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

Case or decision affected

American politics 2 arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

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

• StAnselm ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Coffee ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Stadscykel ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1]
• [2]

Statement by StAnselm

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

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

Statement by Coffee

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

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

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

Kirill Lokshin, Opabinia regalis, Doug Weller, Callanecc: The whole point of this restriction is to reduce the unnecessary workload faced by editors actually working to make these political articles neutral, reliably sourced, properly weighted, and thorough (and in the case of the BLPs, in full compliance of the requisite policies)... I'll refer to such editors as "content editors" henceforth. Having a 0RR restriction would allow "drive-by" editors to place something completely without consensus on the page, and having the 1RR restriction creates an issue wherein a drive-by editor can easily force the same issue when adding content that has not existed in the article before (as long as only one content editor is actively watching the article). So the idea for prohibiting "potentially contentious content without firm consensus" was to prevent a situation where an editor adds something, a content editor reverts it (using up their 1RR), and then the other editor uses their one revert to replace their edit. That happening is obviously not optimal, and it actually has happened in these articles before. I would love, and am completely open to, finding a different way to word the restriction, as long as we can find an acceptable method to reduce the workload of our content editors and ensure that the media is not scrutinizing our behaviour in the process. Do you all have any ideas on how to address this particular issue? Or do you feel it is literally outside of the available restrictions that your discretionary sanctions provide? (I'd also love to hear from Anythingyouwant, one of the most prolific editors on Donald Trump, on their ideas on how to solve this issue.) — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Callanecc: Great point. Perhaps something like "if an edit is reverted, you are prohibited from adding the contended edit back until consensus is found for it"? Better wording can be used for the final restriction, but this would seem to be a good idea based on your input. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 07:39, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Waggers, Callanecc: From what I'm seeing, yes. This should completely remove any issues regarding admins blocking users unfamiliar with the area, who are editing in good faith. It would definitely seem to make any editor's intentions quite clear too. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Callanecc: I've updated all of the editnotices per your request, (as can be seen in the log), the new wording is now: You must not make more than one revert per 24 hours to this article, must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining firm consensus on the talk page of this article and are subject to discretionary sanctions while editing this page.. I hope that the wording is now satisfactory to the Committee. Please inform me if I need to change anything else. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:43, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Newyorkbrad: That's the entire point of changing the wording. I can ensure you that such blocks will not happen in the future, now that the letter of the restriction can be followed without overreaching onto editors without familiarity with the situation. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 01:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Stadscykel

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

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

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

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

Statement by The Wordsmith

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

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

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

@ Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, and Doug Weller: Before closing, there is still the issue of whether or not reversing a block carried out under AE (even if questionable or a bad block) is to be allowed. We also need to clarify in WP:ACDS explicitly whether or not editnotices are considered a valid form of notification. Can this be done via motion? Or do we have to go through the excessive referendum process in WP:ARBPOL? The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 14:09, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Doug Weller: The Presumption of Validity solves that issue, yes. The other is partially rectified, we just need a ruling on whether or not it is valid for an editor who has not been templated to be sanctioned, if they edited on a page with the DS editnotice. Currently two parts of WP:ACDS seem to conflict on this, and that's the whole reason this ARCA request happened. So far, I think Opabinia regalis has the best idea on this, in that it can be a legitimate replacement for the template but only outside of Article-space. I might even go a bit farther and exclude the Talk: namespace as well, since plenty of inexperienced editors end up there. Whereas if they're in Project-space or Template space, etc, they're probably experienced enough to notice it. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 15:57, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ Coffee: I agree that the wording you propose is an improvement to the edit notice, but please do not block good-faith editors who have made an isolated edit that they may not have realized was a violation (either because they haven't followed the revert history or they didn't notice the edit notice) without first discussing with them. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Callanecc, Opabinia regalis, Kirill Lokshin, and Doug Weller: and other arbs: I think it would be good if you could clarify that this is the expectation. Our experienced administrators can hopefully distinguish people who are aware of the rules and disregard or try to wikilawyer around them, versus situations such as happened here. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

Responding to the latest comments, I understand User:Opabinia regalis's point that some editors would prefer to be informed or reminded of DS on a mainspace page rather than receive a personalized notification. Personally I think the avoidance of out-of-the-blue blocks or sanctions is most significant, but this can be achieved in various ways. What is crucial is that administrators are careful to avoid such blocks (e.g. by giving a final warning rather than blocking or sanctioning where an editor's intent is unclear).

As for not further escalating the degree of difficulty of overturning an AE sanction, I agree wholeheartedly with Opabinia regalis. We do not want a cowboy culture in which admins overturn each others' AE actions (or any actions) willy-nilly, but we do not want unjustified blocks lingering for days, either. In this instance, two experienced administrators plus one other editor concurred that the block was bad at the time the editor was unblocked. (When I came upon the AN thread I became the third administrator to opine that it was a very bad block. Post-unblock the thread continued for some days and basically no one, other than the original blocking admin, defended the block.) Significantly, the unblock took place 12 hours after the unblock request was posted; it was only a 48-hour block in the first place, so that having days of discussion would have defeated the entire point of the unblock request; and it was not just a non-consensus block but an awful one, which had the blocked user thinking of quitting the project—and me not blaming him. The unblock under these circumstances was the right call, and in the unfortunately and hopefully unlikely event that these circumstances occurred again, a speedy unblock would again be the right call. Presumptions in favor of upholding AE actions and consensus requirements for overturning them should not be taken to extremes; nor, as I argued in lonely dissent multiple times when I was on the Committee, should inflexibility and automatic actions ever be written into the ArbCom's procedures and norms. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by L235

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

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

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

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

Statement by Sir Joseph

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

Statement by DHeyward

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

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

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

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

Statement by Masem

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

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

Statement by Gerda

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

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

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Tryptofish

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

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

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

Statement by Petrarchan47

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

Statement by Blackmane

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

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

Statement by Nableezy

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

Statement by Waggers

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

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

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

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

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

A short addition to the above; apparently the sanction Coffee things Stadscykel breached is a page restriction the article in question. At the DS log, Coffee logged this as "The following pages have had page restrictions applied to them, due to their high visibility" followed by a list of pages. Coffee did not specify which page restrictions were in place either there or in the edit notice. As discussed above, there was a talk page consensus for Stadscykel's edit so did not breach any "prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content (except when consensus for the edit exists)"; nor, as discussed, did it breach any revert restrictions; neither did Stadscykel use some devious means of circumventing any form of protection that was in place on the article in order to make the edit in question. Those are the only types of page restrictions that exist. I would argue that not only was Coffee's blocking of this user incorrect, but that Coffee's logging of the page restrictions in force at WP:AC/DSL is meaningless unless the log entry specifies which page restrictions are supposed to be in place. It is not sufficient to say "there are some page restrictions". Waggers TALK 10:42, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

@ Callanecc and Coffee: Am I right in thinking that under that wording, Stadscykel would not have been blocked, since they didn't add the contended edit back? (They were blocked after their first and only edit to the article). In which case, are you satisfied that it would solve the problem? Waggers TALK 08:07, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

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

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

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

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

Statement by SMcCandlish

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

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

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

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

Statement by Aquillion

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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

• Recuse – writing a statement. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

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

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

  • @ Gerda Arendt: I'm questioning whether the page restriction is a valid one under the current rules for discretionary sanctions. Whether the edit in question actually violated that restriction is an entirely separate issue. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 13:22, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
• Well, first off, I don't expect to be sanctioning anyone as a result of this particular incident. I am squarely in the MEGO camp on editnotices in general (in fact, I use a userscript to hide them), but there is precedent for treating them as sufficient warning; it's clear that there's ambiguity in the DS procedures that needs to be sorted out going forward. On review of this particular implementation I agree with Kirill that "potentially contentious edits" may be too vague to be a workable page restriction. If you've spent months deeply immersed in some particular wiki-problem, it may seem obvious what kinds of edits will fall into that category, but the audience for these notices is much wider than that. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:47, 29 June 2016 (UTC) @ DHeyward: MEGO = My Eyes Glaze Over. I swear the dab page used to say that. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 18:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • It seems that agreement has been reached that the original wording of the editnotice was too vague and it has now been updated, which takes care of the immediate issue; however, there are still some underlying matters unresolved and it would seem awfully bureaucratic to demand a new request to address them (especially considering that the problems lie in procedural bureaucracy :) As Wordsmith says above, the open procedural questions are: 1) is an editnotice sufficient warning for DS sanctions? and 2) should even obviously misguided AE actions prompt desysopping as a consequence for reversal? I'm uncertain on 1 - there are circumstances where it's impractical to individually warn every participant. I'd prefer to allow editnotices to be used as warnings, with the strong expectation that they will be used sparingly - perhaps only outside of articlespace, under the assumption that people participating in complex internal wikiprocesses are generally familiar with the system. Certainly I think NYB is correct to recommend emphasizing that blocks should be a last resort, not an automatic reaction to an evidently good-faith edit that happens to break the rules.
    On the other hand, I'm very certain on 2: it's no secret that I strongly dislike the "AE tripwire" effect and absolutely do not think there is any benefit to trying to double down on it for future similar situations as a consequence of this request. It doesn't work as intended to reduce drama and overreaction or to support the efforts of admins working in difficult areas - compare this slow-moving and generally calm procedural discussion with the hypothetical situation in which a rush of arbs had voted in a Level II desysop. Again, I'm not sure we need a procedural change so much as a change in social expectations: if your AE action gets reverted, do what Coffee wisely did and take a couple of days off and then come to ARCA to work out how to fix whatever the misunderstanding was. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 01:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    I had an old tab open when I wrote this, and I see Callanecc has made this edit regarding enforcement actions, which I can't contest as a matter of procedural validity - that is indeed an accurate description of what was decided last year - but I strongly disagree with its substance. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 01:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
    • On editnotices: The Wordsmith, that's a good idea about the talk namespace, and article+talk vs projectspace captures most of the intended distinction. Newyorkbrad, I take it that you think a direct personal notification is always preferable to a general notice, but I'm not sure I agree; as far as I can tell most experienced editors hate these things. There's almost no way a template on your talk page, no matter how neutrally and blandly worded, doesn't feel targeted toward you. A general notice risks being overlooked but also avoids annoying people who are already working in a difficult area. If delivering notices for article and talk space edits is chewing up too much scarce admin time, then it sounds like the solution is either to actively solicit more admin help in AE/DS, or to leverage what we have with more effective technical support. (Maybe a bot could deliver the talk-page alerts to those who edit particular pages for the first time and haven't been warned?)
    • On reversal of AE sanctions: After a year of opportunities, this is the set of facts that prompts us to draw a line under AE1, instead of reconsidering that conclusion? OK, this time through the wringer went: Good-faith but undesirable edit, good-faith but undesirable block, quick unblock, everyone heads over to ARCA to sort shit out, compromise reached (though I guess it still needs some wordsmithing). Next time it'll be: Edit, block, unblock, ZOMG AE REVERSAL LEVEL II DEFCON 1!!!!11, desysop, angry ANI thread where someone gets blocked for incivility, edit war over closure of ANI thread, case request, 50+ pissed-off preliminary statements from various partisans, 6-week case, desysopped admin retires, blocked editor says "fuck this" and leaves, case closes, someone posts youtube link to Eric Cartman compilation video in post-decision ACN thread and gets blocked for disrespecting our authoritah copyvio. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:49, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• I agree we shouldn't be sanctioning anyone. So far as I'm concerned, practice is that talk page notices and edit notices are sufficient, and if our documentation is confusing or suggests otherwise then we should do something about it. This could be to change practice (but not to suggest that enforcement of such notices in the past was wrong) or to change policy/documentation as appropriate. "Potentially contentious" is a problem and I'd have to be convinced that such wording is useful and enforceable. Doug Weller talk 12:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Coffee: Looks like we are getting somewhere, hopefully more of my colleagues will be around soon to comment. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• My interpretation would be that Editors ignoring page restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator implies that an alert does not need to be left on an editor's talk page and that an editnotice is enough when the admin is enforcing the edit notice. However, in this instance, I tend to agree with Kirill that prohibitions on the addition or removal of certain content refers to "some specific content that cannot be added or removed" rather than broad restrictions on "potentially contentious edits". Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:12, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Coffee: Sounds like full protection, but one that allows anyone to make uncontroversial edits? I don't actually think something like this is covered by the current DS procedure. The issue would be with a sanction like this is that what is and is not "contentious" is ambiguous and subjective so it's difficult to expect editors to know what it is and what isn't. You could impose a different revert restriction which enforces WP:BRD? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @ Coffee: Sounds good to me. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 07:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
      • @ Coffee: If you're happy to implement that we can probably close this request as it will resolve the underlying issue? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 23:56, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
• @ The Wordsmith: I've clarified the point presumption of validity in the procedure. Talking on arbcom-l about the editnotice one at the moment. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 00:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @ The Wordsmith: Catching up. A sentence stating that "Best practice is to add editnotices to restricted pages where appropriate, using the standard template ({{ds/editnotice}})." was added in May 2014. Isn't that enough? Talking about the other issue, note that we already have Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement#Presumption of validity Doug Weller talk 15:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• The minutia matter, but not as much as the spirit of discretionary sanctions, which are a means to an end, not a trap. I happily admit that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and that I have to remind myself of all the procedures and notifications and logs and whatnot--never mind the scope of any action and the procedure of possible appeal or redress--every single time I run into a AC/DS issue. I thank Newyorkbrad for his comment, and Boing for expressing his frustration in a harsh but well-intended matter. No one should be blocked before being talked to, except in overt cases of vandalism and etc. A poor decision should be able to be overturned in a timely manner. In this case, that discussion took place and a consensus was clear.

