Shortcut
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: Sphilbrick (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Beeblebrox (Talk) & AGK (Talk)

Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Behaviour on this page: Arbitration case pages exist to assist the Arbitration Committee in arriving at a fair, well-informed decision. You are required to act with appropriate decorum during this case. While grievances must often be aired during a case, you are expected to air them without being rude or hostile, and to respond calmly to allegations against you. Accusations of misbehaviour posted in this case must be proven with clear evidence (and otherwise not made at all). Editors who conduct themselves inappropriately during a case may be sanctioned by an arbitrator, clerk, or functionary, without further warning, by being banned from further participation in the case, or being blocked altogether. Personal attacks against other users, including arbitrators or the clerks, will be met with sanctions. Behavior during a case may also be considered by the committee in arriving at a final decision.

Preliminary statements by uninvolved editors[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement by Goethean[edit]

AGK's statement is puzzling, as Arzel was an involved party to the Tea Party Movement case, but avoided sanctions. Arzel undoubtedly sees that outcome as vindicating his behavior.

Outside View by Robert McClenon[edit]

I don't have a clue what Casprings is asking the ArbCom to do. The ArbCom has the power to ban Arzel. I don't think that is in order. I disagree with Arzel and think that he is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than some other right-wing editors. The ArbCom has the power to impose topic bans or interaction bans on Arzel. In the RFC, I didn't see any identification of any particular editing restrictions that would be appropriate. I agree with AGK and disagree with Goethean as to the Tea Party Movement. Arzel was not sanctioned, but the area was put under discretionary sanctions, so that if Arzel blanks any sources that he dislikes (possibly because they criticize the TPM), he can be sanctioned. It is true that Arzel's controversial edits have gone beyond the TPM to American politics in general, but Casprings doesn't propose a remedy. I would ask the ArbCom to delay a decision on whether to accept or decline for two or three days and give Casprings a chance to explain exactly what he or she is asking the ArbCom to do about or to Arzel. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update[edit]

Based on the most recent statement by Casprings, it appears that the real problem is the Casprings and Arzel do not like each other. If any action is to be taken, it should be an interaction ban. I disagree with Arzel's view that biased sources should not be used at all. They can be used as to reliable content by filtering out their bias. Because he has a habit of deleting such information, the purpose of the user conduct RFC, Arzel is a biased right-wing editor, but he is no more biased than other biased editors who are allowed to edit. Wikipedia can deal with editors like Arzel by discussing and reverting their deletions. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there were a more effective ArbCom, I would recommend that this case be taken for the purpose of an interaction ban. I do not think that the "community" at the noticeboards does well at dealing with such conflicts. However, it appears that the current ArbCom does not do well at dealing with contentious areas (which is its purpose) either. I do not want to see this case further delay the adjudication of real issues such as gun control or Austrian economics, or any such real future areas. Due to the inability of the ArbCom to deal with cases in a timely manner, declining this case is the least undesirable action. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further Update[edit]

I still don't understand what Casprings wants. He or she is clearly more optimistic about the ability of the current ArbCom to deal with a poorly stated case, in which the filing party gives very little clue as to why a case is required, than I do. I concur with User:Collect that an interaction ban would be in order. If the ArbCom had a record of timely action in 2014, I would suggest that the ArbCom do this by motion. As it is, I still recommend a decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recommendations[edit]

Since it appears that the ArbCom is about to accept this poorly stated case, I have a few suggestions as to what I would ask the ArbCom to consider in this case. First, as per several other editors, please do not expand the Tea party movement discretionary sanctions into American politics, which would place too much of the English Wikipedia under extraordinary measures. Second, the ArbCom should consider whether any interaction bans are in order. It appears that they are. Third, the ArbCom should consider whether any topic bans for any editors including Arzel are in order. (My own thought is that Arzel should not be topic-banned from American politics. He does a mix of good and harm there, by usefully removing characterizations such as "right-wing" and negatively removing content from reliable but biased sources.) Fourth, the ArbCom should consider whether any editors should be subject to 1RR. My own recommendation is that that would be an appropriate remedy for editors such as Arzel who engage in controversial removal of content. Fifth, the ArbCom should consider whether any editors should be site-banned. (Any editors who should not be topic-banned should certainly not be site-banned.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC) Sixth, the ArbCom should consider whether a new type of discretionary sanction should be developed that applies to certain editors who do both harm and good rather than to particular topic areas. The details of how editor-specific discretionary sanctions would work can be discussed in the case workshop. Those are my recommendations as to what the ArbCom should consider if it accepts this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

