHeron and other editors justify these removals on the grounds that this book is in favor of the position that group differences in average IQ scores have a genetic component, and thus material in the book presenting this view is inadmissible. [32] [33]

• June to August 2020: Generalrelative changes the wording of this part of the article article from "There is no scientific evidence that the test score gap has a genetic component" to "The current scientific consensus is that there is no evidence for a genetic component behind IQ differences between racial groups". They also add the same material to three other articles. [34] [35] [36] [37] Finally, in the edits to Intelligence Quotient, Heritability of IQ, and Race and intelligence, they add a citation to Earl Hunt's textbook Human Intelligence for this statement.

• Let me call attention to two things about Generalrelative's citing of Hunt's texbook for this statement. First, this is the same source that has had most of its citations removed on the grounds that it is arguing in favor of a genetic contribution. Second, earlier the same month Generalrelative had added a quote from this book saying "The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence", which is obviously not the same as saying there is a consensus that no evidence exists for a genetic contribution. For the book's actual position on this question, see the quote that I posted here: [38]

• 13-14 March 2021: Three editors - Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, and an IP editor - raise objections that this part of the article is not supported by its sources. However, NightHeron doesn't allow the material be modified, arguing that these editors' objections are invalid because the material is required by consensus. [39] [40]

• 18-23 March 2021: Stonkaments raises the issue of these misrepresented sources at the NOR noticeboard. After about two days, JzG shuts down the discussion there. [41] When challenged about this closure in his user talk, JzG explains that in order to raise his objection that sources are being misrepresented, Stonkaments first would have to successfully argue that the hereditarian hypothesis is not fringe, and that Stonkaments will likely be topic banned if he makes further attempts to raise the issue. [42]

• 1-2 May 2021: I open a RFC at the RS noticeboard about the issue of misrepresented sources, as well as the fact that older and lower-quality sources are being given priority over more recent sources of higher quality. This RFC is shut down by JzG after about 12 hours. [43]

• 3-5 May 2021: Shortly after the RFC has been shut down, a discussion begins about opening a new RFC which would examine this question of sourcing. [44] However, while that discussion is still underway, NightHeron opens a new RFC on the article's talk page which avoids the question of sourcing. [45] He explains that he is opening this RFC in order to prevent anyone else from opening one that examines the sourcing question. [46] [47]

• 9 May 2021: AndewNguyen tries to open a separate RFC to examine the sourcing question. This RFC is immediately shut down by an uninvolved user, with the explanation that it is inappropriate to open a new RFC in addition to the one that is already open. [48] [49] Thus, NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question.

Something I should point out about this sequence of events is that since March 2020, the race and intelligence article has had a special restriction (implemented by you) saying that anyone who misrepresents a source will be subjected to "escalating topic bans". But no admin has been willing to enforce this restriction, and during the year and a half that it has existed, no one has ever been sanctioned under it. However, editors who tried to raise the issue of misrepresented sources have been threatened with topic bans for doing so, JzG's response to Stonkaments that's linked above being one example. In summary, this is a behavioral issue (misrepresentation of sources) that the community has persistently been unable to address, in part because the sourcing restriction that you imposed turned out to be unenforceable.

Finally, let me call attention to the previous arbitration request last year about more or less the same issue (see Literaturegeek's summary). In that discussion, user:SMcCandlish predicted that if Arbcom declined to act on the earlier request, the same issue would inevitably come back to Arbcom again. That's exactly what has happened. This time could Arbcom please deal with the issue, so that it won't have to be brought back to Arbcom a third time in 2022? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 05:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Would Arbcom like me to send them a scan of the relevant part of Hunt's textbook, so they can see for themselves what it says about this matter? - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 03:23, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

@ CaptainEek: I would prefer that Arbcom deal with this issue sooner rather than later. At this point it's clear the community won't resolve it without Arbcom's intervention, so passing it back to the community again will result in it continuing to simmer there, which I agree is something that should be avoided.

I don't know whether it would be best for Arbcom to try to resolve it under the fringe science case or under the race and intelligence case, but your suggestion of a brainstorming session sounds like a good idea. With respect to the sourcing issue, there seems to be some ambiguity about what Arbcom considers to be within their remit. It would be best for that to be clarified before there's another arbitration request, to make sure any upcoming request will be within the scope of what Arbcom can address. - Ferahgo the Assassin ( talk) 16:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

Speaking as an editor who works in WP:FRINGE-plagued areas and is a regular participant in WP:RSN: This request needs more details on precisely what requests were the issue, and precisely how the present rules resulted in a bad outcome. I recall several cases where editors brought fringe conspiracist views on COVID-19 to WP:RSN claiming that mentions in the popular press meant they belonged in more medical articles as supported views, or conversely, where questionably-reliable journals were being used to claim academic imprimatur for a fringe conspiracist view; but, rather than second-guessing the proposer's intent, I would like to know the precise difficult cases that would convince someone who thinks the present rule works very well in practice (e.g., me) that normal processes had clearly failed disastrously enough there was a problem needing action. I'm willing to be convinced, but I would have to be convinced - David Gerard ( talk) 18:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@DGG fair enough, it just seems to me a claim that could really benefit from clear examples - David Gerard ( talk) 20:34, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

additional note: in fairness, I can see a case in principle for bring the question back to the arbcom - I have referenced the arbcom decision myself in disputes over WP:FRINGE issues, to indicate the issue has teeth - David Gerard ( talk) 20:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

another note: if this is prone to be seized upon in an attempt to relitigate the race and intelligence RFC yet again, that's an excellent worked example of why not to change anything - David Gerard ( talk) 07:06, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

yeah, it looks like that's precisely what it is. I suggest closing this as a waste of everyone else's time and presumption of good faith, as jps has noted - David Gerard ( talk) 16:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I have a sidebar but important point. Fringe is MUCH broader than fringe science (which the current scope wording pretty well defines....e.g. purports to be science...) Introducing the much broader wp:fringe into the arbcom scope statement would make a mess out of the scope definition. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 19:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Has anyone at RSN ever cited the Fringe science arbitration case? I am looking for examples and finding none. WP:FRINGE is cited frequently, but I haven't found anything referencing the case and I'm 2/3 of the way through the search results. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 19:46, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Worm That Turned: you asked "Does anyone have examples where the principles have been specifically called out in recent discussions?". DGG claims this has happened at RSN. There's plenty of evidence that this has not happened:

• These search results show 117 uses of the word "fringe" at RSN, if "WP:FRINGE" is excluded. I've looked through them all, and it's clear that none are referencing the Fringe science arbitration case.
• WP:ARBFS is the only shortcut to the case, and it's never been used at RSN.

If the principles of this old case are not being cited, what benefit could there be to changing them? On the other hand, WP:FRINGE itself is cite ubiquitously, but there's no evidence to show that debate over WP:FRINGE requires an ArbCom case. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 02:54, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by jps

Oooh! I'm a party to the original case! Do I get extra points for that? Anyhoo... I think it best to let sleeping dogs lie. In this case, I have not seen much in the way of misuse of these particular rulings. I am actually much more concerned with Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Questionable_science which has been used to tie the hands of editors over at psychoanalysis, but last I brought that up, the committee demurred for much the same rationale as they seem currently wont to offer. Fair enough. Let's preserve the history and move on. jps ( talk) 22:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to say that the context that has now been provided for this request makes me feel a bit like this is a WP:GAME on the part of the requester and allies who have been collaborating both on and off-wiki apparently to win a fight. I feel a bit like our good faith has been taken advantage of. jps ( talk) 12:58, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Generalrelative

Anyone who is perplexed by DGG's request may want to take a look at this discussion on a user talk page for background. I’ll ping Stonkaments as a courtesy since it’s their page. Generalrelative ( talk) 00:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