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

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

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

Case or decision affected

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

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

• David Tornheim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Laser brain ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• The Wordsmith ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lord Roem ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kingofaces43 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tryptofish ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EllenCT ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Laser brain
• Notification of The Wordsmith
• Notification of Lord Roem
• Notification of Kingofaces43
• Notification of Tryptofish
• Notification of EllenCT
• Notification of Petrarchan47

Statement by David Tornheim

I request a stay of the Proposed Decision to block sanction me in this action. (revised 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

I reassert the appeal of the now final decision in this action. I also add that one of the reasons given for a stronger sanction was punishment for asserting my right of appealing the decision to this forum (per WP:AEBLOCK) pejoratively labelled "wikilawyering" [8] (isn't that "casting aspersions?). I did file the appeal before the decision was finalized, because I was under the (apparently mistaken) belief that the proposed remedy was a block based on this comment in the case. Waiting until after the decision was final would have made it impossible to remove the block from my block-free record, causing irreparable harm to my Wikipedia reputation. It is my belief that in American jurisprudence, an appeal before final judgment is not unusual. I find it unbelievable that my punishment should be increased for asserting my right of appeal. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 23:57, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Nothing in the admins' comments show any consideration of the evidence I presented of POV editing by my accuser Kingofaces43 ("King") or battleground and harassment behavior by King and Tryptofish. I specifically asked whether the diffs I provided showed POV editing and got no response.

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

I also question the neutrality of The Wordsmith and Laser brain. When I asked for an admonition to King for POV-editing here and here, the admins all said they would not act on it, that I should go to WP:AE, including The Wordsmith [9]. Laser brain had also voluntarily left all GMO related administration after he was accused of bullying regarding comments about me and Petrarchan47 [10]. I previously explained to you here that Laser brain and The Wordsmith had not been even-handed with me in comparison to King and Tryptofish at the RfC ruling making. (revised 05:17, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

The Proposed Decision only applies sanctions to me and a warning to EllenCT; It proposes no sanction, warning or admonishment for King and Tryptofish, despite the troubling evidence I provided. (added 08:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

I am concurrently filing another related action that will help resolve this one: [11]

(misspelling of Laser brain corrected 09:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC))

Statement by Laser brain

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

Statement by The Wordsmith

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

• Update: It should be noted that the original request, which was backed by several other editors, was for a topic ban (and that would have been upheld given the evidence presented). I don't like doing that unless absolutely necessary, so I came up with this new sanction (or rather, a variation on an old one). Different varieties of Civility Parole have been used a few times over the last decade where we've had great content creators who had problems interacting with others, with mixed results. My proposal is an attempt to solve the problem of casting aspersions (and in doing so, enforce the Arbitration decision) while still allowing David to have a voice in the topic area. Unless an Arbitrator specifically puts this on hold, I have no intention of waiting several days (or even weeks) for the Committee to come to a decision before enforcing the consensus of uninvolved administrators. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 13:56, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem

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

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

Statement by Tryptofish

You Arbs are quite right to quickly decline, and I'm not sure that I need to say anything, other than to agree entirely with Laser brain, and to express my opinion that this toxic dispute is going to keep going on and on, unless AE follows the advice that I remember Drmies saying at an earlier discussion: that if editors keep fighting after the recent RfC, topic bans should be flying around like drones. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:12, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EllenCT

I note that arbitrators are considering warning me for "battleground" conduct at [12]. I do not enjoy making editors uncomfortable by expressing doubts about their statements and conclusions, but it does not rise to the level of "battleground" conduct such as edit "warring" both of which are abominable abuses of the English language to try to rationalize censorship, on par with "slave hard drive," a data storage term, or "collateral damage" and "casualties" meaning war deaths. If warned, I will ask for specific behaviors which were found equivalent to battleground conduct. EllenCT ( talk) 15:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Seraphimblade

For reference, since there was no support expressed for any type of "stay", I've gone ahead with closing the request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:49, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Cathry

I wonder why Kingofaces43's behavior was not discussed at all by administrators there. Instead there was MastCell's statement about David Tornheim with offensive and irrational accusations without diffs ("he routinely characterizes his perceived opponents as industry shills " (where?), "presence are toxic to the topic area" , "he views this topic area in Manichean terms" (telepathy?). Cathry ( talk) 20:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse from all things GMO. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• I really don't see anything for the Committee to do here. There's nothing which is not a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and I haven't seen evidence to prove that any the admins involved shouldn't be. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:38, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Quick decline. The request has no merit whatsoever. Let's let the good folk over at AE handle this. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 14:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline, per Callanecc and Salvio. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline piling on here per above. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Decline per above. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:46, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
• Decline -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
• Decline albeit late. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Case or decision affected

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

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

• David Tornheim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Laser brain ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• The Wordsmith ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Lord Roem ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Kingofaces43 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Tryptofish ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EllenCT ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Notification of Laser brain
• Notification of The Wordsmith
• Notification of Lord Roem
• Notification of Kingofaces43
• Notification of Tryptofish
• Notification of EllenCT

Statement by David Tornheim

I request clarification on these questions regarding the Casting Aspersions Discretionary Sanction [13].

(1) Is it *always* wrong to identify an edit as pro-industry, even if it has a strong pro-industry WP:POV?

(2) If so, how are we supposed to achieve WP:NPOV if we cannot talk about POV problems?

(3) Does the sanction only apply to pro-industry allegations? in one direction?

(4) Does it continue to be acceptable (e.g. [14]) to call editors who challenge pro-industry edits with:

• pejorative labels (e.g. anti-GMO, anti-science, fringe, psuedo-science) -and-
• associations (e.g. anti-vaxxer, climate change denier, flat earther).

I am concurrently filing another related action [15] that the current action will help resolve.

Statement by Laser brain

Statement by The Wordsmith

Statement by Lord Roem

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

Statement by Kingofaces43

Statement by Tryptofish

Per Satchmo: [16]. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

David was placed under a topic ban at AE, and has now been AE-blocked for a month for violating the ban, as was another editor whose ban was enacted by ArbCom in the GMO case. Please let me suggest that this request, along with the one directly above, should be closed and archived. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:38, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EllenCT

Question for arbitrators: what is the difference, in practice, between casting aspersions and expressing doubt? Since expressing dissent is stronger than expressing doubt, would a consistent set of rules require that you also forbid dissent? I mean this as a sincere question to elucidate a flaw in reasoning using the Socratic method, and not as a rhetorical question. EllenCT ( talk) 16:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by JTrevor99

In my opinion, pro-science-industry comments are not WP:POV when those comments are backed by non-industry scientific research, as has been demonstrated conclusively on this topic. The fact that what the industry states as fact is also stated as fact by a consensus of third parties should be taken into account. Stating that such comments are WP:POV ignores the overwhelming weight of scientific evidence in their favor. Thus this ARCA action is moot. Jtrevor99 ( talk) 14:31, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

I would suggest that Arbitrators review the recent RFC on the Harassment talk page. While there was consensus against a vague wording of of an exception clause to off-wiki linking, there appeared to be a guarded consensus for it in certain cases, mostly related to paid editing.

It is also perhaps worth considering whether the principle in question is overboard, considering the number of occasions that, for example, Tea House regulars, or AfC creators have to remind people of the COI implications of editing articles about themselves, their band, company, product or pet.

All the best: Rich  Farmbrough, 19:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC).

Statement by JzG

The key point here is that there are three sides to the real-world dispute, not two. Partisans on both sides tend to paint this as pro-GMO versus anti-GMO, with every comment, fact and edit cast as one or the other, but in fact much of the commentary is neutral science. Science does not, bluntly, give a damn whether a fact supports one side or the other, it cares only whether it's a fact.

This is of course not unique to GMOs. It also applies to vaping, evolution, alternative medicine and climate change, to name but four of the contentious ones that keep ending up here.

Science that shows GMOs to be safe is not "pro-industry science", it's just science. Of course it can be manipulated. Of course people will be suspicious when science is funded by one party or another. Sometimes this suspicion is amply justified (e.g. the Séralini rat studies). But science is not an opinion or an agenda, it is a way of looking at the world, and, just like Wikipedia, it converges asymptotically towards accuracy.

Any edit supporting neutral scientific findings that happen to be convenient to one set of partisans, and thus inconvenient to the other, will always inflame partisans and spark exactly the kinds of rhetoric around editor motivation which David Tornheim has displayed and which led to this sanction. While some who do this are wilful contrarians, I think it's fair to say that most are sincere and well-meaning. Evidence of involvement of industry shills is scant. Activists do not see themselves as having a COI, but as bearers of Truth. The results are inevitable, and that's why we have sanctions like this available to us.

Anyone who thinks this is a new problem needs to study the history of Wikipedia - one of the first big blow-ups was around how we handle creationism, and this is precisely analogous. To creationists, evolutionary biology is atheist science. That is true only in the most literal technical definition of atheist, in that evolutionary biology is science that does not include any consideration of supernatural cause. It is not anti-Christian, or anti-God in any sense, it simply includes no consideration of God whatsoever. And that is precisely the problem here: in the same way that a creationist will see an agnostic as functionally indistinguishable from an atheist, so a partisan in most of these disputes will see any finding that undermines their agenda as being part of the opposing "side". That's why Kevin Folta is being harassed in the real world, and that's why this dispute won't go away on Wikipedia.

Yes we know that there is evidence of industry involvement in the science (both GMO industry and Big Organic, who bankroll organisations like USRTK). That problem is not ours to fix, it is the job of the scientific journals to weed that out. Wikipedia should and does follow the science, because science is notionally neutral, and whatever the problems it has on any given day, the process of science is inherently self-correcting and will move always towards the right answer. We may not like the answer. Again, that's not Wikipedia's problem to fix, and trying to use Wikipedia to "fix" a "bias" which exists in the real world is and always will be a pressing problem.

False balance is not NPOV. Assuming that every edit is partisan, is similarly problematic.