If one uses an analogy of fruit ripening to the concept of a case for arbitration ripening, this case is barely at the pollination stage. It appears far more likely to benefit the community and to reduce drama board usage to IBAN Arzel and Casprings at this point, and the TPM bit has naught to do with their apparent grating on each other. An IBAN should be worded in a neutral manner, making no assignment of blame, but simply to facilitate more orderly discussions either editor. Collect (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Salvio: The issue has absolutely naught to do with "American Politics," it has to do with two specific editors who should know better. If one suspects the issue is political, the exact same types of editors are found on all political, sexual, religious, philosophical and economic articles, with parallels in each and every category.

I have suggested in the past at UT:Jimbo that "silly season" edits are a major problem on Wikipedia, with such "major scandals" as traveling with a dog in a protected dog carrier on the roof of a car getting major play on Wikipedia with multiple articles, or having a major Baptist minister being labeled a "homophobe" because he supports the official teachings of that church.

If I recall correctly, the aim of Wikipedia is to produce an actual encyclopedia, not a collection of political, economic, sexual and religious tracts taking aim at anyone who is "wrong" whether they be Palestinians or Israelis, Ukrainians or Russians, Libertarians or Authoritarians, Argentines or British, Labour or Tory, and so on.

If the ArbCom ever decides to do something of real substance they should officially state that any editor who appears to be promoting any specific point of view about a topic in a manner designed to denigrate the topic should be subject to sanctions, for, in practice, it is the "show the world how evil this person or group is, or this topic is" mentality which has caused many problems on the project (looking back at most ArbCom cases, this is what I suggest should be one of the core principles and would have been applicable in many). If this means we do not actually "show how evil that man or group or topic is" then so be it. Collect (talk) 14:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WTT: As I noted, the issue is unrelated to the TPM case completely -- it is an interaction problem between two editors, and thus should be dealt with as such. If the area is "broadened" then it would end up being "all contentious articles, broadly construed" in the long run. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by North8000[edit]

I think blameless disengagement between the two would be in order. Beyond an iban because it appears that other normally exempted venues have also been the arenas. North8000 (talk) 10:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by NE Ent[edit]

I don't see there being a case here. The fact that some editors on Wikipedia don't like other editors is neither new nor exceptional, nor is it required for folks to collaborate. The filer tried to make the case at the RFC/U and failed to get a clear consensus.

I am disappointed the phrasing of the first two committee declines seem to assume misconduct on the part of Arzel in stating they should be dealt with by enforcement of existing discretionary sanctions. NE Ent 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A case would preferable to expanding DS's scope. NE Ent 11:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note the RFC has now been closed. NE Ent 02:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Cube Lurker[edit]

Placing the entire spectrum of US politics on discretionary sanctions may sound good, but I fear it could turn into a nightmare. Politics seeps into nearly all areas of life, and the number of articles that broadly construed touch on politics is incredibly large. To throw 50% of the encyclolpedia into WP:AE over this disagreement is killing a fly with a cluster bomb.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Naming of parties needed[edit]

The parties should be named. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide_to_arbitration#Evidence places limits on the evidence that parties & non-parties may submit. (Parties get more word & diffs and AGK is actually providing counts!) Also, subsequent discussions will (likely) have party and non-party sections. – S. Rich (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC) This may be rendered moot if it is clear that all commentators have the same limit.22:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your questions. Everybody has the limits afforded in other cases to non-parties, as is now being made clear by the "word count" templates. (However, extensions to the limits may be requested and will be freely given to people who have already submitted evidence of good quality.) The formal list of parties will be drawn up after evidence is received, because it will be not be clear before then who is involved in the disputes associated with this case.