At this point the only thing in Ferahgo's statement I think I need to respond to is the pronoun she uses to refer to me. They/them for me please. Happy to discuss the proper interpretation of Hunt if called upon to do so. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:41, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that Ferahgo has now edited her statement, changing my pronoun to "they". I appreciate it, though in the future please remember to make it visible when you alter a comment that has been responded to, e.g. by striking deleted words. Generalrelative ( talk) 17:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Since a couple of uninvolved parties here appear to give some credence to Ferahgo's accusation of misrepresentation of sources, I suppose it's time for me to state my side of things. The distinction between primary and secondary material within a single source which SMcCandlish brings up gets to the heart of the issue surrounding how to use and interpret Hunt –– which is, in turn, key to unraveling Ferahgo’s accusation. Indeed, I made a similar point on the R&I talk page almost a year ago, [50] though any observer of this case could be forgiven for not having read through the extensive archived discussions there. The bit that Ferahgo describes as Hunt’s actual position is clearly a statement of opinion, and not even an expert opinion at that since it is a psychologist opining about what is likely to be the case in the field of genetics. As was argued on the talk page (apparently persuasively to the majority of page watchers) this makes it UNDUE for inclusion, especially if it represents a FRINGE position. On the other hand, where Hunt acts as a secondary source –– and I credit him for making the distinction relatively clear –– he indicates that no evidence has ever emerged to support the speculations of racial hereditarians. The full quote, which appears in the Hunt citation I added to a number of articles, is: It is worth remembering that no genes related to difference in cognitive skills across the various racial and ethnic groups have ever been discovered. The argument for genetic differences has been carried forward largely by circumstantial evidence. Of course, tomorrow afternoon genetic mechanisms producing racial and ethnic differences in intelligence might be discovered, but there have been a lot of investigations, and tomorrow has not come for quite some time now. The question of how to interpret this statement was thoroughly discussed by Hob Gadling, MrOllie, NightHeron, an IP, a sock of MIkemikev, Stonkaments, Gardenofaleph, Aquillion and myself, with MrOllie remarking (again, apparently persuasively to the majority) that This is scientist for 'no evidence' the same way that 'works as well as placebo' is medical researcher for 'it doesn't do anything'. [51] After this I considered the matter essentially settled, since no new objections were ever raised, as far as I could tell –– only old ones repeated. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@ DGG: if you truly believe that the rejection of a genetic link between race and intelligence reflects what used to be academic view in the past rather than the current consensus among genetics professionals, I can see how you might believe that the snow close of the May 2021 R&I RfC must be the result of an effort to manipulate the rules on reliable sources. However nothing could be further from the case. This ought to be clear to anyone who takes the time to read through the sources that are cited in that RfC, along with the accompanying discussion.

@ CaptainEek and Barkeep49: I won't comment on whether another ARCA specifically on R&I would be helpful since I'm unfamiliar with the dynamics here, but I will be happy to provide a bit more of a reality check re. Ferahgo's narrative if that is deemed helpful. Addressing each of her accusations would take some time, so I'll try to pace myself as I gauge whether there is interest. For now I'll start by pointing out how demonstrably false the final allegation against NightHeron is (i.e. NightHeron was successful in the strategy he described in the two comments linked above: that he could prevent the community from discussing his misrepresentation of sources by opening an RFC which avoided this question. First of all: these comments describe nothing of the kind: [52] [53]. They are about preempting mischief and another complicated, tendentiously worded RfC such as Ferahgo had just been admonished for launching at RSN. The idea that these diffs present evidence for wrongdoing is preposterous. Second, Ferahgo leaves out that AndewNguyen raised the specific point she insists was never addressed –– that is, RfCs in the R&I topic area not addressing of the sourcing issue –– with Mackensen, the uninvolved admin who shut down Andew's attempt at yet another RfC at NPOVN: User_talk:Mackensen#Please_reconsider. Mackensen’s response was definitive: after Andew cited a comment from JBL saying If there really is a fundamental issue not addressed by this RfC, then this RfC does not prevent someone from opening a proper RfC to address it, [54] Mackensen responded It's the clear consensus of the community that there is not such a fundamental issue, and you need to respect that. [55] Generalrelative ( talk) 06:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@ DGG: As I suspected, the issue here is a simple misunderstanding on your part. As stated in the R&I FAQ, the heritability of differences between individuals and families within a given population group tells us nothing about the heritability of differences between population groups. You may find that counterintuitive, even hard to believe, and yet it is population genetics 101. See the sources cited there if you don't believe me: [56], [57]. Of course this is not the place for an ongoing debate over the science, so I'd be happy to continue the discussion on my talk page if necessary. Generalrelative ( talk) 14:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by RandomCanadian

From a quick read, this looks like "overriding established policy [including NPOV] via ArbCom". Not only is this usually something entirely out of the scope of ArbCom (whether via an amendment request or otherwise), but this hasn't even been attempted through the regular channels. Bradv's summary seems correct, and "we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources" smells like an absolutely horrible idea (we really want to give equal weight to recognised experts and to Johnny Idiot writing in conspiracy theorist sham journal?) RandomCanadian ( talk / contribs) 00:05, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by XOR'easter

Regarding the proposed addition Fringe political, social, and religious views are not part of science: this is a highly touchy point, and a matter where lines of demarcation are difficult to draw. People advocate fringe science for political, social, and/or religious reasons; sometimes, a view could reasonably be called all of those things. I think it's a bad idea to try separating them with the force of wiki-law, as it were. Doing so would deprive editors of the freedom to address thorny questions and gray areas on a case-by-case basis as necessary.

The second bullet point proposes a modification in order to match the guideline at WP:FRINGE, but the current text seems entirely in accord with WP:FRINGE, while the replacement is less so. WP:FRINGE says, If an article is written about a well-known topic about which many peer-reviewed articles are written, it should not include fringe theories that may seem relevant but are only sourced to obscure texts that lack peer review. And, if a notable fringe theory is primarily described by amateurs and self-published texts, verifiable and reliable criticism of the fringe theory need not be published in a peer reviewed journal (emphasis added). In other words, peer-reviewed articles are always to be preferred when the subject is within the purview of the regular academic literature. WP:FRINGE doesn't say material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas; it says they may be the best available option outside of these areas.

The third bullet point suggests adding the instruction Discussions of the quality of sources must not take account of what viewpoint they represent. This seems an unwarranted restriction that would, on the face of it, make many discussions at RSN invalid. Perhaps it is not always a good argument, but it is not a genre of argument that should be forbidden by wiki-law. Again, we should not deprive editors of the ability to discuss their way through gray areas on a case-by-case basis. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:35, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Szmenderowiecki

I will analyse the statements one-by-one, in some cases from a potential Wikilawyering standpoint.

• Amendment 1. Fringe science is what I believe to be a rather obvious term that does not need additional explanation. Linking it to WP:FRINGE would actually distort the sense normally being put in these words. Since the definition goes that the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field, it has also to do with WP:DUE than simply BS science, which is how the term "fringe science" is commonly understood.
• Amendment 2. While the additional clause makes the judgment more in line with WP:FRINGE, sort of, I side with Pyrrho the Skeptic in that additions from "fringe theories" guideline text is incompatible with "fringe science" judgment for WP:MEDRS reasons. For broad definitions of science as "knowledge about something" and not simply "hard sciences" (it seems to be the interpretation as "history" is also mentioned in the rule), there might be additional conflicts in ArbCom's rulings rising from the anti-Semitism in Poland case, or any other similar ruling where heightened requirements for sourcing have been set. Namely, the change might encourage those in the dispute in the area topics related to the area to challenge WP:APL, or any ruling with similar sourcing requirements, by citing the amended ruling and then insisting that any history article in the mass media, so long as it clears the RS bar, is permissible; thus unnecessarily escalating the case again to ArbCom, which would then have to determine which ruling is the controlling one. First, that's too much SCOTUS, too little Wikipedia; secondly, non-academic sources are a whole tier below academic ones, so we shouldn't encourage parity between the two.
• Amendment 3. I see problems with sentence two of the addition. In some areas, it is often thanks to the viewpoint that we know that the article is of low quality (as anti-vaxxer "studies" almost always are, or, as from my edit history, studies purporting to say that the Warsaw concentration camp had a giant gas chamber that killed 200K Poles), so it might provoke an argument by which a person who might want to promote fringe views refers to the amendment and says "but hey, you only said that this paper is anti-vax but we are expressly discouraged to judge the paper only by the viewpoint of the author", which would lead to some tedious discussions about why most, or all, anti-vax papers are not acceptable. Also, from the last sentence it would appear that so long as the material is supported by sources, one can introduce whatever material communicating The Truth® (that "if" condition is problematic); but what is needed here is simply a stern warning against POV-pushing + a separate warning to correctly interpret each source at hand.
• Amendment 4. If you remove "The above definitions do not apply" sentence, which might encourage people to promote fringe views that the filer proposes to exempt from the ruling, take into account the Amendment 3 remarks and the XOR'easter's remarks, para 1 and 3 (see section above), that might be fine, but then I'd like to see the modified proposal.