Anyone can get heated when they feel passionately about a subject, the best solution IMO is to take a break - and if you won't do it voluntarily then we have to use sanctions. Sorry about that. Guy ( Help!) 07:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Genetically modified organisms: Clerk notes

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

Genetically modified organisms: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Recuse from all things GMO. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 06:34, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• What Lord Roem said. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Ditto. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• And me (or I guess 'I') Doug Weller talk 15:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with the above. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 17:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
• David Tornheim, you've been editing here for eight years. Stick to discussing the strengths or weaknesses of sourcing and the correlation of material to sources. Casting aspersions or encouraging battleground behaviour will likely bring a topic ban. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:44, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Case or decision affected

GoodDay arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

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

• GoodDay ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Steven Crossin ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [18]

Statement by GoodDay

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment - Keeping an eye on things here :) GoodDay ( talk) 11:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Response to DQ - in my opening statement, I wrote that "it's been over 4 years since I was banned from editing around or mentioning diacritics...". How is that a misleading statement? GoodDay ( talk) 09:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Steven Crossin

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

Statement by HighKing

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

After reading some of the comments below from our Arbitration people, I'm worried and concerned that the prevailing reasoning being provided for not lifting the ban suggests that an editor should only request an unban if they declare that they've no intention of editing in the subject area in question again. Yet I've seen other requests where an editor makes a declaration along the lines that they don't intend to rush back to the topic only to be told that there's then no need to lift the bad. Should we not AGF once the editor declares they intend to mend their ways (and have shown efforts to do so) and that they intend to abide by policy? Am I missing something? -- HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

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

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

Unhelpful comment by Newyorkbrad

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

Statement by Kurtis

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

I retract my earlier statement; I think keeping the topic ban in place is necessary for the time being. The whole point of sanctions is to prevent people from becoming a disruptive influence in areas where they've been shown to have difficulty in separating their emotions from their editing. GoodDay appears hell-bent on enforcing his own preferences relating to diacritics, and I can't really envision this as being anything but counterproductive. Keeping the topic ban in place for the time being will help to prevent unnecessary bad blood from arising in the short-term. Kurtis ^(talk) 16:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I retract my retraction. GorillaWarfare (or Molly, whichever she prefers to be called) has swayed me back to my original point, which you can see in the first stanza of crossed-out words above. It sounds like there might be some issues, but if they do arise, we can always reapply the sanctions. Let's give GoodDay a chance and see how this works out. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:00, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

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

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

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

@ Opabinia regalis: the whole issue of modified letters is an unresolved one in the broader community; the last time a Request for Comment discussion was held, the expressed views were nearly equally divided between those who feel that usage should follow what a majority of English-language sources use, and those who feel that any source that does not use the original spelling with modified Latin letters is, by definition, not a reliable source with respect to the subject's name. In these discussions, the compromise position on modified letters of the ice hockey project has been challenged. Ice hockey project members have responded that once English Wikipedia reaches a consensus on how to manage names with modified letters, the ice hockey project will be happy to follow suit; until then, though, the compromise stops the project from wasting time discussing the matter. At this point in time, though, it's unclear that the compromise position continues to have support, but without anyone changing spelling in articles, there has been no need to debate it. A resumption in removing or adding modified letters may retrigger a long discussion, which is an ineffective use of time since no definitive conclusion can be reached until the community as a whole provides guidance. Thus I do not believe a change to the current state of affairs would benefit Wikipedia.

If any relaxation of the topic ban in article mainspace is entertained, I strongly suggest that a condition be attached: if an edit is contested, GoodDay must revert the change and all similar changes made to other articles. This discussion thread on GoodDay's talk page illustrates the usual approach taken: numerous edits are made in alignment with GoodDay's point of view, and when objections are raised, GoodDay says that others are free to revert if they wish. This imposes a burden on other editors to restore the status quo, which is a disruptive behaviour, as described in one of the principles in GoodDay's arbitration case. isaacl ( talk) 05:36, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@ Opabinia regalis: the key concern is that it is primarily an overall pattern of behaviour that adds up to a great deal of wasted time, rather than any one isolated interaction. GoodDay usually does not edit war, and no one can be compelled to participate in discussion to reach a consensus if they do not wish. Although it is generally uncollegial to fail to revert a sequence of similar changes upon request, and disappointing for someone to engage in making a type of change across multiple articles without any desire to follow up with discussion, it is difficult to make either of these a hard-and-fast rule as there are too many exceptional cases. Thus it is unlikely an administrator will take any action without a new arbitration case to evaluate the pattern of behaviour, or without a specific remedy specified as a consequence of the previous arbitration case. I feel that having a condition in place to revert contested edits will help guide GoodDay to more productive interactions with other editors. Increasing the cost of making test edits counter to consensus will reduce the temptation to make them (particularly en masse). isaacl ( talk) 03:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

@ Opabinia regalis: Given that GoodDay already has exhibited the pattern of behaviour I described since returning to editing, including during this discussion, I'm not sure the best approach is to loosen restrictions with the expectation that if it happens one more time, there will be a different set of consequences. I have no interest in seeing GoodDay blocked; I would much prefer that the editor be channeled towards productive pursuits. isaacl ( talk) 02:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Francis

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

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

Statement by Rich Farmbrough

KelapstickOpabinia regalis The Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey page says:

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

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

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

These look identical to me.

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

Statement/Clarification by Calton

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

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

• 08:14, May 21, 2014 Worm That Turned (talk | contribs) unblocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) (Unbanned by Arbitration Committee https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:GoodDay&diff=609493697&oldid=609438782)
• 15:54, April 23, 2014 Newyorkbrad (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (autoblock disabled) (enable talkpage editing to allow for appeal, as one year from ban has elapsed)
• 06:25, May 6, 2013 Richwales (talk | contribs) changed block settings for GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked, cannot edit own talk page) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [19]; adding talk page to existing block)
• 01:16, April 22, 2013 Spartaz (talk | contribs) blocked GoodDay (talk | contribs) with an expiration time of indefinite (account creation blocked) (Banned by the arbitration committee - [20])

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

Statement by Miesianiacal

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

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

Statement by {other-editor}

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

GoodDay: Clerk notes

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

GoodDay: Arbitrator views and discussion

• What has changed since July 2015, September 2015, and January 2016? -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 17:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
• I'm mostly with Thryduulf and Guerillero. What's changed from the previous appeals and the comments arbitrators made then? Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
• Just a breve comment OK, fine, NYB took all the good puns! @ GoodDay: Do you want this restriction lifted because you want a "clean slate" or because you want to edit in the area? If the latter, what do you want to work on? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 21:10, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • @ GoodDay: Thanks. Maybe I'm uninformed - not much of a hockey fan - but can you clarify what hockey-related editing you want to do that involves editing or discussing diacritics? (And while you're here, see also Guerillero's question above.) Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:40, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
    • @ GoodDay: I'm still a little hazy, could you please give me an example (a discussion about removing them and an article they'd be in)? Thanks, Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 02:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
      • Callanecc I would presume (although I could be wrong), names of hockey players (either European or French-Canadian). -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 02:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
• I wish to concentrate on fully implimenting WP:HOCKEY's wanting to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based ice hockey articles does not seem in line with what is at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ice hockey). -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 23:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed. And that subject was specifically part of the problem that prompted the original case. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 00:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
    • Rich Farmbrough, the point I am making is GoodDay wishes to hide/remove diacritics from North American-based hockey articles, where:
      1. All player pages should have them as according to the languages of the player in question (I read this as all encompassing regardless of where the player is currently playing).
      2. There is an exception to removal from North American hockey pages, particularly around the names of French-Canadian players (who commonly have diacritics in their names).
    • Thus it looks like he wishes to have his topic ban removed, in order to go against what the standard practice is. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 23:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
      • So GoodDay, take a page like Börje Salming. This reads like to me, is that you would take this page, and move it to Borje Salming, because he's played for the Red Wings and Maple Leafs, but that stands contrary to point 1: All player pages should have diacritics applied (where required, according to the languages of the player in question). Or is the idea to keep the page at the same location, and change references to him in the articles to Borje Salming. For example, on Toronto Maple Leafs he is listed within the text as both Börje Salming and Borje Salming, depending on where one looks. Related to this, under the French-Canadian Exception on Montreal Canadiens, should Leo Dandurande should be listed as Léo Dandurand (which he is not)? I am just trying to understand what it is you want to do, and if this is the accepted practice with naming conventions and representation within articles. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 00:59, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
        • Thank you GoodDay, that clarifies things a lot. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 01:07, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Newyorkbrad: did you take a dash, or possibly a double dash, of something illegal in some states while going through your high school French books and playing around on Wikipedia? Drmies ( talk) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
• Given GoodDay's statement that he intends to go around removing diacritics, I see no reason to lift the ban. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 19:37, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
• Nope, the ban should stay. GoodDay has convinced me. Doug Weller talk 14:10, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
• Sorry, I have to agree with the above; the ban should stay. Normally I'm inclined to lift long-standing sanctions, and I would've supported an "I don't care about this anymore and just want a clean slate" type of request, but the stated intention to go back to the area that caused the trouble in the first place convinces me we should leave the ban as-is. You've done plenty of other good work and there's plenty of other things to work on. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 00:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
• Unfortunately I don't think we should remove this ban. Opabinia said it well above; I'm inclined to lift such old sanctions, but that statement concerns me too much to do so here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC) Actually, after noodling on this for a bit, I'm inclined to lift the ban. If someone is subject to a topic ban and no longer wishes to edit in the area they're banned from, why would they even appeal it to begin with? I don't feel right declining an unban request because they wish to return to that area; if they didn't, they wouldn't appeal. Let's give GoodDay a chance in this area; if it doesn't go well, re-bans are cheap. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
• I am of two minds on this, first I appreciate that GoodDay wishes to abide by the consensus of WP:HOCKEY and their article naming convention, and implement the agreed standard of a lack of diacritics in NA based hockey articles. I really don't see an issue with this, because it is making articles consistent within an article (as illustrated by the Toronto Maple Leafs example above, it currently is neither consistent, nor according to the agreed style guideline). On the other hand I agree with Opabinia's comment above, and can see this doing more harm than good. So at this time I am going to say no. -- kelapstick^{( bainuu)} 00:31, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller talk 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay: Motion

For this motion there are 12 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Mini apolis 16:42, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Support

1. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:23, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
2. On thinking this over, I am going to very hesitantly support this, with the expectation that the topic ban will be promptly reimposed in the event of further problems. I do think people should have a chance to move past old sanctions. I would strongly encourage GoodDay to spend most of his time in other areas and not to worry too much about diacritics issues, because I feel like I'm still hearing a bee buzzing around in a bonnet here. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:00, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

   @ Isaacl: I see what you mean, but I think that type of behavior is covered by the "participating in discussions" clause. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

   @ Isaacl: I understand the concern, but I don't think more rules is the best approach. If this motion passes, and then you see this kind of behavior, take it to AE; there's no need for a new case. I think it will be quite clear to the admins at AE, based on the comments made here by arbs and community members, that this is meant to be enforced strictly and without room for wikilawyering. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 20:27, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

3. As we have a clear pathway to sanctions if there is a problem. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
4. Per OR and Casliber. Anything which resembles disruptiveness in this topic area should lead straight to a reinstatement of sanctions so I would caution GoodDay to act very carefully. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 12:01, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
5. Per my comments above. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
6. Per OR and GW. Keilana ( talk) 15:27, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
7. I agree with OR, GW, and Casliber. Drmies ( talk) 14:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Oppose

1. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:36, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
2. Kirill Lokshin ( talk) 15:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
3. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
4. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC) �
5. I can't shake the feeling that Good Day is not going to be able to drop the stick when it comes to the proper times. They have demonstrated this with the ARCA requests repeating and with a misrepresentation of the situation. Like in 2015, they said "I'm no longer obsessed about diacritics. I merely wish the restriction removed, because it's a restriction. I wish for my slate to be clean. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)". The amount of appeals and time frames doesn't support that. Earlier in 2015, they also stated that "It's been nearly 3 years since I was restricted from diacritics & almost as long since I've breached my restriction.". They forgot to include/mention the ban that was only lifted a year earlier. In this request, they state it's been four years since the ban was lifted, not two as is. This makes me unable to trust them by their word. I therefore can not support this as is. A more gradual return to the area, like namespace restrictions might be possible, but I'd rather see some clear honesty and acknowledgement of history first. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Abstain/Recuse

Discussion

• Proposing this so we can hopefully move this forward. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Initiated by Sfarney at 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Scientology arbitration case ( t) ( ev /  t) ( w /  t) ( pd /  t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney

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

• Sfarney ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• The Wordsmith ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Prioryman ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dennis Brown ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• The Wordsmith
• Prioryman
• Dennis Brown

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive193#Sfarney

• Cancel the Sfarney topic ban

Statement by Sfarney

Introduction

On June 1, 2016, I was Topic Banned from Scientology for one year on the authority of ARBSCI, Clause 5.1 (WP:SPA). [21] [22] The Wordsmith imposed the ban. Though the ban cited ArbCom authority, Wordsmith agrees the foundation for that authority is incorrect. Additionally, Wordsmith concealed a personal conflict of interest on the topic and should not have administered the AE.

I respectfully ask this Committee to cancel or modify the topic ban.