Pinging my colleague Beeblebrox, in case he has anything to add or begs to differ; we have not actually conferred about the limits, but unless he objects please follow my directions.

AGK [•] 00:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not to criticise, but may I ask why the rules are being changed in mid-case? I just noticed that my name was removed from the list of parties and that I am now limited to 500 words/50 diffs, yet my statement remains on the request page, while others' statements have been removed to the talk page. Shouldn't Arzel, Casprings and I be afforded the full limit of evidence normally afforded to named parties? I really don't wish to spend my time compiling half the evidence, then ask permission to submit the rest of the evidence, and then have to spend more time compiling evidence. At this point, I'm not inclined to participate, and would just let someone else use the evidence that I already compiled at the RFC/U. - MrX 13:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll restate my concern about naming the parties. Per WP:Arbitration/Policy, the committee handles "serious conduct disputes...." Here, the Case scope presented at Evidence#scope does not comply with this policy because it is too vague, too broad. E.g., an editor can be "prolifically active" or "recently active" without being involved in serious conduct disputes, serious misconduct, or even simple misconduct. As "serious conduct dispute" is the jurisdiction of the Committee, the particular "serious conduct" should be identified and the editors who have engaged in the serious conduct disputes should be named. And at what point does an editor become a party? When they are simply mentioned in the evidence presentation or proposed decision? If there are allegations that an editor has engaged in serious (mis-)conduct, that serious conduct should be set forth with particularity. – S. Rich (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The point is that nobody is a party, right now, because we do not know how expansive the dispute is. Only editors within the scope and who the evidence shows have serious conduct problems will be entered as parties. In this respect, we are as far away from violating the arbitration policy as we could get. Please participate in this case as directed. AGK [•] 12:22, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Narrowing of scope needed[edit]

There has been an ArbCom on the Tea Party Movement. I submit that edits or diffs related to TPM editing behavior issues, especially those that pre-date the TPM ArbCom, should be excluded from this arbitration. As it stands, the broad and vague scope of "American politics" creates a double jeopardy situation when TPM-related evidence comes in. A clear statement from the ArbCom to exclude those issues will help the committee and the community. I recommend that the date of the TPM closing (5 September 2013) be the evidence cut-off point. If editors/parties to that ArbCom did not present evidence by that point, they should not be allowed second bites at the apple. Editing related to TPM ArbCom issues after the decision should be looked at carefully and referred to ArbCom decision enforcement as necessary. – S. Rich (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The scope differs from the Tea Party movement case in the topic areas covered, as well as in the time frame being examined, so no date cut-off is required. Please participate in the case as directed. AGK [•] 12:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specific Articles for Sanctions[edit]

Are there any specific articles or article areas, less expansive than American politics, to which discretionary sanctions should be extended? For instance, any articles about which there has been edit-warring? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We are currently in the evidence phase of the case. This is supposed to be the part where the involved users tell us where the problem is. When we get to the actual decision that is when it will be determined where any new sanctions will be applied. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My question was really addressed to the other involved editors, not to the arbitrators. In other words, I agree with Beeblebrox. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will there be clarity as to the quality of sources to be used in articles?[edit]

That is of a much greater concern than who gets banned and who doesn't. There is a major problem in being able to source opinion or opinionated analysis as fact from any biased source, be it liberal or conservative, or biased in any other axis. Specifically, sources like MediaMatters or WND are biased and, IMO, don't belong in articles without saying this is MediaMatters opinion or WND's opinion, etc. Lulaq (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What we are looking for at this time is for evidence relating to problematic behaviors to be presented. So, we are much more likely to address this int he decision if you, or anyone, take the time to present relevant evidence. The evidence phase technically closes tomorrow but we generally don't reject relevant material solely because of deadlines. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for amendment (July 2014)[edit]

Original discussion
The Committee declined to act in this case, and deferred further such instances to arbitration enforcement. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:26, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 02:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Remedy 3
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request
Information about amendment request

Statement by your Casprings[edit]

Very shortly after the closing of the American Politics case, Arzel has returned to WP:Battle. In a conversation with user:victorD7, he is clearly seeing the current conflict dispute in America (2014 film) as part if a WP:Battle. That conversation can be found here. The main evidence is this edit. [[1]].