While the intent of the author is well-understood ("don't dismiss science you don't like if it is prevalent enough"), the wording weakens the sourcing requirements too much, makes the ruling incompatible with the more recent resolutions and might encourage tedious Wikilawyering disputes where there are more than enough disputes to begin with in the topic area. Szmenderowiecki ( talk) 07:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by NightHeron

Ferahgo has now made a series of false or misleading accusations against me and other editors (without notifying me, by the way). A year-and-a-half ago I was the OP of an RfC on Race and Intelligence at WP:FTN that was closed with a determination that racial hereditarianism (the view that certain races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than others) is a fringe view. Ferahgo is one of a small number of editors who have refused to accept that consensus and since that time have been forum-shopping in an attempt to reverse or circumvent it. After the RfC closure was upheld on appeal at AN, AndewNguyen appealed to ArbCom, making misconduct accusations against editors who'd participated in the RfC. An IP who had participated extensively in the RfC advanced an absurd conspiracy theory, accusing me of being a false-flag right-winger disguised as a left-winger in order to embarrass Wikipedia. A similar conspiracy theory is again advanced by an IP (perhaps the same one) in the user-page discussion that is linked to in Generalrelative's comment here.

This is not the place to refute all of Ferahgo's allegations claiming misuse or misrepresentation of sources. These matters have already been discussed at talk-pages, RSN, and elsewhere, and the consensus of editors has not supported those allegations (which is what Ferahgo seems to mean by saying that the community has been unable to resolve the content and sourcing issues). I'd like to just respond to Ferahgo's claim that I acted improperly in starting an RfC at the R&I talk-page in response to the claim by these editors that the outcome of the earlier RfC on R&I had been implemented wrongly, and that, if the community had only known about the nefarious way that I and others would edit the R&I page, they never would have voted the way they did. Ferahgo neglects to mention that the reason for the speedy closure of Ferahgo's RfC by an admin was that Ferahgo's RfC statement was lengthy, complicated, and tendentiously worded in an obvious attempt to skew the outcome -- in blatant violation of policy, which says that an RfC statement should be neutrally worded, short and simple. The short and neutrally worded RfC that I started at the R&I talk-page ( [58]) ended in a snow-close reaffirming the consensus that racial hereditarianism is a fringe POV. Both RfCs on race and intelligence had extensive participation by many editors -- over 50 in 2020 and about 35 in 2021. About 90% of the participating editors in the second RfC did not buy the claims of the disgruntled editors.

There has been no failure of policy or failure of the community that needs to be addressed by ArbCom. NightHeron ( talk) 09:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Gardenofaleph's comment below misstates the issue. The journal Intelligence was not rejected as a source when we edited Race and intelligence in accordance with WP:FRINGE. It's in fact cited 6 times in the R&I article. However, Intelligence is the official journal of the International Society of Intelligence Research, which is probably the most active organization promoting racial hereditarianism. The articles in that journal are not RS for the purpose of determining scientific consensus on race and intelligence or for refuting the conclusions of the 2020 and 2021 RfCs that the theory of genetic inferiority of certain races in intelligence is a fringe POV. NightHeron ( talk) 19:52, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49: Could you clear up my confusion about what's going on here with private email? My impression from passing remarks about it is that Ferahgo has been making a series of detailed claims about conduct by me and other editors in the form of private email to which we do not have access, and that these private emails have convinced you that ArbCom should open an investigation of the editing of R&I. Is this correct? If so, how does that square with Wikipedia policy? Having been on Wikipedia only 3 1/2 years, I'm still unfamiliar with some of the nuances of how WP (and especially ArbCom) operates. I thought that editors are supposed to be notified when accusations against them are being discussed with ArbCom so that they can defend themselves, and for the same reason those accusations are supposed to be discussed on-Wiki and not behind the backs of the accused editors. Was there a reason why the accusations had to be discussed in private? Clearly from Ferahgo's perspective there was, since her claims sound much more convincing if no one's around to refute her falsehoods and misrepresentations. But from your perspective, why did you think it appropriate to consider her claims in private without hearing the other side? Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 12:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

@ Barkeep49: Thanks for your prompt reply. My impression was that Ferahgo was using private email to argue for the allegation that the majority of editors editing Race and Intelligence and participating on the talk-page were violating core Wikipedia policies such as WP:NPOV and WP:RS in our judgments on appropriate use of sources. These are serious charges, and they are false. I also noted that you feel obligated not to divulge the content of that email, presumably for privacy reasons. I'm glad to hear that you encouraged Ferahgo to raise any such issues on-wiki, where the accused editors are notified and have the opportunity to respond. Thank you. NightHeron ( talk) 17:48, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to Stonkaments' comment concerning the FAQ on the R&I talk-page, even a cursory glance will show that Stonkaments misrepresents the "political correctness" question, which in full asks: Isn't this just political correctness? The answer given is that rejection of the belief that certain races are genetically endowed with less intelligence than others is based on science, not "just" political correctness. The well-sourced FAQ was discussed at great length on the talk-page, and was extensively edited as the discussion progressed. NightHeron ( talk) 01:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

In response to Stonkaments' latest statement directed to me, the FAQ does acknowledge that non-scientific as well as scientific considerations are involved in geneticists not devoting resources to investigating claims of racial differences in intelligence: "[while] moral concerns may play an important role in these decisions, an equally fundamental reason why researchers do not engage with the thesis is that empirical evidence shows that the whole idea itself is unintelligible and wrong-headed" (quoted from a source in the answer to the "political correctness" question). But I don't think this is the place to rehash the debates that occurred on the R&I talk-page. NightHeron ( talk) 17:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Gardenofaleph

I recommend that ArbCom read the discussion here for additional background. High-quality sources that have been declared non-RS on the basis of the viewpoints they present have included several books from Cambridge University Press; Papers published in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences, Human Nature, and the Journal of Biosocial Science, and one entire academic journal (Intelligence). Some of the time, the decisions to reject these sources have been based on sources of lower quality as defined as WP:SOURCETYPES, such as articles published in The Guardian and New Statesman, while in other cases Wikipedia editors have come up with their own justifications for rejecting these books and papers, in the absence of any reliably published criticism.

The conclusion that these sources are unreliable has not been supported by any decision at the RS noticeboard. Every attempt to discuss the issue there has either been shut down as in this case, or ended without concluding anything as in the more recent case. So the rejection of these sources does not appear to be supported by the broader community or by RS policy, but several editors have acted as though it's required by policy.

DGG's proposed amendment would possibly solve this issue, by defining a set of principles about the circumstances where it's acceptable to reject a source for this type of reason. Opening a new case could address it, too. But there is next to no chance the community could resolve this without some intervention by ArbCom. Every recent attempt to discuss the issue at the RS noticeboard has failed to reach any conclusion, and that will likely continue to be the case going forward. Gardenofaleph ( talk) 16:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by JayBeeEll

Quoting Worm That Turned below: I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions. Yes, this is exactly what is being requested, and per David Gerard and jps this request should be dismissed with prejudice. -- JBL ( talk) 21:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Stonkaments

On multiple contentious topics, WP:FRINGE has been cited as justification for excluding reliable sources, misrepresenting sources, and making unsupported claims about the scientific consensus. This is not a content dispute; it's a broader issue of editors misinterpreting FRINGE in a way that is inconsistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV, and has caused harm to the project. As such, I believe the community would greatly benefit from ArbCom clarification that FRINGE does not preempt other policies. This does not mean de-prioritizing academic sources or giving fringe views undue weight, but simply handling fringe views in a manner that is consistent with all other policies—DUE, NPOV, V, etc. Stonkaments ( talk) 00:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Even a cursory review of the FAQ at Talk:Race_and_intelligence shows that something has clearly gone quite wrong with WP:V on this topic. The FAQ claims that considerations of "political correctness" haven't played any role this debate, but this is contradicted by numerous reliable sources [59] [60] [61]. Likewise, the claim that there is "no evidence at all" for a genetic link between race and intelligence is contradicted by numerous sources (detailed in previous discussions [62]) that discuss circumstantial evidence that indicates a potential genetic link. Stonkaments ( talk) 00:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@ NightHeron: Re-read the discussion at Talk:Race_and_intelligence#FYI_FAQ—there was a clear and determined effort to deny recognition of the fact that abundant sources acknowledge the role that political correctness has played in this field. The FAQ claim that "researchers who choose to pursue this line of inquiry have in no way been hindered from doing so" is patently false. Stonkaments ( talk) 17:09, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