Summary of events

1. Decided May 26: I filed an AE against Prioryman. Dennis Brown administered and filed a boomerang advisement against me. [23]
2. Decided June 1: Prioryman filed an AE against me. Wordsmith presided and sanctioned me under Remedy 5.1, ARBSCI, banning me from Scientology for a year. [24]
3. Decided June 6: I appealed the ban on ANI; the foundation for the ban was canceled but the ban remains. [25]

Reasons to modify sanction

1. Wordsmith agreed my account is not an SPA and struck that language from the ban. [26] [27] When that justification was removed, ArbCom authority was removed, but Wordsmith maintains the topic ban. [28]

2. Sanction was based on evidence that later proved false -- the ban was significantly based on nonpublic information.

A significant portion of the ban rationale rests on nonpublic evidence that I have privately communicated to the Arbitration Committee, and consulted an Arb confidentially with the evidence before doing anything. In fact I had forgotten about Remedy 5.1; the Arbitrator I asked for advice suggested doing that ... [29]

Later, Wordsmith admitted the nonpublic evidence was not true. [30]

3. Wordsmith's ban was a do-over sanction. In the May 26 AE against Prioryman, Wordsmith wrote, "This request seems ripe for a Boomerang … at a minimum an admonishment to the filing editor." [31] Dennis Brown refused to admonish me and filed only an advisement. That action drew an effective line -- the conduct at issue was addressed by admin sanction. [32]

A week later (June 1), Wordsmith reached into the same timespan for evidence and imposed the topic ban, modifying the sanction imposed by Brown. Brown protested that his advisement was already in place.

Some of this is a little bit old. If this had happened after I gave my warning the other day, I would topic ban or block on the spot, but I did give a fairly detailed warning less than a week ago, so behavior since then is my primary focus. Not sure that to do here, would like to hear what other admins think. [33]

Thus, Wordsmith's sanction contradicts Modification by Administrators, [34] but Brown agreed to the modification because: "I trust The Wordsmith when they say they have private information that amply justified the action." [35]

When Wordsmith later admitted the "information" was false, the modification policy implicitly required Wordsmith to notify Brown of the error, and either drop the topic ban or seek permission again to modify Brown's sanction. But Wordsmith did not, and the anomaly was transformed from error to deceit.

4. Wordsmith had personal interest (not Wikipedia interest) in the ban. Editor Prioryman brought the complaint to AE and canvassed Wordsmith to preside. [36] Prioryman is the name-changed admin ChrisO, [37], involved and sanctioned in the ARBSCI. [38] [39] An arbitrator selected by one party in a dispute is not appropriate or neutral, and selection of Wordsmith was not random. Wordsmith is personally and deeply involved with Scientology as a leader/organizer of the anti-Scientology group, Project Chanology.

Wordsmith provides the evidence on Wikipedia pages:

• Wordsmith lists Project Chanology among the half-dozen pages he has edited significantly. [40]
• Wordsmith was well-informed on the various Chanology events as they were happening and about to happen. [41]
• Wordsmith pondered his COI in a private to-do list -- he is aware of his COI problem. [42]
• The Wordsmith is/was the owner and sysop of the Boston Anonymous forums, a medium where Chanology is/was organized.

POSSIBLE COI DISCLOSURE: I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki. Take anything I have to say with a grain of salt, and always verify for yourselves. Firestorm Talk 16:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC) [43]

The word " crat" commonly means "bureaucrat", i.e., a manager, ruler. [44] [45] The statement is signed by Firestorm, who was later renamed Wordsmith. [46] See also the header: [47]

The virulent partisanship of Anonymous/Chanology is told in the group's 2008 founding manifesto video, which promised to destroy and "systematically dismantle" the Church of Scientology. [48] See transcript. [49]

Firstly personal experience is not relevant to WP:INVOLVED, but I will state for the record that I am not a Scientologist, have never been a Scientologist, and none of my family or close friends are Scientologists. I merely take an active interest in their history, policies and doctrine to consider myself a subject-matter expert, which is why I made that comment on the first AE. [50]

It is safe to say that I'm probably the most well-versed Wikipedian on the topic of Scientology, moreso than most actual Scientologists. [51]

5. Supplementary info: Another editor has submitted a letter to ArbCom with supplementary evidence on this and related matters. I have forwarded that letter to ArbCom as well to ensure it is linked to this case.

Conclusion

I respectfully ask for the Arb who recommended the ban [52] to recuse from this appeal.

As shown above, the ban was imposed without reason, authority, or justification. It was based on a false issue and false evidence, and administered by an admin who had a significant hidden COI on the topic. I ask for the ban to be cancelled.

Subsequent comment

• This appeal shows that the sanction violates points 1, 2, and 3 of Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Role_of_administrators, a text of which I was not previously aware. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 21:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• The "community" in the community appeal did not see the improper COI and involvement of Wordsmith. Conferring discretionary powers presumes impartial judgment. The information above impugns that impartiality and shows that discretion was compromised.
• The community also did not know that Prioryman was ChrisO sanctioned in the original ARBSCI for abuse of admin trust on the same topic.
• Process: the community did not understand that the ban was imposed out of process.
• Process: The text Appeals and modifications lists three levels of appeal. It does not say that the levels are mutually exclusive, as Thomson argued, and it does not say that level 2 obviates 3, as Brown suggests. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• A caring reader will find a remarkable contrast between the evidence I have provided and Wordsmith's current statement of involvement in Chanology.
  Wordsmith then: "I own the Boston Anonymous forums and am a sysop, crat, checkuser and oversight on their wiki." [53]
  Wordsmith now: "I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with Project Chanology, a minor capacity running their internal wiki ... my role so minor that I had forgotten about it." (below)
  The arbitrators will decide whether that meets Wikipedia's standard of admin integrity. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 05:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Addressing the comments from Salvio: To consider abuse of discretion, one must consider the circumstances and the conduct for which the ban was imposed. But none of that has been discussed here, so how could anyone be "satisfied" that discretion was not abused? That satisfaction must rest on the discretion and integrity of the admin imposing the ban, and as you are shown here in Wordsmith's own words, that integrity is well worth questioning. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:01, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• @ Salvio: On 17 May 2016, less than two weeks before sanctioning me with a topic ban, Wordsmith deleted a private page named "COI". [54] I cannot recover the contents of that page, but maybe you can, and maybe you will find it relevant to the credibility of Wordsmith's claims of forgetting about the year he spent owning and operating the Chanology forum. Wordsmith linked to that page in 2010 and 2011 comments about Scientology edits and issues, so it was on his mind at that time. [55] [56]
• Wordsmith has a history of shoot-from-the-hip accusing other editors of being "OSA" (Church of Scientology employees), then apologizing and backing down. [57] [58] Such he did with me (see "nonpublic information" above), apparently GLEANED from an anti-Scientology chat page comment that appeared about the same time that he filed his nonpublic evidence with Arb. ( Search for "I wonder if the editor") Are these random accusations consistent with proper demeanor for an admin? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 20:09, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Let us never forget that this whole incident stems from my requirement that a Scientology article follow standard Wikipedia editing and sourcing practice, as I have required in multiple other articles on multiple other topics. That is all that I have ever demanded. For this I am sanctioned by the partisans. I have shown irrefutably that Wordsmith is among the partisans, and that his representation of his role in Wikipedia and the world at large is not completely truthful. No one can say that I have broken any of the canons of Wikipedia except that I refused to accept canvassed consensus to violate Wikipedia policies. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:44, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• The web page says "The arbcom-l mailing list ... can also be used by any user as a means of contacting the Committee privately". But the autoresponse states, "The reason it is being held: Post by non-member to a members-only list". One of these statements may be in error, and hopefully it is the latter. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• On 11 August 2009‎, Wikipedia Commons User:Thrawn was renamed to User:The Wordsmith. [59]
• Wordsmith does not deny that he is the same person in all cases cited, but calls my facts, "character assassination". Truly, he has worked to portray an honest admin. And just as truly, full disclosure of all relevant facts would "assassinate" that character. To all those who judge these matters, please take note: The statements of fact are specific, exact, and denotative. The denials are general, vague, and connotative.
• And now Wordsmith canvasses the same WP:TEAM to argue his case. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to DamOTclese: Though no one has ever stated a cause for topic banning me (without later retracting that statement), the apparent reason is that I argued against consensus when that consensus violated Wiki policy. Recently, I have learned that that "consensus" was subject to off-Wiki canvassing by someone with the user name "DamOTclese". [60] (archived at [61] in case of deletion)
• Reply to Wordsmith: "intent to harass at the very least, and attempted WP:OUTING"? That is a clever spin -> aspersion, but really it is out-to-lunch. I cannot control what others put on my talk page, but under the ban, my comments are regulated. So if others want to discuss forbidden subjects with me, such as this proceeding, I must use private email. For the logical, the simplicity of the syllogism is this:
  • If I knew Laval, I would not need to ask his email.
  • But I do ask his email, hence I do not know him.
  • Since I do not know Laval, I cannot trust him, and I could not commit to him one of the dreaded sins of which you accuse me.
• Hence, Wordsmith, your aspersions are utterly without foundation. I have provided solid proof of your improper conduct as an admin and your improper entanglements. In rebuttal, you have nothing but vague dismissals and fragile speculation of me.
  • You have prima face evidence of editor DamOTclese canvassing off-Wiki for "consensus" against me -- Have you acted on it?
  • You have solid evidence provided elsewhere of editor Feoffer being a true WP:SPA in violation of wp:ARBSCI. [62] -- Have you acted on that?
  • You undoubtably know that Prioryman is the same person as ChrisO, [63] an admin severely sanctioned with de-sysop at the ARBCI [64] [65] and has now returned to his old tricks, citing improper sources for outrageous statements, cherrypicking, attacking other editors, and so on -- even in your presence. List of samples here, [66]
• But you, Wordsmith, take no action on any of those situations -- possibly because as you have stated elsewhere, you share their personal opinions of the Scientology, [67] which are quite well defined along a certain vector. [68] Instead, you canvass that band of brothers to your assistance here, as though they were all upstanding Wikipedia citizens. And in your view, perhaps they are. 05:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC) (updated with references for Prioryman statements 15:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC))
• Update: According to a message I have just received, additional evidence has just been sent to Salvio showing that -- contrary to The Wordsmith's representations here -- The Wordsmith was involved in a leading role in Chanology demonstrations just a few years ago. Hopefully, Salvio will share that evidence with the other Arbs. I have not personally seen the evidence. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 18:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to Prioryman: Prioryman asks me to address my own conduct. Prioryman's first item is the ban on the Rick Ross topic. That was a specific BLP error which will not be repeated. I have honored that ban to the fullest. This current issue should not be a redo of that incident, and Prioryman errs in attempt to make it so.
• Apart from the first, the offenses cited in the AE [69] are correct Wikipedia edits, as explained in the rebuttal below.
  1. 18:05, 20 May 2016‎ Hijacks a GA review request and turns it into a rant against the article's content (see [70]) I reviewed the GA nomination strictly according to the rules as I understood them and as they are written, requiring that I had "[n]ot ... made significant contributions to the article prior to the review." I understood that since all my edits to the article had been reverted, I was fully qualified to review the article, which I did candidly, impartially, and according to the rules of Wikipedia. The phrase "Significant contributions" (in the rules) [71] is not synonymous with "significant edits" on the blanking page. [72] I still hold that given all the flaws in the article enumerated below, it is not a candidate for GA.
  2. 16:26, 11 April 2016 One of several deletions of sourced content with a bogus rationale. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named) Names are not required by WP:BLP when the target is obvious. Wikipedia is could legally be considered a single work. An accusation of criminal conduct against Scientology is an accusation against the officials, and Wikipedia sports a List of Scientology officials. The list is small and finite, and WP:BLPGROUP is clear: "When in doubt, make sure you are using high-quality sources." This article did/does not. I removed text that failed to meet WP:BLP. We cannot use cherry-picked quotes, primary sources, or blogs. In this case, the article parroted speculation in the Ortega blog to accuse Scientology of intimidating people with death threats in present time policy. No secondary RS supports the accusation. The deleted material also contained a WP:cherrypicking quote from a primary source in support. This violates WP:REDFLAG which requires multiple solid secondary sources for challenged statements. Removing the material was proper.
  3. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (False claim of implication of living people - none are named) Erroneous link in the AE. The edit of that date [73] cited the Ortega blog for an interview of some person by a Food & Drug officer. The Ortega blog spun the interviewee's statements into a government "report" of criminal conduct, and so did Wikipedia article. The blog then speculates about church policy, and the article echoes that speculation as Encyclopedic Truth. I removed it as an improper source (primary, blog, no secondary source). Then the article cites to another primary source, The Auditor, alleging it to contain a published order to kill a list of people. Again, a primary source without secondary and I removed it. Leave that work for Scientology's RS critics, who are many. If multiple secondary sources don't cover it, neither do we. WP:REDFLAG states:

     Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.[12] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:
     (x) surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources;
     (x) challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest;
     (x) reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended;
     (x) claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.​

     ​ Because of multiple secondary sources don't cover it, it probably is misunderstood by the editor or simply not true. Feoffer added an image that he took from some German blog with unknown authenticity. I had it removed with an ANI request under the WP:COPYVIO rule because I could not persuade the TEAM that the authenticity could not be verified and was a real problem.
  4. 22:17, 11 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotation from primary source) This edit does not involve a quote from a primary source.
  5. 17:58, 26 April 2016 As above. (Rejects quotations from primary sources) We cannot use primary sources to make outrageous claims. WP:REDFLAG. The text removed includes the exceptional claim that Hubbard preached murder as a form of therapy and bases the claim on primary sources (recorded lectures). The editors even cherrypicked words and phrases to construct a statement contrary to the recording (on the blog) that they were supposedly transcribing. The article included a link to an anonymous post on Wikileaks as though it were a WP:RS. The text continued to cite another primary source to make it appear that advising people to commit suicide was church doctrine. Removing this material was a proper Wikipedia edit.
  6. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above. One of several personal attacks against a source's author in an apparent attempt to undermine its credibility (see Dead agenting) Ortega's blog is not an RS by our rules. In the RSN, [74] Nick-D, PermStrump, and Grayfell agreed that Ortega's blog was not a proper source for these claims.
  7. 10:01, 17 April 2016 As above
  8. 07:19, 8 April 2016 As above
  9. 18:17, 25 April 2016 Refuses to discuss alternative wording with other editors There is no point discussing "alternate wording" for statements that are not properly sourced.
• Most of the complaints at the AE were that I objected to the Ortega blog as an RS. But Ortega's blog was later removed from the article. Because I was right?
• This is the complete list of complaints on which I was banned by Wordsmith. Consensus editing should not be a process of hanging the dissenters until only the ayes remain. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:27, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
• Response to GorillaWarfare: Thank you for the explanation. Given Wordsmith's substantially incorrect statement to you ( in contrast to the facts) and your limited statement in response, I strike the request for you to recuse and welcome your participation. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 00:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Reply to Earl King, Jr.: Are you referring to the successful efforts of a group of editors to restore the article on the Zeitgeist Movement to existence, a year or so after you successfully deleted it? As I remember, you called a half dozen other editors "tendentious", after you called them other things like "holocaust denier". [75]

Final Address to the Arbitration Committee: It looks now as though you will ban me to keep me silent on these issues. I remind you of Caesar's advice to judges:

When you judge fairly and according to the law, you bring honor to yourselves, you strengthen the law, and you bring peace to the land. But when you judge unfairly, when you favor yourselves and your friends, you bring contempt on yourselves and you erode the law; and ultimately, you destroy the society you were hired to govern.

In this proceeding, you were shown a number of outrages against Wikipedia:

1. The R2-45 article slanders a number of living people with outrageous claims based on cherrypicking primary sources, a blog, and an anonymous Wikileaks submission in violation of WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:BLPGROUP, and WP:REDFLAG.
2. The article was primarily constructed by
   1. Feoffer, a demonstrable WP:SPA
   2. Prioryman, the same editor who was heavily sanctioned in 2009 as the admin “ChrisO” for exactly this type of work
3. Consensus for that article was canvassed from off-wiki by DamOTclese.
4. Prioryman canvassed The Wordsmith to preside over an AE against me because I objected to the editing practices and sources, and attempted to rectify it.
5. The Wordsmith had been for years heavily WP:INVOLVED in Scientology, both off-Wiki as a leader and organizer of Chanology and on-Wiki as a primary ("significant" [76]) contributor to the article Project Chanology.
6. Indisputable evidence shows that The Wordsmith lied to this committee about the extent of his involvement with Chanology and Scientology.

If the Arbitration Committee members decide they will do nothing about any of this except punish me for "significant disruption" of this operation, if they so publicly practice selective enforcement of Wikipedia policies, they will bring contempt on Arbcom from the editors in Wikipedia-ville, damage the reputation of Wikipedia with the public, and chart (or are they continuing along?) a course of corruption from which Wikipedia might never recover.

It is a choice you should consider carefully. Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 07:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

• A totally independent editor echoes my objections to the same article: In reviewing the article R2-45 for GA status, User:Midnightblueowl fails the article and explains (in part):

  More seriously, a lot of the sourcing here isn't in keeping with what Wikipedia requires. Whereas an academic study of a subject can use and cite primary sources (original lectures, a promotional video etc), Wikipedia can't. Wikipedia has to rely largely on secondary and tertiary sources. So, if we have an academic publication saying "In a 1961 lecture, he said" then we can cite that academic, secondary source. What we can't really do is cite an (unpublished) original source, but that's what is going on a lot here. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 16:19, 9 August 2016 (UTC) [77]

  Please note that the unacceptable sourcing is "going on a lot here." That is the same objection I have been voicing since April -- and notably, one of the same editing violations for which Prioryman (aka ChrisO) was sanctioned in 2009. And note also, the reviewer's criticism is followed by yet another WP:IDHT from DamOTclese, asserting that "dozens" of editors (some of whom he personally canvassed [78]) liked the article. Perhaps the Committee will take a new look at this situation wherein my real, factual, Wiki-policy objections are being sanctioned with a topic-ban and characterized as a "significant disruption", while the same WP:TEAM of editors cannot understand the problem. Who should be editing Wikipedia? Grammar's Li'l Helper ^Talk 22:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by The Wordsmith

There are a number of factual errors and misrepresentations above. However, I will acknowledge that I was involved with a local group affiliated with Project Chanology, in a minor capacity running their internal wiki (as I was the only one familiar with MediaWiki software) for a few months from 2008 to 2009. I must commend Sfarney, as he keeps better track of my own past than I do. The site (and indeed, the entire movement) had been defunct for years. I hadn't mentioned it because it was so long ago and my role so minor that I had forgotten about it. Does minor participation in an activist group 7-8 years ago open up issues of WP:INVOLVED? I'll leave that to the Arbitrators to decide, and will respect that decision.

However, I do still believe that my topic ban was based on sound judgment and not bias. Consensus at AE and again at the noticeboard agreed with it. Sfarney's hostility and poor behavior in both instances further reinforced that belief. I stand by my sanction, and I do believe that the community has already heard this appeal and upheld it on the merits. I don't see what another bite at the apple is gong to achieve, but I welcome input. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 01:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• @ Sfarney: Your aspersions are without merit. The diffs you link are from before I was an Administrator, and there was in fact a rather large sock farm manipulating article content at the time. The user subpage you mentioned contains nothing of interest that I haven't already acknowledged, and I deleted it at the same time as a number of other subpages. I hadn't used it in years, and it contained some personal information that I did not want publicly available. Further, I do not visit or use WhyWeProtest, and had no idea it was still running. That thread had no bearing on events onwiki. I also find the depths to which you are plumbing my years-old editing history in a poor attempt at "opposition research" to be highly disturbing, and I think it telling that all you have been able to dig up is a few diffs of mildly rude comments from 2009 before I was an admin (and when the wiki was a very different place, and WP:ARBSCI and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Terryeo found that there actually were Scientologists attempting to manipulate content) combined with casting some unfounded aspersions. Your increasingly-desperate attempts to link me to some bizarre conspiracy is extremely troubling, to say the least, and you seem to be justifying the sanction further with every edit. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

• Pinging Prioryman Damotclese Feoffer because the same allegations of collusion have been made against them as well. @Arbs: I would like to direct your attention to this discussion on Sfarney's talkpage, which seems to indicate intent to harass at the very least, and attempted WP:OUTING at the worse. The fact that Sfarney seems to be plumbing the depths of ancient history from 2009-2010, both here and on Commons, in an attempt to "dig up dirt" on me demonstrates that my record is squeaky clean and these conspiracy theories are becoming more and more unhinged. If they had anything showing bias, they wouldn't have to go back 7 years to find it. I have been subject to these aspersions being cast since the beginning of this SNAFU, and I would appreciate if Arbcom would issue an injunction instructing Sfarney and Laval to stop this attempted character assassination. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 14:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Prioryman

Sfarney is doing an excellent imitation of a squid, blowing out clouds of black ink to hide the real issue at hand here: did the evidence of misconduct in the original AE request merit a topic ban? He doesn't address his own conduct above in any way other than to deny that anyone has ever found fault with it ("No one can say that I have broken any of the canons of Wikipedia"), which is obviously ludicrous in the light of the multiple critical threads he has attracted on his talk page regarding a variety of topics and his previous topic ban from Rick Alan Ross. If the topic ban was justified - and it clearly was - then everything else is moot and mere tendentious wikilawyering of the kind which those who have interacted with him have sadly become accustomed to. Prioryman ( talk) 11:58, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Dennis Brown

I don't expect to comment further unless this account is pinged by an arb. I doubt it will be needed.

This is all moot. The community upheld the ban, any cause of action has to be about that WP:AN confirmation, where the community essentially took possession of the ban. Unless you can show fault in that discussion, there is nothing to talk about. Speaking as someone who tried DESPERATELY to not topic ban you, who choose an admonition the first time you were brought to AE, and has watched you implode since then, I suggest simply waiting the ban out. The community upheld the ban. That the process was sloppy doesn't really matter, we aren't a bureaucracy. Farmer Brown ( talk) (aka:Dennis Brown) 21:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Ian.thomson

I have to bring up Robert McClenon's statement given here that "continuing to appeal is vexatious litigation." Yes, editors should be allowed to appeal bans but the community is also allowed to affirm those bans and should not have to continually answer "yes, one year is still one year" every few weeks in a different spot each time. Standard discretionary sanctions have been allowed since 2012, the ban was converted to that, and uninvolved community consensus affirms that ban. To try to appeal on a technicality that has already been ironed over is nothing but Wiki-lawyering. Honestly, at this point, the only room I'm seeing between modifying the ban (which I can't see happening) and blocking Sfarney is Sfarney withdrawing this ASAP. Ian.thomson ( talk) 21:03, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment by DamOTclese

I'm not sure why I keep getting dragged in to comment on this difficult editor, this should be a no-brainer. When Wikipedia has problem Scientology editors, one either (1) Topic bans the editor/sock or (2) blocks their IP addresses. When there is extensive WP:IDHT and WP:NH and the same issues which have repeatedly been resolved keep getting dredged-up over and over again, we have procedures for a final resolution to the problem editors which do that, and in editor Sfarney's case, a topic ban is the obvious solution, and any appeal should be dismissed.

At the same time we must not discourage volunteer editors from donating their time and effort to Wikipedia to improve articles, so editors and admins need to work hard to convince problem editors that they must stop being problems while also asking them to "move on" and find more productive use of their volunteer time. Editor time has value, we don't want to lose editors that contribute beneficially!

Also editors and admins who look at problem editors' behavior also need to understand Scientology's history and contentious behavior to some degree inasmuch as if they want to expend some time understanding the motivations of Scientology-based problem editors, looking up "Dev-T" (Develop Traffic) and Scientology's written procedures on "Outproducing" sources of factual, informative, testable, falsifiable information on Scientology -- which Wikipedia certainly is -- helps understand some of the WP:IDHT and WP:NH behavior.

We need Sfarney to stay working on Wikipedia while at the same time we need him or her to stop wasting other editor's valuable time. We need to be polite and professional when imposing topic bans (after being polite and professional addressing editor's proposed text updates and issues) and if that does not work, we need account bans and/or IP bans, that's how we resolve things. If Sfarney does not understand why he was topic banned, that is a failing with other editors and admins not being able to convey why. That he's appealing his topic ban seems to indicate that we have failed to impart such understanding.