I think you are all right. I saw it and was mad. I should not have filed this. I apologies to all, including Arzel. I ask to have this withdrawn.Casprings (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Arzel[edit]

I was not the one to politicize this issue nor did I start a battle. If anything Casprings was edit warring on the page and started the battle with Victor. Casprings certainly has made edits which are inflaming the situation such as this. My only edit to the actual page was a statistical explanation here which was then attacked by Casprings I think it is quite clear that Casprings wants to quiet me completely and this edit rings quite hollow. Arzel (talk) 03:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

This noticeboard is not well-suited for trivial cavils. I see no "battle" violation here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by VictorD7[edit]

This charge is absurd and should be dismissed as frivolous. The link in question is to my personal talk page, and Arzel is simply giving his opinion on the likelihood of making successful edits to the page. Acknowledging that "progressives" are disagreeing with conservatives is simply stating the obvious. Arzel made no article edits, and his limited participation in the discussion itself ([2]) has been factual, civil, and entirely focused on content. He certainly didn't "insult, harass, or intimidate" anyone, or otherwise engage in Battleground type behavior. Unless administrators want to be deluged in a flood of frivolous reports, they shouldn't encourage them by wasting any time with this one. VictorD7 (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by EllenCT[edit]

@Beeblebrox: is [3] by User:Cadiomals what you were looking for? It is a deliberate rejection of basic truth designed to introduce bias towards the view from nowhere, by deleting true statements with implications which are uncomfortable for those who hold various political views.[4] If you approve of it as a request for amendment, then please ask a clerk or me to draft what an appropriate request for amendment should look like. I continue to believe that a warning combined with a threat of a topic ban on the order of three to six months is appropriate, although it would be best to ask for imposition of the median of arbitrators' opinions on the appropriate punishment for such carelessness and deliberate bias. EllenCT (talk) 05:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics (Kentucky Senate election)[edit]

The arbitration committee noted that per WP:NEWBLPBAN, this article is subject to DS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Robert McClenon (talk) at 02:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested # Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment
Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

CFredkin https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACFredkin&diff=622128624&oldid=622125680

Stevietheman https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AStevietheman&diff=622128985&oldid=622004228

NorthBySouthBaranof https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANorthBySouthBaranof&diff=622129194&oldid=621857736

Tiller54 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATiller54&diff=622129504&oldid=622129021

Champaign Supernova https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AChampaign_Supernova&diff=622129934&oldid=621440660


Information about amendment request

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics#Discretionary sanctions (general directive)


Statement by User:Robert McClenon[edit]

Edit-warring has been happening at Mitch McConnell and Alison Lundergan Grimes. (They are the incumbent, seeking re-election, and the opponent in the upcoming election for United States Senate from Kentucky.) The article for Grimes has been placed under full protection.