I generally agree with this request, except all this clarification that an RS cannot be excluded because of its viewpoint badly needs a reminder codicil that opinion/op-ed material in a generally reliable source is still a primary source not secondary even if most of what it publishes is secondary. There is a lot of confusion about this, all the time. E.g. a journal or newspaper that usually has literature reviews or proper news, respectively, gets cited for an editorial stance it has taken and then is claimed to be a reliable source for the truth of that stance. It is not. It is just a WP:ABOUTSELF-reliable source that the publication's editorial viewpoint is that viewpoint and that they did say what they did. (This comes up beyond WP:FRINGE contexts but also often in WP:MEDRS and in politics. I just now ran into it yet again only a few minutes ago in a socio-political RfC, for example.)  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Principles and FoFs from old cases probably shouldn't be changed. IME ArbCom only interacts with DS at a high level, setting out the procedures and then largely letting admins manage it's running in practice. Perhaps there would be scope for ArbCom to set high-level subject-specific guidance. For example, in APL there is Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism_in_Poland#Article_sourcing_expectations which is guidance at a high level. Similarly, there could be scope to add a remedy to the referenced case (titled "Interpretation" or some such) with high level guidance, assuming the substance of this request would improve enforcement in the manner DGG describes. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 13:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

The very first sentence of this request is "The reason for this request is the arguments on sources that keep occurring on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, WP:RSN, when dealing with minority views, where the arbcom rulings have been used to prevent the inclusion of reasonably reputable sources.". Yet apart from one tangentally related issue that has been raised in the conversation above, I don't see any evidence of these occurrences of the arbcom ruling being used at RSN, let alone "keep occurring". I would be interested to see some. Also, we should absolutely not be considering any modification which would cause WP:FRINGE to be made weaker - the third change in particular would effectively do this. If people are misusing FRINGE in rare cases, that can be dealt with through our regular processes; but FRINGE is there for a very good reason (as is WP:PSCI, which is policy). Black Kite (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

I agree with Alexbrn; the first two requested amendments are puzzling, but the second two are ghastly. The summary of them directly misrepresents both the relevant policies and the impact they would have. WP:NPOV, WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, and most of all WP:FRINGE specifically instruct us to, in certain circumstances, weigh inclusions and therefore sources based on the views they represent; DGG's suggestion here, if taken seriously, is effectively asking ArbCom to rewrite longstanding core policy by fiat in a way that would completely defang WP:FRINGE and weaken core parts of WP:NPOV, WP:DUE, and WP:GEVAL. I understand that it is frustrating to be told that you that you can't add something to an article you consider true and important and well-cited because your addition would gives a particular view more prominence than it is WP:DUE, because it promotes or relies on WP:GEVAL, or because it is WP:FRINGE; but those have been central pillars of Wikipedia since long before even the ancient case in question and are absolutely vital parts of how we write articles. If you think people are abusing those arguments, bring cases focused on those individual abuses and individual editors; but trying to completely defang WP:FRINGE like this is not the way to go. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:41, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

"in particular, WP:NPOV requires that sources should not be excluded from articles on the basis of the viewpoint they represent." I don't think this would be acceptable without also mentions of WP:GEVAL, WP:PRIMARY, WP:PARITY, WP:NOTNEWS... The same sentence also admits that it's about fringe topics. I've argued myself at FTN at times that a religious doctrine simply had to clearly be defined as such in cases where it is very distinct to pseudoscience. Sometimes I'll also remind that ARBPS was an important historical precedent, but that its clauses applied to that particular case; that current policy is what matters for editorial judgement. — Paleo Neonate – 20:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Quoting David Gerard: "if this is prone to be seized upon in an attempt to relitigate the race and intelligence RFC yet again, that's an excellent worked example of why not to change anything", or COVID-19 misinformation, 9/11 conspiracy theories, or questionable medicinal treatments. WP has been reported by some sources as exemplary in its treatment of such topics, despite the repeated attempts to push such misinformation. Accusations that WP's reputation is instead tarnished for not catering to those are nonsense: I'd personally long have left WP for more reality-based projects if it generally fell into clickbait scandal, pr-ad traps, journalistic false-balance, political disinformation and science-denial by design. Fortunately there are policies against it, like WP:FRINGE, WP:PARITY, WP:RS, WP:FRIND, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PSCI, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT... And no, WP:FRINGE is not "abused" in relation to COVID-19-related fringe claims (just read WP:MEDRS to have an overview of the topic instead of unreliable sources or clickbait news written by people who don't understand the science). — Paleo Neonate – 07:45, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

CutePeach: The ds/alert tag was explained here and a response to interest apparently expressed here. When a topic ban was applied, it was also under COVID sanctions (for persistent promotion), not ARBPS. Adding: it's not WP that needs "fixing" so that it ends up promoting political disinformation, conspiracy theories, racialism, pseudoscience, uneffective medical treatments or unlikely scenarios as plausible. It is important for topics to be described as what they are and to be careful about source selection. The proposed "fix" would corrupt the encyclopedia. If enough evidence and related material existed for an article about an actual lab leak event, for instance, we would expect a "<year> <lab> incident" type article that would also describe how it was mitigated and how it affected procedures, not one about (now popular enough for an article to exist) speculation and its promoters... — Paleo Neonate – 08:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Statement by CutePeach

I know very little about the R&I and even less about the debates here on Wikipedia, but from Ferahgo's account and Generalrelative’s response, I can see there is a problem. According to our article on intelligence, it is defined in many ways, and it wouldn’t be surprised me to learn that Bajaus and other seafaring peoples can be marginally better or worse off in some of these different ways, depending on which way we looked at it. Our Race (human categorization) article defines it as a social construct and that scientists … continue … to conceptualize race in widely differing ways, so I don’t see why some scientists wouldn’t try to observe commonalities and differences in different peoples that would characterize their intelligence in the many ways it is defined. It may be that their observations are scientifically unsound, but the key to debunking bad science is describing both sides accurately, and faithfully. CutePeach ( talk) 09:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• @ PaleoNeonate: I agree WP is exemplary in its treatment of pseudoscience, but that’s thanks only to the correct application of policies. If WP:FRINGE and WP:V aren’t applied correctly, we could end up with a situation where the Egyptian pyramid construction techniques article is deleted and tucked into Egyptology as a level four section, with topic bans handed out to any dissenting editors. Not long after I unblanked the COVID-19 lab leak article, you slapped an WP:ARBPS notice on my talk page [63], and not a day later another editor filed a complaint against me in WP:AE citing WP:ARBPS/4A [64], in what is presumably a coincidence. The case didn’t even address ARBPS, and instead turned into a frenzied session of mud slinging and spaghetti flinging, leaving the matter unsettled in ongoing disputes. I intend to appeal the topic ban, but first I’d like to see ARBCOM acknowledge the problem here, and attempt a WP:FIXIT. CutePeach ( talk) 10:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Fringe science: Clerk notes