Don't remove the topic ban yet please, don't ban Sfarney. We need all the editors we can get here. Damotclese ( talk) 16:54, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Salvio, where precisely would be the bar? Because I am willing to lay money down that if an (otherwise perfectly respectable) admin was found to have been a scientologist and sanctioned someone in the scientology topic area, this would have been considered 'involved' and overturned within 5 minutes. I will paraphrase (slightly) my comment from the ANI: "I have a few books on cars. That wouldnt disqualify me from closing contentious discussions on cars. If I owned a series of extremely hard to get and in-depth documents (primary and secondary) on morris minors, declared I was the most knowledgeable wikipedian about morris minors AND had previously declared another editor was correct in their morris minor edits - I should not be closing any dispute (in my capacity as an administrator) related to said morris minors." If Sfarney is correct in his evidence of Wordsmith's previous associations with anti-scientology groups, I am not actually sure what would actually satisfy you regarding 'involved' in an off-wiki sense. Can you honestly say if the POV's were reversed, we would be here? Only in death does duty end ( talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (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.

Sfarney's hostility and poor behavior are dominating his defense. Having worked with him in other area's where he has been extremely difficult and uncooperative I suggest, keep the full year or block him from editing as Slade Farney is not showing any sign of stopping tendentious editing in general. Earl King Jr. ( talk) 04:16, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Scientology: Clerk notes

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

Scientology: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Uphold -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• A couple of comments. First, a person appealing a sanction before us may argue that the original sanction was flawed, even if upheld at AE or AN, because ArbCom retains final jurisdiction over all actions taken on our behalf. However, the standard ArbCom has historically used when reviewing appeals has been that of abuse of discretion. Therefore, the relevant question is, was The Wordsmith's imposition of a topic ban an abuse of discretion? At first glance, it does not appear that was the case. The fact that he based his topic ban on remedy 5.1 rather than on remedy 4 (authorising DS for the topic area) has no bearing on the validity of the sanction itself, because, assuming there was evidence of sufficient misconduct to justify the imposition of a discretionary sanction in the first place, then such a mistake should be considered a mere clerical error, which can be rectified without any formalities. On review of the original thread and of the discussion following sfarney's appeal, I am satistied that there is enough evidence of misconduct to justify the imposition of a topic ban.

  The question then becomes whether The Wordsmith was involved. Again, historically, when involvement has been argued on the basis of off-wiki conduct, the bar has ben set rather high, for various reasons, including a desire to prevent both opposition research and a chilling effect on admins. In this case, in my opinion, that high bar is far from reached.

  For all these reasons, as far as I'm concerned, this appeal should be rejected. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:55, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Having reviewed the evidence we were sent in private, I am confirming my vote. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 23:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Just noting that the "supplementary info" Sfarney said was sent by email to arbcom does not seem to have arrived, although it would have to be very compelling indeed to change my opinion based on the public evidence already posted here. Sfarney, could you resend ASAP so we can wrap this up? Thanks. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Sfarney: We received your emails, thanks. You got that message because the mailing list holds posts from non-subscribers for moderation. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 16:50, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Uphold - having read the evidence above and that submitted privately, I agree with Salvio here. The ban should be upheld. I also do not believe that The Wordsmith shuld be considered involved. Doug Weller talk 20:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Uphold Exactly per Doug. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment There are a few other ARCAs and a case request for me to get through so it may take me some time before I can go through this in detail, but I'd like to quickly address this part of Sfarney's section, which was brought to my attention earlier today: I respectfully ask for the Arb who recommended the ban [79] to recuse from this appeal. I clarified earlier with The Wordsmith that he was referring to me in the linked comment, and I think also that there is some miscommunication surrounding that conversation. Wordsmith contacted me in May with concerns about Sfarney, and sent a few links. The conversation continued as follows (posted with Wordsmith's permission):

31/05/16 10:58<[Wordsmith]> I'm not sure if that's conclusive enough for an indef, or if a regular admin should even be doing that rather than an Arbblock
31/05/16 10:59<[Wordsmith]> The editor's contribs show extensive pro-Scientology POV pushing
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> The easiest option is probably to TBAN per r an indef, or if a regular admin should even be doing that rather than an Arbblock │10:59 <[Wordsmith]> The editor's contribs show extensive pro-Sc
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> whoa
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> bad paste
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> TBAN per /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Scientology#Single_purpose_accounts_with_agendas
31/05/16 11:01<GorillaWarfare> Assuming he fits those criteria
31/05/16 11:02<GorillaWarfare> But you could also send your evidence to ArbCom and we could look into a block/ban
31/05/16 11:02<[Wordsmith]> He's made some contributions to chemistry, but the bulk are Scientology-related
31/05/16 11:04<[Wordsmith]> I'm more than willing to ban under that SPA remedy and DS, I just won't mention the connection. I'll send the evidence to Arbcom, and if he appeals I'll put it on hold pending examinatin of private evidence
31/05/16 11:06<GorillaWarfare> Sounds good
31/05/16 11:06<[Wordsmith]> Thanks for the advice
31/05/16 11:07<GorillaWarfare> No problem :)

Given that my only involvement was to show Wordsmith the remedy in the Scientology case that authorized future sanctions, and say he could use it assuming [Sfarney] fits those criteria, I'm not seeing a need to recuse here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

• Alright, have had some time to review this request, the initial discussion, and private evidence. My opinion is that the ban on Sfarney should be upheld. I also do not believe there is merit to the claims that The Wordsmith is breaching the expectations of administrators with regards to INVOLVEment. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• Uphold. There is evidence of significant disruption (that GA review? bizarre) on Sfarney's part, and, on the other hand, the supposed involvement of Wordsmith does not reach a level where their objectivity is to be distrusted. Besides, if the community upholds a topic ban, it takes serious evidence for us to overturn; I don't see that evidence, despite a plethora of innuendo being emailed to us. Drmies ( talk) 03:41, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• My view is very similar to Salvio's. When looking at DS appeals I consider whether DS procedure was followed and whether it was a reasonable exercise of admin discretion. Regarding DS procedure while The Wordsmith did originally place it under remedy 5.1, the sanction could be a DS action just the same (as Sfarney had been notified) so that isn't a concern. The ban appears to be reasonable and within normal administrative discretion, remembering that areas subject to DS have been determined to be intractable and that 'harsher' sanctions are generally used. I agree with my colleagues that The Wordsmith is not involved here. Therefore I decline the appeal. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 06:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Initiated by Debresser at 13:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive195#Debresser

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. User_talk:Debresser#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

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

• Debresser ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Nableezy ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Nishidani ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• diff of notification Nableezy
• diff of notification Nishidani
• diff of notification to sanctioning admin Lord Roem

Information about amendment request

• User_talk:Debresser#Notice_that_you_are_now_subject_to_an_arbitration_enforcement_sanction

• I request the sanction against me be revoked and the other two parties strongly warned against trying to game the system to push their POV

Statement by Debresser

Two editors with a strong POV in the Israeli-Palestine-conflict area have removed information they consider to reflect negatively on Mahmoud Abbas, and have made other edits to that article, in disregard of serious objections by me as well as uninvolved editors, refusing to participate in discussions, using ever alternating baseless arguments in an attempt to push their POV, filing a baseless 1RR report against me at WP:AE in an attempt to use that forum to remove my resistance to their edits, and making personal attacks or belittling me and other dissident opinions. The report was made after I had made a second revert after 26 hours, [80] [81] [82]. The sanction of a three month topic ban was imposed by Lord Roem [83] in disregard of several editors supporting my point of view and joining my request for WP:BOOMERANG sanctions against Nableezy (and now Nishidani), and of the fact that only one other admin had expressed an opinion and was clearly against any sanctions, so the sanction is not even supported by a majority of admins. Likewise I fail to understand why Nableezy and Nishidani have not been sanctioned, even though their behavior was clearly POV-inspired, attempting to game the system, stonewalling on talkpage and independent forums, and included repeated reverts as well. I think the sanction is imposed without there being a problem in my editing, without a consensus among admins that there should be a sanction, in disregard of procedure, and in disregard of the obvious attempt to use WP:AE to remove resistance and push a POV, as well as the behavioral problems of the reporting editor himself, Nableezy, and his most staunch supporter, Nishidani, with whom he edits in concert. The coming with unclean hands and the sanction being applied not evenhandedly, are reasons to revoke the sanction. I think that a revert, well after the 24 hours of 1RR was the only way to force Nableezy and Nishidani to break the stonewalling of Nableezy and Nishidani and their refusal to reply to legitimate concerns. Their previous and consequent edits and behavior support that conclusion. I would like to stress that I am an 8 year editor with over 90,000 edits, active in many areas over this project, see User:Debresser/My work on Wikipedia, and I always try to edit neutrally and keep in mind the good of this wonderful project that is Wikipedia, see User:Debresser/My rewards.

Editors supporting me at WP:AE: Drsmoo, Sir Joseph, Only in death

Second admin against sanctions: no evidence of violation, cmt.

Using ever changing arguments to push POV: First Sepsis II (who was recently permanently topic banned at WP:AE) used the WP:ARBPIA3#500/30 argument against other editors. They when I made the same edit, with improvements, Nableezy tries to say sources are not reliable, which they are, or when good sources are readily available, see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources. They he tries to say it is recentism [84], and see Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM). Then he sees an outside opinion that it is undue, [85] so he plays that card too. [86] If he thinks it is undue, he could have rewritten it in shorter form, but all he has done is remove the paragraph altogether. See also further, that suggestions for a shorter version have been made, but still he reverted. This clearly shows that Nableezy considers all means legitimate, only to remove this information.

Refusing to participate in discussion or rendering discussion ineffective: When uninvolved editor TransporterMan proposed a compromise on the talkpage, [87] I agreed, [88] but Nableezy rejected the compromise based on his personal vendetta against me. [89] I took this to the Dispute resolution noticeboard, and Nableezy sabotaged that discussion. [90] Nableezy completely ignored the discussion at the Biographies of living persons noticeboard, [91], even though I posted it on the talkpage. [92] Recently Nishidani added a new paragraph, [93] and my objections on the talkpage in Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Gilbert_Achcar have been completely stonewalled by Nableezy and Nishidani,(1) without any content or policy based reply to my objections based on lack of relevance and reliable sources, and in blatant disregard and falsification of the results of the discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, which Nableezy opened, and where both independent editors who responded, agree with me that the source is not good for its purpose, [94] [95] while Nableezy and Nishidani post long replies to smother all resistance.

(1) Especially telling of bad faith and gaming the system was the call by Nableezy to Nishidani to revert me after less than 4 hours of discussion and no outside opinions at a time he himself couldn't revert because of a previous revert. [96]

Proof Nableezy and Nishidani edit in concert: 1. [97] by Nishidani, which he then self-reverted to avoid a violation, followed by [98] by Nableezy. 2. Nishidani acted upon Nableezy's bad faith advice. [99] 3. The many talkpage discussions where I have seen them both and invariably support each other. Debresser ( talk) 14:19, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Examples of repeated reverts: Nableezy after 1 day and 16 hours [100] [101], Nableezy after 1 day and 15 hours [102] [103]

Procedurally request ignored: I asked that Nishidani trim his post of 737 words in order that I could reply to it effectively. [104] That request was ignored, so an essential procedure has been violated and the resulting sanction should be void.

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nableezy: " Wtf are you babbling about?"

Example of insult and belittling comments by Nishidani: [105], [106], " That looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, Dovid", What you or I think is irrelevant", " why in the fuck didn't you figure out the obvious in the first fucking place days ago? Messahge." ("Messahge" is "idiot" in Yiddish) Struck after Nishidani explained this was a typo and at most a Freudian slip. [107]

I thank Lord Roem for his patience on my request to reconsider sanction, and his willingness there to reconsider it after a month [108] or even to mitigate the sanction to a 0RR sanction. [109] I think there is no basis in the evidence presented at WP:AE to justify a sanction against me, and/or to not justify a sanction against Nableezy and/or Nishidani. In addition I attest to my good faith, and see no evidence of bad faith from my side at WP:AE. A sanction at WP:AE is a bad precedent, as recent comments have shown, [110] [111] and I willingly take my changes here, as I did before at WP:AE when I (!) undid the withdraw by Nableezy, see the witdraw [112] and my undo. [113] At the same time, I hope that even if editors here will disagree with me, they will be willing to consider mitigating the sanction along the lines suggested by Lord Roem.