User:Champaign Supernova has had discretionary sanctions explained on his or her talk page, and that I notified all of the recent editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I partly disagree with User:Collect that there is nothing unusual on the Mitch McConnell page. Earlier this month, there was, in addition to an insertion not only of a mention of a particular fund-raiser, an insertion of a wildly speculative theory about the reason for the fund-raiser, that involved gross BLP attacks on the industrialist who was supporting McConnell. While this sort of dirty political attack may not be "unusual", it was very inappropriate in Wikipedia. It wasn't just a BLP attack on McConnell, but also on the businessman who was supporting him. It was in my opinion the sort of case where the existing right-left polarization in American politics is likely to affect Wikipedia that the ArbCom had in mind with the general directive. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to "slippery slope" questions, the ArbCom does not have a crystal ball, but this seems to be precisely the sort of dispute area to which the general directive was oriented. I would hope that the imposition of discretionary sanctions in this case would send a signal to edit warriors in other sub-areas of American politics that they should edit in accordance with the usual rules, both before November 2014 and after November 2014. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, I do not see the need to impose DS on thousands of articles covering hundreds or thousands of elections that will be held on 4 November 2014. Second, any RFC concerning DS would not be closed until early October 2014 anyway, and would provide too narrow a window. Why not only impose discretionary sanctions on articles about politicians and elections in which there is edit-warring or other disruptive editing (such as the Kentucky Senate race)? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Roger Davies says, with regard to this motion and another, that he is not keen on a "piecemeal" approach to discretionary sanctions on American politics. A piecemeal approach is exactly what was stated in WP:ARBAP. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"In addition to any sanctions stemming directly from this decision, any new areas of conflict which involve contemporary American political and social issues may be placed under standard discretionary sanctions by the Committee without the need for a full case. Requests for new sanctions may be made at WP:ARCA. In evaluating such a request, the Committee will consider factors such as the length and severity of editor-behavior issues in the topic area, whether other remedies have proved inadequate to address the issues, and relevant community input."
First, the ArbCom can reverse Remedy 1, which was specifically crafted because cases involving American politics (with its ugly right-left polarization at the present time) kept requiring arbitration. Maybe, now that the ArbCom sees how it works, it was an honorable experiment that is a failure. Second, the ArbCom can expand Remedy 1 by extending DS to all of American politics. I would urge that the ArbCom not take that step, which would overburden arbitration enforcement, whose resources are needed in areas such as WP:ARBIP. Third, the ArbCom can use Remedy 1, knowing that Roger Davies can take the honorable role of a dissenting judge in voting against "piecemeal" application of discretionary sanctions to subareas of American politics. Fourth, the ArbCom can accept additional subareas of American politics for full evidentiary hearings, but that is what Remedy 1 was intended to obviate. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Details[edit]

History for Alison Lundergan Grimes https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Alison_Lundergan_Grimes&action=history

History for Mitch McConnell https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&action=history


Reverting a fund-raiser https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621611111&oldid=621606775

Add endorsement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621652104&oldid=621611111

Remove endorsement https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621675442&oldid=621652104

Add information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621676327&oldid=621675442

Remove information https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=621694341&oldid=621679946

Talk:Alison Lundergan Grimes#Censored content – See repeated claims of censorship, a common indication that POV-pushers object to removal of undue POV

Statement by uninvolved Collect[edit]

The McConnell BLP shows no unusual activity for a political BLP, and certainly the editing there does not reach the definition of "edit war." The Grimes BLP has more problems, primarily due to one editor using it to simply add "campaign fluff" (that is, positive statements about a candidate's positions while removing negative opinions sourced as opinions.) That, again, is typical "silly season" editing behaviour which does not reach ArbCom enforcement levels, even though it is to be deprecated. No sign that this is an apt case for "clarification and amendment" at this point at all. If these articles are added, there is literally no end to the number potentially added, and I suggest the ArbCom draw a line here that the matter is insufficient at this point. Collect (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Number of articles: A bit over seven hundred candidates for House of Representatives (some races have three candidates with articles), about seventy or eighty for Senate, and about twelve thousand state legislature candidates[5]. If we add notable local elections, add another thousand or so. Add about 250 "major issue articles" and we reach a rough estimate of perhaps fourteen thousand articles to be placed under this category. Not even counting articles about foundations, families, PACs etc. Collect (talk) 14:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NYB - I perennially suggest such general restrictions on BLPs of political figures internationally for the respective "silly seasons" in various places -- not just the US. Canada, UK, NZ, Australia and other English-speaking areas are the primary focus of politically-motivated editors during political campaigns. And I agree this would be a community decision. Collect (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other user}[edit]

{Other editors are free to comment on this amendment as necessary. Comments here should be directed only at the above proposed amendment.}

I'm not familiar with what a discretionary sanction is, and I don't understand what this proposal means or how it would affect me. I'm confused by my involvement here because none of the diffs listed above were edits made by me, or reverts of my edits. Is there anything I need to do right now? Champaign Supernova (talk) 03:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:CFredkin[edit]