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

Fringe science: Arbitrator views and discussion

• If I understand this request correctly, we are being asked to reduce Wikipedia's dependence on academic peer-reviewed sources in fringe scientific topics by denying them priority over other sources. I welcome statements from the community on whether these changes are desirable, what impacts they would have, and whether they would be consistent with the principles and findings of the Fringe science case in question. – bradv ^🍁 17:15, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  On second look, this is even more confusing. The items we're being requested to adjust here are not remedies, but principles and findings of fact which informed the outcome of the case. These principles make reference to and contain quotations from the NPOV policy, but we're being asked to instead make them dependent upon the FRINGE guideline, which presumably existed in a different form 12 years ago when this case was written. Furthermore, there are several comments here about how these intersecting policies and guidelines have been misused in various fora, which in my opinion is a reason to investigate those instances and patterns rather than reform the underlying principles without analysis or investigation. In other words, if revising this case is going to affect the intersection of fringe science with any of the topics listed in this filing, we should examine those topics one at a time, either in the form of an ARCA or a case request, rather than trying to argue the general without knowing the specifics. – bradv ^🍁 19:31, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm a bit confused tbh. Requests for amendments are usually for the addition, change or removal of sanctions (as the red box on top says). This request seems to ask for the change of principles and FoF from the old case. But they just reflect the principles that existed at the time of the decision and the facts that the decision was based on. Principles are based on policies and guidelines and those can change over time. Maybe those colleagues who were on the Committee back then can shed some light on why WP:FRINGE was not referenced explicitly despite already existing as a guideline? That said, correct me if I'm wrong but the decision contains to authorization for DS or similar, so shouldn't it be sufficient to declare that ArbCom does not rule on content and the FoF and principles from the old case thus cannot override a guideline on the topic that has community approval? Regards So Why 18:11, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not opposed to examining how WP:FRINGE, a content guideline, interacts with Discretionary Sanctions around a particular case at AE or better yet a pattern of cases/sanctions. As has been mentioned there has been communication with the committee and with me specifically about this and so that is what I had been expecting to see. However, as SoWhy points out the FoF that were found at that time is what was found at that time. Changing anything but a remedy 12 years later strikes me as something that would be reserved for extraordinary circumstances, while this (how to handle FRINGE/minitory views in contentious areas) seems like a regular ordinary difficult content problem. The sense I get is that I'm being asked to amend a case because some people are quoting from it at RSN and that doesn't seem like the right basis for an amendment request. People can quote what they want and anything that is not a policy or guideline (that is something with predetermined community consensus) only matters as much as others in the conversation agree that it does, that is it gainsconsensuss of the participating editors. Essays get quoted approvingly all the time and form the basis of consensus for instance. To the extent that this understanding of the request is wrong, please correct me. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  Except @ DGG that's not quite true either. We have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Principles for a reason. I know drafters, including me with IRANPOL, make an effort to reuse those. Of course sometimes the principles are slightly different which is why you see a million variations on that page. But ultimately I go back to what I said before: people are welcome to quote whatever they want. It only has weight if other people agree it does - either by making it into a policy/guideline or by agreeing it matters in the context of a discussion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @ Ferahgo: I don't want to divulge what all you sent in email to me and to the committee but in re-reading that I'm not seeing anything here that contradicts that. Specific evidence of something in our remit (i.e. not just a content dispute) is generally needed. That is what I'm looking for here regardless of the scope of what we're talking about. Obviously amending a case is in our remit but besides thinking it's a bad idea in general, I'm also not seeing evidence as to why it's needed now. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 04:19, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks to @ CaptainEek for those comments. I agree with them and desire to really think through what @ Ferahgo the Assassin has provided though I am currently having to prioritize some other wikiwork. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 21:29, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

  @ NightHeron: I was sent an email asking me to reconsider a sanction and some broader concerns to which I said the full committee would need to be involved. Then the committee was sent emails to which the response was "we can't really help you, please go onwiki" and here we are onwiki. At the moment I am unaware of specific editors being considered for sanctions but if that happens people do need to be notified. This appeal started asking us to amend an old case. There was no desire among arbs to consider that. Beyond that Eek has suggested a couple things to think about before we close the appeal which I agree are worth thinking about but I don't have the time to give them the attention they would need to be adequately examined at the moment. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 17:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• I'm with bradv on this one - if a case is being improperly referenced or referred to, that is an issue with the editor(s) providing that link. As stated both here and in recent ARCAs, we should not be changing anything other than Remedies from past cases; the FoF and Principles reflect Wikipedia at the time and we should not be changing them just to keep them current. Primefac ( talk) 19:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'm struggling with the idea of altering findings or principles of a 12 year old case. I'm quite happy to "clarify" to anyone that Principles and Findings reflect the state of the encyclopedia at the time, and since the encyclopedia has continued to develop, it may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia - but I'm not happy to amend old cases in that way. If it's causing widespread problems, then the best solution would be a fresh arbitration request, for up to date findings and principles - but I'm not seeing that there are sufficient problems in the area that we need such a case.
  Does anyone have examples where the principles have been specifically called out in recent discussions? I'm concerned that what is being asked for is the committee to make "a statement" about the Fringe topic area which would then influence future content decisions, and while that might happen to an extent in a case - we should do what we can to minimise it, and should not be doing it here. Worm^TT( talk) 11:10, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @ DGG: - my point with respect to "may not reflect the current state of the encyclopedia" was that old principles and findings should not be used to argue present decisions, as consensus can change. However, since I'm seeing no evidence that present discussions are being directly influenced by the old case, the point is moot. At any rate, I'm at the point of decline with respect to the request. Worm^TT( talk) 09:26, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• While the use of sources in the topic area is concerning, the link between the problems and the case seem tenuous at best. I will not support changing the principles or FoF of any case, absent some obvious mistake on our part. Seeing as these have stood for over a decade, it appears they were correct and factual. If folks think we need to approach the issue again, then perhaps a case request is in order. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 22:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

  @ DGG@ Ferahgo the Assassin Well, it looks like the proposed amendments won't pass, seeing as we won't amend past principles. But it appears there remains an underlying issue. I can't help but wonder: is the right case to focus on Race and Intelligence, not Fringe Science? We seem poised to close this ARCA, but I don't want this issue to go and simmer more. Could y'all (and others) comment on the value of an ARCA focused on R&I, a new case request, or perhaps some kind of brainstorming session leading up to an ARCA? CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 21:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

• Editing guidelines cover the areas - no need for arbcom involvement or amendment, particularly as the case has not been invoked in a discussion. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 05:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues that there is no need to amend old principles and findings of fact to reflect changes in policy or practice; if we did that, we'd be amending old cases every time any policy changed. This Committee is not in the business of maintaining an accurate current compendium of community norms and consensus on every principle previously stated in an arbitration case, or in "ratifying" shifts in community sentiments by amending those old principles. (I can imagine two exceptions: (1) where a finding of fact directly affects a remedy, e.g., if a finding of fact defines a term used in a remedy; or (2) in extreme circumstances, if a prior decision was so contradictory to the principles of the encyclopedia that to keep it would be undignified. These should be rare and neither apply here.) I would therefore decline the request. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
• I'll also echo others here, that this is not one of the very rare cases where amending old principles or findings is worthwhile, and that the reliability and weighting of sources is generally not something ArbCom should be deciding. -- BDD ( talk) 21:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• A little late here, but I would also be very reluctant to start altering old FoFs or principles unless there is some reason to believe they were entirely in error at the time they were passed. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:36, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Initiated by TomStar81 at 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Horn of Africa 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:

• TomStar81 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by TomStar81

"This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows: Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies."

As it has been some months, I would like the committee to reopen this case for the purpose of establishing whether or not a full case should be heard, and independent of that whether or not the authorized discretionary sanctions should be made permanent. I feel that it is important for the committee to take up this issue in order to avoid any apparent "cracks" as it were with which editors who have been sanctioned, blocked, or otherwise affected by the committee's previous ruling may argue that the enforcement procedures no longer apply to them. I cite Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2021#Horn_of_Africa as proof that the community is putting these sanctions to good use, and as before I cite User:TomStar81/Horn of Africa disruption as evidence that the situation is not under control and therefore more action (such as Community Sanctions, Arbitration Committee / Arbitration Enforcement, Discretionary Sanctions, etc) is needed to allow for effective interdiction of the effected region. TomStar81 ( Talk) 03:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• I do believe a full case would be beneficial for several reasons. Aside from the obvious reason of closing a perceived loophole that could be exploited for malevolent reasons a full case would allow for a broader review of what is working and could in turn allow the committee to work in or extend to this region enforcement remedies already in place on other areas of Wikipedia which impact this one as well (for example, three or four cases generally involve the middle east, such as Arab-Israel, sanctions and remedies there could be placed here, while Kurds and Kurdistan concerns ethnic tribes and remedies there could be put to use here). This would also be useful in establishing a single, centralized heading for reporting SPI-based blocks as opposed to the current system which is run by a small group (namely me) tracking the myriad of socks. If the committee were so incline, they could take up this issue by requiring SPI cases on or related to the Horn of Africa to be reported and logged for enforcement. Community feedback on a full case could also help to establish what is or is not working at the moment, and could help show areas that could benefit from a full case. The matter of protection levels could also be definitively discussed, whether the committee would allow for permanent semi-protection or 30/500 protection for the articles could be discussed and agreed upon. This would also offer some accused accounts that were either cleared or for which evidence was lacking for action to weigh in, which could help build consensus for long term changes in this region should a full case be heard. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