@EdJohnston You suggest I should have posted at WP:AE first. I looked at the ways to appeal at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Appeals_and_modifications, where it says "The process has three possible stages". I exercised the first, writing Lord Roem on his talkpage, and when we reached an impasse there, I followed the third, posting here. Nowhere does it say that I have to use the second option of posting at WP:AE/WP:AN. The reason I didn't use it is because the sanction was made on WP:AE, and appeals are not usually made to the same place. I am perfectly willing to post at WP:AE again or at WP:ANI, just wanted to assure you that I followed the instructions in good faith. Debresser ( talk) 14:07, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lord Roem Both Nableezy and Nishidani are respectable editors, and with both of them I have in the past reached worthy compromises on contested issues in the IP-conflict area. I am, frankly, at a loss to understand why they don't behave in the same respectable way on Mahmoud Abbas. Perhaps because the subject at hand is too close to them. I am sure we will return to working together amiably in the future. However, how we can establish a "pattern of collaborative editing" in order to reconsider the sanction after a month during the time I am topic banned, is something that is not completely clear to me. Debresser ( talk) 13:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis Confirmed. The main reason I decided not to post again at WP:AE is that at WP:AE only two admins reviewed the case. As a result, in spite of the fact that there was only one admin who thinks I should be temporarily topic banned, that was the decision reached at WP:AE. In addition, my request to admonish the filing editor for what I consider to be his problematic behavior wasn't reviewed at all. I hope that a larger group of admins from ArbCom reviewing this case will either reach another opinion and decision, or at least I will know that a serious consensus exists that I am on the wrong track. In addition I hope that they will take the time to review the behavior of the filing editor as well, per my request and per WP:BOOMERANG. Debresser ( talk) 18:50, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amanda There was no escalation. Debresser ( talk) 17:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Amanda After reading the proposed explanation by Nishidani, I'd like to add that the edit he posted contains the following sentence: "I'm guessing that Debresser simply doesn't like this since it contradicts a rabbinical tradition". Apart from rejecting this type of accusation as coming close to religious persecution on Wikipedia, I can state as a fact that I am not aware of claimed rabbinic tradition, by which I want to make the point that this was a bad faith accusation. I'd like to request ArbCom to make a clear statement to the fact that editors on Wikipedia should not make assumptions based on professed religious adherence of editors. In addition, if this statement in any way affected LordRoem's opinion, I'd ask immediate annulment of the sanction on that basis alone. Debresser ( talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare & @Opabinia regalis I see that both of you find I was incorrect in insisting on adding a less than reliable source. Regarding this issue I have a few things to say: 1. The quality of the sources was a question that was under discussion. [114] [115] Another editor agrees with me that the source is fine, [116], especially since the same statement was since sourced to additional sources of high repute, [117] but nevertheless Nableezy and Nishidani insist that their point of view is the only correct one. That brings WP:TE to mind. 2. I provided better sources in the process. [118] 3. If the problem is my addition of a less than ideal source, then a warning to review WP:RS would be in order, not a topic ban. 4. Nableezy and Nishidani also edit warred to add a bad sources, which is still in the article, despite the opposition from two independent editors at the relevant noticeboard discussion. Why were my complaints about this ignored? Why aren't those editors topic banned as well? No society or community can apply rules other than evenhandedly. 5. I have shown a pattern of POV pushing and gaming the system by Nableezy and Nishidani. My actions should be seen on that background. As a result, I ask for leniency if I unintentionally wasn't careful enough regarding the reliability of a source. At the same time I repeat my request to address the problematic editing of those two editors. Debresser ( talk) 13:44, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis 1. I asked for sanctions against those other editors in the original WP:AE post. That request was ignored. If WP:ARCA is the place to appeal WP:AE decisions, then this is also the place to ask that my request that was previously ignored, now be considered. If that is not so, please let me know asap, because I would probably not have posted here otherwise. Now, that was only #4 of my 5-point reaction. Why then did you say my whole 5-point reply gets into WP:NOTTHEM territory? Why did you ignore all the other facts and arguments? 2. Why do you want me to roll over and play dead? I am not here to acknowledge that I was wrong. I am here precisely because I think I was not wrong, and I want you to review my case. At the same time I am aware that maybe I was wrong. If that will be the conclusion here, then at that moment I will gracefully accept that fact. At this moment, I am trying to argue that I was right. Your comment suggests an a priori assumption of guilt, while the presumption of innocence applies to appeals as well. Please note that I am not saying that I made optimal choices regarding each and every detail, but I do think that my general editing pattern was legitimate, and did not warrant or justify a sanction. 3. By the way, I am making edits in other fields at the moment, as I always have. Debresser ( talk) 22:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies See above: "I asked for sanctions against those other editors in the original WP:AE post. That request was ignored. If WP:ARCA is the place to appeal WP:AE decisions, then this is also the place to ask that my request that was previously ignored, now be considered." Why wouldn't this be the right venue for sanctions against other editors? And what is the right venue, under the circumstances? Debresser ( talk) 17:59, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@Kingsindian I am not asking for sympathy. I am asking for justice. It seems, however, that this forum is not interested in justice. In this regard I disagree with Opabinia regalis that my call for justice was "declined by implication". I am rather of the opinion that it was ignored. Several ArbCom members have said explicitly, that they are not willing to review the actions of Nableezy and Nishidani. The logic behind that decision they have refused to explain, and I claim that that decision is incorrect and an injustice.

@SMcCandlish I agree with you that 3 months is a lot more than the usual sanctions at WP:ANI. That is precisely what I meant when I said to LordRoem that this is not a short sanction at all.

I find it interesting to see that most uninvolved non-admins who posted here and at the original WP:AE seem to be of the opinion that I should not be topic banned, and agree with my point of view that there are serious problems with the editing of Nableezy and Nishidani. Sir Joseph and AnotherNewAccount point to some real problems. Debresser ( talk) 14:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

Umm, despite Debresser's efforts to paint me as somebody who is a "POV editor" with ever changing arguments to keep negative material about people I dont even particularly like (Abbas), the two sections that he is using to attempt to claim my arguments morph are Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#WP:RECENTISM and Talk:Mahmoud_Abbas#Unreliable_sources are about two entirely different sections in the article and completely unrelated material. And one follows the other, but not in the order that he writes above. Yes, I had two different problems about two different edits that Debresser made, edits that Debresser edit-warred to restore in a BLP despite good faith BLP objections, despite specific policy requirements on restoring such material, requirements that Debresser has repeatedly ignored. Ill respond to the rest of that baseless screed if an arbitrator would like me to, but that is a decent example of the type of careless and occasionally reckless editing that Debresser has been engaging in. nableezy - 17:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nishidani

It took me 2 days and several hours of time extracting from Debresser, regarding just one edit proposal, based on a high RS source written by the foremost Samaritan authority on Samaritan history, an admission his 3 reverts of that source from the lead were wrong. By simple arithmetic, were I to take the same trouble to parse, analyse through the edit history record, what Debresser wildly claims above, we'd be here till kingdom come. He's a productive editor, with 90,000 contributions, double my own piddling 48,000. Like all of us, he has defects: his is to revert repeatedly on WP:IDONTLIKEIT grounds material closely sourced from books which, on every occasion, leap the WP:RS high bar, being written by authorities in their respective fields, and published under academic imprint. We have the respective talk pages of Mahmoud Abbas ( here), and now Israelites ( see here and here )to examine the difference in approach. If any close reader can find in Debresser's responses to numerous queries palmary instances of close reading, intimacy with the niceties of wiki policy, wide familiarity with sources and a lucid grasp of the academic pedigrees of authors, their standing in their fields, and endorses his apparent belief that the Bible is a more accurate source for ancient history than scholarship, then by all means, they should call me to order, and ask me to explain myself. I won't defend myself against Debresser's tirade, for obvious reasons. I have no belief he even reads my responses. Nishidani ( talk) 16:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record Dovid, when you cite my edit summary above looks like a partisan rabbinical dismissal of Samaritan Israelitic origins, as an ’example of insult and belittling comments’ by myself, you missed the fact that I was alluding to a commonplace in the scholarly literature on Israelites and Samaritans., e.g. here p.176, here p.524; here pp.56-7; here p.420, to cite just 4 of a dozen examples. Our conflicts are of this type. I keep citing the scholarly literature, and you keep reacting to the personal implications you read into my edits, rather than to the academic hinterland whose dragoman I try to be. Operatively, it's not me you keep reverting over numerous pages, but the relevant scholarship. Nishidani ( talk) 20:26, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a note on Amanda's request to Lord Roem. I cannot presume to know the latter's mind (I struggle to know my own, or what remains of it, more times than not). I would only add that the complaint was originally on Debresser's behavior at Mahmoud Abbas. The merits of this complaint that D removed high quality RS at sight, without any visible policy grounds, and couldn't produce them at the talk page, were being evaluated without any clear consensus. Out of the blue, on another page, Debresser suddenly repeated that pattern complained of at another article, Israelites. I.e. while the pattern asserted to exist in his editing Mahmoud Abbas was being analysed, he appeared to confirm it existed by repeating it on another page. I drew admins' attention to this new fact (new evidence supporting the complaint) here. Several hours later, Lord Roem closed the issue with his sanction. My presumption is that the second piece of evidence was read as confirming what, until that point, had only been a hypothesis of uncertain merits: a single-issue complaint became multiple. Nishidani ( talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

User:AnotherNewAccount.

I believe that Debresser is right in claiming that Nableezy and Nishidani frequently edit in concert, with Nishidani providing the "brains" and Nableezy the "brawn" in bludgeoning their POV into articles.

That's quite offensive, not because it is utterly false but because I reckon I could whup Nableezy in a fight, but he'd run rings around me on a huge range of complex technical subjects. The gang of four you indicate are still here because they are rule-abiding, and accept fairly strict standards for encyclopedic composition, as do the several 'pro-Israel' stalwarts one could also name. There are over a dozen such editors from both sides who regularly edit the same pages, respect each other because the rules are respected, disagree often, talk policy, ask for evidence, marshall sources, analyse their merits and achieve rational outcomes. The people who end up here do so because they come with one topic in their sights, understanding one POV exclusively, use poor sources, don't discuss or do so erratically, and as often as not ignore the constraints we all accept. The people who get into trouble on A/1 or AE for I/P issues have one characteristic. They are unwilling to do the kind of unsexy intensive legwork, time-consuming research, on which solid article construction is based. They have nothing but a focus on those elements of a long article which can be spun to political advantage. Nishidani ( talk) 19:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joe. Again, the same (it's repeated in every thread) insinuation:

this area is "off limits" either due to the headache or bias

The area is not difficult to edit if you are rule compliant, have a genuine interest in history, feel uncomfortable with broadbrush simplistic generalizations, and are willing to work hard. Most editors who stay on do not find it a headache. It demands a lot of work, that's all. The only headache is the historically attested fact that the I/P area tends to attract numerous meatpuppets, sockpuppets, posters who make death threats,anonymous blankers and reverters, ranters flooding one's email with vicious slurs, and gamers. They have no bias of course, though they account for 90% of the AE, A/I complaints. They are certainly not 'pro-Palestinian', a silly designation which is used as if it meant 'anti Israeli'. That you do not find in articles here what you find in partisan tabloids is not necessarily a token of bias. The same rude impression will arise if you read any good academic source or encyclopedia. It might just mean that editors who make contributions that stick, because the RS quality is high, work harder than the meme-replicators out there in examining all the available documentation, and writing it up per WP:Due and WP:NPOV. That said, I have no objection if this suspicion is thought serious enough to warrant a close examination of the editing history and contributions of all to see if they are contributing content or just here to play politics. Nishidani ( talk) 21:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Just to comment that my above support linked to by Debresser should only be taken regarding the underlying content issue - I have no comment on the subsequent alleged behavioural issues (which I assume is what led to the sanction) although personally I think the area is ripe for a full case given the amount of POV-laden editing and BLP violations from multiple editors. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 13:42, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Nothing prevents the Committee from taking this if they want to. But in fact, User:Debresser has short-circuited the usual appeal route which is laid out at WP:AC/DS#Appeals and modifications. He had the option of appealing at WP:AE or WP:AN but has not done so. I'm unclear why the appeal is here. In the absence of any special reason being given, I suggest the Committee decline this request and ask him to use AE or AN for the next step. EdJohnston ( talk) 14:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Lord Roem

I don't have much to add that isn't already linked. If anyone has a specific question for me, please ping me. As the sanctioning admin I do think my short sanction on Debresser is appropriately proportionate. However, I don't see Debresser as helplessly disruptive and will happily lift the topic ban in a month or so if a good pattern of collaborative editing is established. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 17:31, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure thing. I was initially only concerned that Debresser appeared to be gaming the 1RR restriction on the page ( 21:14 13 July and 23:05 14 July). At that point, I thought a warning to be careful about 1RR would be the only thing required. What changed my mind were diffs like this (see edit summary) and the conversation here (where my initial perception was Debresser was stonewalling). This isn't one of the cases where there's something egregious; this is why I suggested during a convo on my talk page to change the sanction to a 0RR restriction instead of a full topic-ban. Debresser expressing willingness to undergo that, but didn't appear to recognize that his approach, thus far, was only disrupting the page.