• @ Floquenbeam: That's exactly why I'm bringing this back up, people forget, and then cracks form, and then before you know it we have people who suddenly start saying "wait, what?" because they were unaware of it. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• @ Apaugasma: A full case would do two things. First, it would draw Wikipedia wide attention to the fact that the arbitration committee has opened a case on the matter, which in turn would in theory provide a fuller, more detailed picture of the extent of the problem, which in turn could allow ARBCOM to adjust the parameters for the case and its provisions. Second, as editors arrive to air grievances, the committee could get a better sense from the community about the kind of issues being presented in the articles. For Arab-Isreali, for example, when the third case the committee heard on the matter was accepted it was decided to specifically take the entire region, broadly construed. For other cases the committee has heard a full case for its shown the extent of nationalistic editing and has helped to shape provisions and guide discretionary sanctions when they are judged to be needed. As an exercise in psychological warfare, a full case could also be seen as a flag waving exercise to help deter would be trouble makers by making it known that arbcom has its eyes and ears on the region, which in an of itself may help help reduce the problems with the pages. A full case would also show arbcom's commitment to the community by hearing out all aspects of the issue rather than attempting to sum it in simple terms and solve it exclusively by discretionary sanctions. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• @ Doug Weller: Part of not being able to find people is not being able to find people who respect the site. As @ Kzl55: pointed out previously, editors have been encourage/recruited into editing in this area for the purpose of hijacking the articles so they say what the people behind them want them to say instead of staying neutral. To a certain extent information covered in this area is addressed by proxy by more active projects (Ethiopia's military, for example, is under the auspices of MILHIST, the countries under Wikiproject Africa, etc), but those who would be specifically knowledgeable about these things are not, as you stated, editing the area nor expressing an interest in being part of the group to reach out to an maintain the articles. Part of a full case then should be whether or not semi protection or ECP protection should be more liberally applied here, but part of a full case wold also need to look at why editors aren't contributing here in the first place. If this is a recruitment issue then its outside our ability to effect, but if its due to a toxic environment then whats needed is the Wiki-superfund to help clean it up and get it back where it needs to be for the benefit of the project as a whole. TomStar81 ( Talk) 13:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• @ GeneralNotability: That furthers the argument for a full case being heard before ARBCOM, as it demonstrates opposing view points on the matter. I think more room and more evidence would help clarify this in the event a full case was heard, and I be very interested to see the evidence presented for why DS would not work for the Horn of Africa region. TomStar81 ( Talk) 17:08, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by floq

Wait: I was involved in administering discretionary sanctions?! That doesn’t sound right. — Floquenbeam ( talk) 03:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by User:力

There is a hot war in Ethiopia right now, and various Tigray topics not directly related to the conflict have seen continual disruption on Wikipedia as well. Somalia topics have also historically seen a lot of disruption. The Discretionary Sanctions should be made permanent (at least until the next mass Discretionary Sanctions re-evaluation). I'm not sure why a full case would be needed, though - apart from imposing DS (already done) and banning users (which can be done with DS) what would be done? User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I must advertise the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 May Kado massacre discussion here. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:52, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Rosguill

I'm not familiar enough with the patterns of editors in the area to know whether ARBCOM would help. I feel like one difficulty of Horn of Africa DS enforcement compared to other DS regimes is that our admins tend to be much less familiar with it as a topic, and thus less confident taking action. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with what Apaugasma and others have said that beyond the admin issue, we have a broader deficit of solid editors in this topic, which is compounded by a comparative dearth of RS material in languages commonly spoken by editors of enWiki. I wasn't an expert on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict when I first started handling related cases, but I was able to get up to speed fairly quickly thanks to there being lots of usable coverage in English and Russian and an FA-quality article about the 1989-1994 war. It feels like HoA disputes often stall over a few incommensurable claims from academic sources, and a total lack of verifiable up-to-date news sources. Anecdotally, East Africa seems to be one of the regions of the world with the lowest degree of English-language coverage or usage, a problem further compounded by the diversity of languages (and even language families) on the ground. If I were dictator of the WMF, I would consider devoting resources to recruiting and training more editors to actively edit articles about this part of the world, but that's out of scope of what we're discussing here. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:07, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A related note, it seems like HoA-related disputes tend to be either "Ethiopia and Eritrea"-related or Somalia-related; I'm not aware of much overlap between these categories. Would there be any benefit to splitting the current DS regime to handle these disputes separately? _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

Barkeep49, the WP:HORN country, Ethiopia (population ~120 million people), is currently on the brink: https://www.npr.org/2021/11/07/1051940127/rebels-are-closing-in-on-ethiopias-capital-its-collapse-could-bring-regional-chaos. Which I fear might lead to an ethnic genocide that could dwarf that of Rwanda. Personally, I don't find HORN content more obscure than, say, BALKANS, where the medieval often intertwines with the modern. While for Africa, Ethiopia probably has the longest recorded history (alongside Egypt), the key history of the current conflict can much more easily be reduced to its three most recent eras:

1. The Derg and Ethiopian Civil War era (1974-1991).
2. The Tigray People's Liberation Front dominance (1991–2018) and Ethnic_federalism era.
3. And the current era of the Prosperity Party and the abandonment of Ethnic federalism, which has led to the present Tigray War.

See also: Category:Massacres_of_the_Tigray_War (116 pages), War crimes in the Tigray War, Famine in the Tigray War, Casualties of the Tigray War, Sexual violence in the Tigray War, Spillover of the Tigray War, 2018 Eritrea–Ethiopia summit (worked), and the Tigrayan peace process (didn't work). A few more pages of interest: Ethiopian civil conflict (2018–present), Oromo conflict (2021), Ethnic discrimination in Ethiopia § Tigray War, 2020–2021 Ethiopian–Sudanese clashes. But to actually answer your question: yes I, at least, am making use of the DS (though less than I expected), which I strongly recommend be retained, especially seeing how bleak the future may be. El_C 09:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

TomStar81, hopefully, Kzl55 comes back soon. I found them to have been a true asset on countless occasions, especially about anything Somalia and Somaliland. Sending positive thoughts. El_C 13:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Sidenote: thanks to whomever suppressed my revdel'd edit (glad I caught it in less than 5 min). I used to think revdel was enough for nearly anything, because I trust other admins (at least with privacy matters). But recently, after the whole IcedCream RfA debacle, I admit to being much more wary. El_C 14:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

GeneralNotability, I alone have 10 log entries in WP:AELOG/2021#Horn of Africa. By contrast, here's a list of any of them which had seen less than 5 log entries this year:

• Genetically modified organisms = 0
• German war effort = 0
• Gun control = 0
• Electronic Cigarettes = 0
• Article titles and capitalisation = 0
• Catflap08 and Hijiri88 = 0
• Climate change = 0
• September 11 conspiracy theories = 0
• Civility in infobox discussions = 0
• Infoboxes = 1
• Pseudoscience = 1 (yours truly!)
• Scientology = 1 (yours truly!)
• Abortion = 1
• Shakespeare authorship question = 2
• Macedonia = 2 (yours truly!)
• BLP issues on British politics articles = 2
• The Troubles = 3
• Motorsports = snuh!

Anyway, looking at many of these subjects, I think the chances of an influx at the HORN topic area might be higher than any of those twenty DSs. Due to reasons that are profoundly tragic. But we need to be realistic. El_C 17:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, GN. To expand a bit: I think DS is helpful and a time saver wrt enforcement of editors whose disruption is more nuanced in nature, as opposed to more obvious disruption that can be better handled through normal admin action. But it's difficult to predict what ratio of which side of that continuum would appear in any given topic area at any given time.

DS also helps with somewhat extraordinary action. So, for example, upon Joe Biden assuming the presidency, I invoked AP2 to protect Jill Biden (from none to indef semi), even though nothing had happened (i.e. preemptively). Hope that makes sense. El_C 16:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Apaugasma

I believe that Rosguill is pointing in the right direction when talking about our admins being less familiar with the topic and thus less confident taking action. But the real problem, as I see it, is that there are hardly any experienced editors active in the topic area. There's no one to pick up on a problem when one occurs, or to give sufficient attention to it when one is reported. Recently, a related AE enforcement request was archived without closing ( this one; cf. my unanswered query here). Likely for the same reason, responses to ANI reports have also been a bit underwhelming ( archived; two current ones [65] [66]).

It seems to me that we only have the capacity to deal with the most obvious of problems (e.g., extremely ducky sockmasters like this one), and that we will simply have to live with the fact that most articles in this area are going to remain in a very bad state.

I have no idea of what could be gained from opening a full case so I won't comment on that, but I will note that there has been considerable confusion over whether these DS are still active (e.g. [67] [68]), so clearing that up by a motion to make them permanent would be very helpful. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 12:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Also pinging Yamaguchi先生 and NinjaRobotPirate, who patrol a lot of these pages and protect some of them from time to time. ☿  Apaugasma ( talk  ☉) 12:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

I think Apaugasma is correct. We simply do not have enough decent editors in this area and I have no idea where we can get them from. I feel a bit guilty for giving up editing relevant articles because of the problems and my lack of real knowledge of the issues. I also don't know if a full case is required but it is essential that it is made clear that the DS are permanent - any confusion needs to be cleared up quickly considering the violence in the area. I'd also recommend a very liberal use of ECP. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by GeneralNotability

In the areas that I have worked in this topic area (dealing with the couple of sockpuppeteers active in the area, particularly Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Walkerdude47), I actually do not believe DS are necessary; since sockpuppetry is the problem, blocks/reverts/protection are self-justifying without applying DS. All DS would do is make my page protections harder to overturn, and I have yet to hear any concerns about them to start with. I cannot speak for the rest of the topic area, though, and if other Horn of Africa pages are seeing lots of independent ethnonationalist (wow I use that word a lot around here) editors showing up, DS might be worthwhile. For the sake of transparency, I tend to be against employing DS unless it is absolutely necessary; if a page sees a lot of fights over a DS topic then it probably merits protection anyway, and if we have someone disruptively editing in one of these topic areas it's rare that they are enough of a positive to the encyclopedia to warrant a topic ban rather than a normal block. GeneralNotability ( talk) 16:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

El_C, I'll absolutely defer to you on the need for DS, you're the one who's actually making use of them, has skin in the game, boots on the ground, whatever the metaphor is here. I just want to make sure we've stopped and asked the question "do we really need to be using DS to stop the disruption?"; that is, what is DS letting us do that we could not do with the normal admin toolkit and within normal admin discretion. GeneralNotability ( talk) 18:04, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

I'd favor making the WP:ARBHORN sanctions permanent. Since a full arb case is tiring, the committee might consider doing this by motion. The kind of situation where sanctions are most useful are where someone has been POV-pushing over a period but staying below the threshold of WP:3RR. In that case an admin could use the option of banning an editor from the topic of the Horn of Africa. In practice my only uses of ARBHORN so far have been to apply WP:ECP to certain articles. For example, to address reverting between 'Somaliland' and 'Somalia' by a succession of new editors. EdJohnston ( talk) 02:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

A full case is not needed here. WP:ARBHORN should undoubtedly be made permanent, given the current precarious situation in Ethiopia. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:22, 22 November 2021 (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.

Horn of Africa: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse since I have been invited to participate in the discussion. GeneralNotability ( talk) 16:42, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Horn of Africa: Arbitrator views and discussion

• @ TomStar81, El C, Rosguill, GeneralNotability, EdJohnston, and Floquenbeam: as the admins who have used this DS do you have any feedback on this? Would there be any benefit, in your view, to a full case as opposed to the sanctions just being made permanent (assuming this is what you believe)? Thanks, Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I promise I didn't make it up Floquenbeam. Barkeep49 ( talk) 03:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  Non-arb reply moved to the its own section. Primefac ( talk) 08:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing anything that suggests a full case is warranted. But I do see reason to believe we should make the DS permanent and would support doing so by motion. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 02:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with confirming that the DS authorization is permanent, based on what's already been presented. We can readily do that by motion. Open-minded on accepting for a full case, but interested in more input on what that might accomplish that admins using the DS as needed would not. (I've noted TomStar81's points on this.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I am open to the idea of holding a full case. At the moment, however, I do not see much more than a need to make the "temporary" DS a bit more permanent. Primefac ( talk) 17:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with NYB and Primefac in that I see the benefit of another motion, not so much a full case. -- BDD ( talk) 01:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
• I wasn't on board with the trial, as I felt the community should be handling it. However, I'm happy this has improved things. I'd rather a motion than a full case in this scenario unless anyone spots something that needs more investigation. Worm^TT( talk) 16:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• I'm not convinced for the need for a full cases. My biggest concern is that there would be no established parties to it, which is a considerable departure from other arbitration cases that involving users with some history on the project. My other concern is that without established parties, the cases would be more a workshop for laying out discretionary sanctions (or other remedies) as opposed to examining conduct of parties. While such a case could be potentially useful, I don't think it's a necessarily a case that we want for that work, but instead we ought to finish the DS reform that's stalled out somewhat from the Committee end. Maxim_(talk) 16:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
• If someone wants to request a full case outlining why a motion to make the current temporary DS permanent is not sufficient, they are welcome to do so. So far, I see mostly support for making the DS permanent which I would support. Regards So Why 20:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Motion: Horn of Africa

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - firefly ( t · c ) 15:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

1. As proposer. Rescinding the previous motion so there's no confusion about a full case in the future. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:05, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
2. With the addition I made to clarify that those are not new authorizations but just the old sanctions being made permanent. Regards So Why 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
3. Maxim_(talk) 21:57, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
4. Primefac ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
5. Katie ^talk 22:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
6. Worm^TT( talk) 22:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
7. BDD ( talk) 23:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
8. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!} ⚓ 01:22, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
9. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 02:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
10. Beeblebrox ( talk) 19:17, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
11. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 01:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

• If we formally rescind the previous motion, don't we also need to formally transform all current sanctions to be treated like they were issued under the new authorization? That seems complicated just for the sake of complication. After all, the current motion already includes the wording "any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies" (emphasis added), so it was always clear that making the authorization permanent via motion was a possible outcome and that outcome would be instead of a full case. So why can't we just have a motion that says "The previous motion is amended; the authorization is made permanent."? That way, we don't have to duplicate the authorization and it's clear that the current authorization just continues to exist. Regards So Why 19:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  You're right, SoWhy that was too complicated and introduced its own problem. I have revised the motion to note DS being made permanent. I do want to close the "anyone can ask for a full case" provision and so I have noted we are not opening the case. Barkeep49 ( talk) 19:56, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  @ Barkeep49: I rephrased your proposal a bit to make it clear that those are not new authorizations but just the old ones being made permanent. I think that should be uncontroversial. Regards So Why 20:42, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  I was trying to avoid the word permanent but yes noting that they were already authorized does make sense. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:51, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  If you have an idea for a different wording, I'm okay with that, I just used that one because it mirrors the language in the original motion ("should be made permanent"). Regards So Why 21:07, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

  Not to get too into the weeds on the matter, but "permanent" on Wikipedia is about as forever as "indefinite", so I do not see an issue with using the term. Primefac ( talk) 22:01, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Initiated by Cabayi at 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

m:Special:Permalink/22396512#Phil Sandifer

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

• Cabayi ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (initiator)
• TheresNoTime ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• 1997kB ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• El Sandifer ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Special:Diff/1058095090 [diff of notification Primefac]
• Special:Diff/1058095189 [diff of notification BDD]
• Special:Diff/1058095234 [diff of notification TheresNoTime]
• Special:Diff/1058095163 [diff of notification 1997kB]
• Special:Diff/1058095448 [diff of notification El Sandifer]

Statement by Cabayi

Clarification is requested about the policy implications of Arbcom intervention at El Sandifer's rename request.

El Sandifer has been banned since 2013 and has since transitioned. El requested a rename on the global queue.

Global rename policy requires that

The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct.

I have long read that equating blocked account with bad conduct, and a rename with obfuscating the user's talk page activity which led to the block, and thus, blocked accounts are not renamed. I have not been challenged on that interpretation until this request.

El challenged the decision at the renamers' mailbox, accusing me of an "outrageously transphobic decision." I reiterated the policy.