If arbs think something different is appropriate, I'm not stuck to my position. There's other history in the AE request that gives more context to the situation that I recommend committee members go over. Lord Roem ~ ( talk) 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by AnotherNewAccount

I've been away for a few days, and have only just realized that Debresser had ended up topic banned. I have much to say, but I'll be as brief as I possibly can. I won't comment on the quality of the talk page discussion, which was awful - and it wasn't all Debresser's fault. The dispute is a microcosm of the problems in the topic area:

• Factionalism amongst the editors, and a continued personal animosity between Nableezy and Debresser. They have rather rancorous disputes rather too frequently. It's obvious that Nableezy in particular holds Debresser in utter contempt, judging by how I've seen him belittle Debresser in so many disputes. Every single complaint against Debresser at AE was filed by Nableezy when a content dispute didn't go his way quickly enough.
• Persistent "numbers" issue. Pro-Palestinian editors are not just in the majority, but are also far more active and persistent, which has inevitably affected the content. In the initial content dispute, the breakdown of editors was broadly as follows:

• Nableezy - pro-Palestinian editor
• Zero00000 - pro-Palestinian editor
• Sepsis II - pro-Palestinian editor, just been topic-banned
• Nishidani - pro-Palestinian editor
• Debresser - pro-Israel editor
• Epson Salts - pro-Israel editor

4-to-2 is a fairly typical ratio of editors for this topic area. Indeed, Nableezy's arguments often resort to "appeals to numbers", particularly when he's belittling Debresser.

• Continued "tag team" editing. And not just in edit wars. I believe that Debresser is right in claiming that Nableezy and Nishidani frequently edit in concert, with Nishidani providing the "brains" and Nableezy the "brawn" in bludgeoning their POV into articles.
• Complete lack of neutral editors, those that do attempt to edit or mediate in disputes are typically crushed or worn out by the incessant continued bickering between the two sides.
• Extreme difficulty in deciding which material is important and relevant to an article, exacerbated by the POVs of the existing editors and the complete lack of neutral editors.
• Extreme difficulty in identifying and agreeing on reliable sources, exacerbated by the POVs of the existing editors and the complete lack of neutral editors.

• Related to this is the ability of certain editors to utilize apparently decent sources to present a less-than-neutral view of the topic, either through selective choice of sources, or cherrypicking only favourable material within a source, or most commonly by simply choosing an academic/expert/journalist that has expressed the desired opinion. Both sides have done this to an extent.

• The general failure of the various noticeboards and the wider community to be of much help. The topic is a bargepole issue, and I suspect the resident noticeboard-dwellers are scared of the topic and want nothing to do with it. (I see Debresser issued a message on the BLP noticeboard which was ignored.)
• Problems related to the 500/30 sanction. The inital disputed material was added, in good faith, by an IP who was clearly unaware of the sanction. I think this remedy has caused as many problems as it has solved, with several decent new or casual editors having their work reverted, having their heads bitten off, and in a few of cases ending up blocked, whenever they make the mistake of editing an article that hasn't been Extended confirmed yet.

I think there is a good case for the Arbitration Committee to examine the continued warring, content issues and chronic NPOV problems in another case, with the particular aim of increasing the influence of neutral editors. Either that or starting a frank community-wide discussion of the problems on the appropriate community discussion forum. The editing dynamics remain unconducive to neutral and collegial editing, and I think individual editor POVs, factionalism, and groupthink amongst the current editors is to blame. AnotherNewAccount ( talk) 19:15, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I will be the first to agree that Debresser can sometimes be strong in his opinions but you also need to admit that for a pro-Israel editor, the "game" already starts off with the other side having a major handicap. Any issue that falls under 1RR or any RFC usually ends up being a numbers game, whether intentional or not. I think the best thing would be to shorten the TBAN and issue a strong warning. We really don't need to lose a usually good editor who can edit neutrally. I have seen Debresser editing with a pro-PA (in a way fixing the article but not touching content, etc.) and I have had my run ins with him as well but on the whole the IP area would be worse off without him.

I will just agree with ANA's point about the area not being one that neutral editors want to touch. During my time at AE I've also been told via email that this area is "off limits" either due to the headache or bias. That is indeed something that should be looked into, independent of this action. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Serialjoepsycho

I notice looking at the ARE in question Nableezy had withdrawn the motion [119]. Debresser reversed this withdrawl. Essentially shooting his own self in the foot. I'm seeing a fiery battle when I look at the talkpage which would seem to me to be banworthy. [120] For example "Don't be stupid". I could pull out other examples but my point is this all is a FIGHT. There was need for admin intervention. Perhaps there might be a question if Nableezy should also be topic banned but I see no reason why this ban should be questioned. It seems that Lord Roem was trying to take the least severe action reasonable. An indefinite topic ban, and correct me if I am wrong, would require a 6 month waiting period after any failed appeal. Lord Roem, and don't let me put words in your mouth, seems to have concluded that Debresser would possibly amend their behavior. Judging from Lord Roem comments they are willing to review the situation as early as 1 month if Debresser shows improvement. Debresser this seems like a much needed cooling off period. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 10:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Three months is not a "short sanction". It is shorter than the one year authorized by WP:AC/DS, but it's long by WP:ANI standards. DS is an unusual remedy for in extremis cases in controversial parts of the project, and usually applied to recalcitrant/intransigent disruptive editors about whom we all have WP:NOTHERE or WP:COMPETENCE concerns, not usually long-term productive editors. I would think that a one-day block, or a one-week Tban would have been sufficient. The problem with three-month Tbans is that, because they are based on perceived behavior/attitude not on content and sourcing, they often have the effect of "handing the keys to the kingdom" to the opposition without regard to what the fallout will be on the content. This is eminently gameable. All it takes is for a PoV pusher or tagteam thereof to play a long game, patiently goading a very well-meaning but less patient editor into being just frustrated and intemperate enough to attract attention from an admin who sees DS as the right tool. I don't imply anything about anyone in particular in this exact case (I have not examined the rationales of the opposing parties in any detail, nor do I detect an "I have a hammer, an every problem is a nail" attitude on the part of the admin in question).

I'm just speaking from years of observational, and occasionally direct, experience. Three-month restrictions have a strong tendency to act as a de facto green light to the other side of a content dispute to WP:WIN (and such DS tend to be engineered to serve this purpose), an administrative ruling leveraged sometimes for years after the fact as a weapon/threat to let a faction have their way or else, to the detriment of the content and our readers. The content disputes in this particular case can surely be ironed out with some RfCs. I'm skeptical that continuing the restrictions against Debresser will serve any preventative purpose, only a punitive one. The main rationale that I see here, the "well, Debresser knew those sources were weak but used them anyway" excuse, speaks directly to this being a punishment for an error, not an ongoing necessity to prevent firmly predictable continued disruption; there's no evidence I can see that Debresser would resume right where he left off.

So, I call WP:TIGER shenanigans on this three-monther.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Kingsindian

I'll only deal with the AE request here:

• The dispute started as a content dispute where Debresser was accused of violating consensus. In the middle, Nablezzy withdrew the request since the underlying dispute was kind of solved, but Debresser reopened it, asking for a WP:BOOMERANG. But they "lost". It's hard for me to feel sympathy here.
• Lord Roem basically implemented the sanction by themselves, which is fine (sanctions at WP:AE do not need consensus). It is generally good practice to allow others to others to weigh in, but the WP:AE request had been open a fortnight, with only one other admin commenting, briefly. It's no secret that nobody wants to touch this area with a ten-foot pole.
• It is generally the thinking at at WP:AE that very short topic bans aren't effective. Anything less than one month is useless, three months is common as well. Kingsindian  ♝  ♚ 04:53, 16 August 2016 (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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Clerk notes

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Debresser: Arbitrator views and discussion

• I haven't had time to read this, but on the procedural question EdJohnston raised: I see no reason Debresser can't choose to skip the other venues and come straight to ARCA provided he understands that a result here is a final decision, i.e. you can't come to ARCA and then go back to AE about the same thing. I'm afraid that bouncing stuff to AE on a technicality would result in it coming back here again later. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 22:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Aye, per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions#appeals.notes per saltum appeals are explicitly permitted. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
    • From per saltum: "The phrase is used in the legal term certiorari per saltum, meaning the possibility of seeking a resolution before a higher court, bypassing intermediate instances" for everyone else who had to google it. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 01:43, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
  • @ Debresser: Can you confirm that you're aware of the above and still want to appeal here rather than AE? Opabinia regalis ( talk) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• This is going to take a while for me to parse through. I admit at this point I haven't read the full ARCA nor the full AE request, but I'd like to start with some preliminary questions. These are purely informational questions not to assign blame or guilt or make any judgement.

• @ Lord Roem: By looking at the result section of the AE request, I see that your view seems to have progressively changed from no sanction to sanction over time. Could you briefly outline your thoughts/reasoning on the escalation over time to where the behavior became disruptive enough for further sanction? I'm not looking for anything detailed, just some diffs or sections that show things were continuing to escalate requiring enforcement.
• @ The Wordsmith: Your last comment on this Enforcement was 5 days before it's closure. Could I request your two cents on the new information and result?

-- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• I echo Opabinia's point above, that Debresser is welcome to come to ARCA without first going to WP:AE or WP:AN. I am not convinced that the ~25 hour gap between edits was an attempt to game 1RR. However, the sanction placed under the discretionary sanctions procedure seems appropriate due to the re-adding of poor-quality sources (even after Debresser admitted they were of poor quality), as well as attempts to control the content of the article based on claims that his own edits reflected consensus despite lack of discussion. I think Lord Roem was right to place a fairly short sanction (three months, when DS authorizes indefinite topic bans of up to one year) given that these are not the most egregious violations we've seen, but I do think the short sanction is warranted. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Just noting I've read your most recent comment, Debresser. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

• @ GorillaWarfare: To clarify one thing, DS allows indefinite topic/interaction/page/etc bans and other restrictions. The only thing which is limited to one year are blocks (and site bans aren't permitted). Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oop, thanks for pointing that out Callanecc. Have adjusted my comment accordingly... GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

• I've gotten behind on my ARCA reading, but I've caught up with this one now and I agree with GW. There was certainly edit-warring, even if not "gaming", and it was poorly sourced material in a contentious BLP. This is a pretty short sanction, and Lord Roem even mentioned willingness to lift it early if warranted, and IMO this is well within the norms of admin discretion in DS. Use the time to relax with some quieter articles. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 08:32, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Debresser, I read your recent addendum, and I fear we're getting into WP:NOTTHEM territory. This also isn't the right venue to ask for new sanctions against other editors under DS. People who gracefully acknowledge they may have been wrong and invest some time in other things are more likely to get their sanctions lifted early, or to cause hesitation to impose new sanctions later. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 20:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Two points: 1) As far as I can see, your request to have others sanctioned wasn't so much "ignored" as "declined by implication". 2) As for my advice, well, I've read this request, and the AE request, and the talk page threads, and I think you were sufficiently in the wrong that a sanction was justifiable. It seems that quite a few experienced admins and arbs are coming to that conclusion, which is useful feedback. But if you prefer, read it as pragmatism. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 05:29, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
• Like my colleague above I see a lot of NOTTHEMing here. What I don't see is an egregious administrative failure or an excessively harsh topic ban. Quite the opposite: Lord Roem seems to lenient and willing to reconsider. Nor is this the place to ask for other editors to be punished or warned. Drmies ( talk) 03:25, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• Upon review, I find Lord Roem's actions reasonable; so, appeal declined. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 11:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
• When deciding on appeals of discretionary sanctions, I look at whether the enforcing admin's actions are a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion and DS procedure. In this case DS procedure was followed so there are no issues there. Lord Roem seems to have been very reasonable (3 months is a short topic ban by AE standards) and is willing to discuss options to move forward. For those reasons I decline the appeal. Callanecc ( talk • contribs • logs) 05:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
• Decline -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 13:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)