El then took the request to meta, and apparently to the arbcom's mailbox. Following private discussions, Primefac & BDD intervened on behalf of Arbcom stating that the block should not prevent the renaming. TheresNoTime also intervened in their capacity as a functionary. 1997kB acted on the rename as requested.

Setting aside El Sandifer's WP:NPA-level response that my original decision was transphobic, and letting their blatant WP:FORUMSHOPping slide...

What until yesterday/today was a clear policy has now been muddied.

I don't believe the renaming serves El well, as there are now >8000 signed talk page edits tying new name (attribution in the edit history) to deadname (signature in the post). I don't believe there is a need or even a legitimate purpose to rename a user who hasn't been active in 8 years. I don't believe the intervention has left the renaming policy with a clear direction.

Please explain the intervention's effect on the interaction between:

• Global renaming policy concerning the renaming of blocked users (my primary concern)
• WP:UCOC
• Deadnaming
• WP:PACT

Thank you. Cabayi ( talk) 12:19, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Primefac for clarifying. As I noted above and in my notification to El, my principal concern is where this leaves renaming policy rather than El's renaming specifcally. Cabayi ( talk) 12:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

No, David Gerard I am explicitly not denying anyone the right to be called what they want. I am requesting clarification of the situation. Perhaps global renaming policy needs to change. The current situation is unclear. Cabayi ( talk) 13:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Worm That Turned. That is all the nuance which got lost between the Arbcom's private discussions and the intervention on the meta request. I'm happy for any clerk to close now that some clarity has been achieved. Cabayi ( talk) 14:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Primefac

At this exact point in time, I have only one thing to clarify:

El then took the request to meta, and apparently to the arbcom's mailbox

While this is an understandable assumption, it was actually not El that contacted us regarding the rename. Given that's likely more than I should be saying anyway, I will leave it at that. Primefac ( talk) 12:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by BDD

I don't have anything to add beyond what my colleagues have already covered. -- BDD ( talk) 19:03, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by TheresNoTime

I disagree with Cabayi's assertion that there are any "policy implications [arising from] Arbcom['s] intervention at El Sandifer's rename request.". It makes sense that the arbitration committee would clarify their position at this rename request.

Given that my role as a functionary has next to no 'weight' when compared to a statement from said committee, my comment was little more than superficial support for something which I can empathise with on a personal level.

I believe Cabayi's actions in filing this case, and how they handled the rename request, have been entirely with good intent (if somewhat ill advised).

I would urge the committee to reject this case and consider a simple addition somewhere that ArbCom is happy to be consulted in future global rename requests   -- TNT ( talk • she/they) 15:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by 1997kB

Statement by El Sandifer

Statement by David Gerard

This request itself appears to be a direct violation of m:Universal_Code_of_Conduct#2.1_–_Mutual_respect part three example three - People who identify with a certain sexual orientation or gender identity using distinct names or pronouns; by directly stated intent: the requestor appears to be asking Arbcom for the right to violate the UCoC. As such, this request should be rejected immediately - David Gerard ( talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Cabayi, I've seen the followup email you sent, in the name of WMF. Your intent is absolutely unambiguous. If that isn't a UCoC violation as well, then the UCoC is worthless - David Gerard ( talk) 13:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux

In regards to @ Worm That Turned: (probably rhetorical statement that I cherry-picked below): Do renames now need to consult Arbcom before declining the renaming of a block user?. I've certainly been around a while and am a global renamer as well, and can attest that globally the "local block" consideration isn't always a brightline rule; and would support a rename without unblock after a consult with the blocking admin on a project the requester had any significant contributions to where they are currently blocked. In this specific case, the block is labeled as a committee ban - so I would expect that the local committee should be consulted. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

Clarify. Is this a 'blocked editor' asking for a page move of his/her/they, etc's bio article title? GoodDay ( talk) 19:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So this doesn't fall under WP:Proxying. GoodDay ( talk) 20:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Statement by Morwen

I am genuinely staggered by the tone of the email that User:Cabayi sent to El notifying her of this arbcom request. May I have permission to repost it here? Morwen ( talk) 20:07, 1 December 2021 (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.

Renaming, Deadnaming, Blocks, UCoC & policy: Clerk notes

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

Renaming, Deadnaming, Blocks, UCoC & policy: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I fail to see how this is a potential request for clarification and/or amendment. The cited policies are not ArbCom decisions. While a ban is indeed bad conduct, the global policy does not say "you cannot be renamed if banned or blocked", it says you cannot be renamed if you behaved badly and you want to be renamed in order to conceal that you did so. In this case, the rename request has legitimate alternative reasons and as pointed out, there is no risk of concealment or obfuscation since their old name is clearly connected to the new one. As long as the user is active on a different project and wishes to contribute there under their new name, the nature of SUL requires the rename is carried out on all projects. All ArbCom did was to confirm that as far as the ban in question, the Committee does not believe that the rename request was made in order to "conceal or obfuscate bad conduct" or will lead to that. Regards So Why 12:48, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• The global policies are useful for the general case, and therefore appropriate for the vast majority of situations. However, in this case, we felt that our arbcom ban should not preclude a rename. We have had accepted similar requests in the past, and declined others - depending on the credibility of the reasons behind the request. In this case, El Sandifer used her real name as her username, and therefore it was reasonable for her to want to move away from her deadname - the benefit that the community gains from stopping is far less than than the benefit that El would receive, and so it was right that it should be allowed. I say this without consideration of the global policies, and simply because it is the right thing to do. Worm^TT( talk) 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  Noting further, that now that I've checked the global renaming policy - the name change keeps the user's surname and in so doing appears to be trying to make the absolute minimum amount of change to meet her requirements (removal of her deadname), whilst staying within the "not seeking to conceal or obfuscate". This is one of those rare cases where we are talking about a real name, not a pseudonym, and we should be sympathetic to that. I don't believe that we need to change the global policy, but we need to acknowledge that sometimes we need to look at wider context. Worm^TT( talk) 13:10, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

  For clarification purposes, I will say the following. The commmittee was contacted by a third party about the rename, with the understanding that the rename could not happen due to the Arbcom block. After a short period of discussion, we believed that the Arbcom block should not stand in the way of the rename. The global policy states "The user is not seeking the rename to conceal or obfuscate bad conduct." - not that they cannot be renamed if blocked, or not in good standing. So, between these factors, and the fact that the rename target is very similar to the original target - the policy requirement is met.

  The Committee cannot set global policy, thank goodness, nor would we want to. Cases where this is relevant are minimal (where their username is a real name, and blocked, and have a good reason for rename)

  Should Deadnaming be an exception to the global policy? Well, maybe, in cases where the user's real name is their username - I'd certainly expect some consideration to the reason behind the rename request and would recommend a global discussion the topic. Do renames now need to consult Arbcom before declining the renaming of a block user? Certainly not. Do Arbcom want to adjust the renaming policy? No, I don't believe that's necessary. Is this a one-off decision, without precedent? Well, if the same situation came up, I'd hope more consideration would be given to the reason and I believe that Arbcom would behave in the same way.

  I believe that covers all angles I can think of. Worm^TT( talk) 13:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• No action is needed on this clarification request, which should not have been filed. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Further discussion of this request, which I reiterate should not have been filed, is unlikely to be productive. It should be closed and archived as soon as possible. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 20:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with Worm That Turned in the entirety and with Newyorkbrad that no action is needed on this request. Because the filer has withdrawn this request, as soon as a majority of arbs have concurred, clerks should feel free to close this request. On a procedural note, no arbitrators should be listed as a party to this request – Primefac and BDD were merely implementing the full Committee's decision and are not parties or administratively WP:INVOLVED. I'm therefore removing them as parties. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Also agree this should be closed with no action. Katie ^talk 19:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing more for us to do here. We were asked if we had any objection to a global rename of a user who was banned 8 years ago by ArbCom, and we responded. It is clear from the request that this name change was being requested for real-life reasons, and not to obfuscate or hide anything to do with this wiki. It's also worth mentioning to the global renamers/stewards that we appreciate being asked, as there are instances where a global rename of a banned or blocked editor could cause problems. But in this case it's a non-issue, and this ARCA can be archived by the next available clerk. – bradv ^🍁 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
• Pile-on agreement with the above comments. No action needed. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)