It seems inappropriate for User: Champaign Supernova to be included in the sanctions, if he/she hasn't been accused of objectionable behavior. Or would the sanctions apply to all future editors of the articles mentioned for the time period specified?CFredkin (talk) 23:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by User:Stevietheman[edit]

Despite the apparent declaration, I have not been involved in any edit warring. I protested this declaration here, which strangely came in the form of a welcome message for a 10-year wiki-veteran (me). I don't do edit wars and haven't been blocked for WP:3RR since 2005, and it was just one time. While there has been actual edit warring on the affected pages, there has also been what I think are seemingly biased accusations of "slow-motion edit warring" and "disruptive editing" which I have found to be overzealous. Here's the gist of the problem: People from both political camps are using these articles for electioneering purposes. That's bad, that's un-wiki. But I'd rather see admins use the regular tools at their disposal to settle things down, and especially deal with individuals causing the biggest problems. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further, the "Reverting a fund-raiser" item above was me going through the appropriate move of closing an RfC a week after asking if there were any objections to doing so, and removing content agreed to be removed by consensus (4 out of 4) on the talk page. It's pretty outrageous that doing something agreed to by consensus would be included here. I thought these requests were for dealing with egregious behavior. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Thryduulf[edit]

Regarding DS more generally, I think it would be better to allow for DS to be placed on articles about specific political candidates in the n months before an election via a lightweight procedure (say 2 or 3 uninvolved admins at AN or ANI agreeing they would be beneficial) rather than automatically enable them for all political candidates. I do agree though this should be discussed at an RfC. Thryduulf (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American Politics (Dinesh D'Souza films)[edit]

Original Request here

declined as a stale request --S Philbrick(Talk) 12:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Casprings (talk) at 13:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
  1. Remedy 1
List of users affected by or involved in this amendment

-->

Confirmation that the above users are aware of this request

No users directly affected. Will leave a notice on the talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her


Information about amendment request

I request that all Dinesh D'Souza political documentaries come under Discretionary sanctions, as an amendment to the American Politics case. The article and talk page of America: Imagine the World Without Her WP:Battleground behavior and a similar dynamic to other cases that deal with American politics.

Statement by your Casprings[edit]

I think this is the type of situration the decision was designed to deal with. I would also note that similar battleground behavior has been seen in noticeboards, such as this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her

@Collect: The request only asks for films from one director and one type (political documentary). That isn't particularly expansive.Casprings (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Collect: While you may disagree with the original decision, the logic was clearly to be flexible and quickly handle areas under American Politics quickly. I think that this request is in line with that. However, if the question is about the original decision, that is another issue.Casprings (talk) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Evidence (Might take a little while, as I am busy with work right now. However...) Edit Wars over content

1.[6],[7], [8], [9], [10]

2. [11],[12],[13],[14],[15]

I would note that 2. happened in the context of several heated exchanges on several different forms: For example,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Use_of_Breitbart.com_to_defend_America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:America:_Imagine_the_World_Without_Her#The_Blaze

3. [16], [17],[18],[19], [20]

4.

Editors Seeing the page as a WP:Battle

1. [21]

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VictorD7#America_Talk_page

@Seraphimblade: I can and will add more. However, before I do, I wanted to ask: 1. Is this what you are looking for? 2. How much more do you want? Casprings (talk) 00:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Roger Davies: First, life was busy this week so I had little time to add more evidence. Second, if your concern is doing this piecemeal, why not make it political documentaries in federal election years (00,02,04, etc). I have no evidence to back that up currently, but I would be willing to place good money that if you look at those articles you would find significant edit warring.Casprings (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by VictorD7[edit]

Frivolous since activity on the article has been winding down anyway, in accordance with a movie's normal box office cycle. I'm also not sure what the basis for expanding DS to all D'Souza films would be. Seems arbitrarily broad. VictorD7 (talk) 17:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

statement by uninvolved Collect[edit]

OK -- if we add all films, books, people, events, magazine articles etc. which are remotely connected to "American Politics broadly construed" we likely would have over twenty thousand articles on the list in a flash. Possibly a lot more than that. Draw the line quickly lest this get really out of hand. Collect (talk) 22:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Casprings: Note the other request on this same page at this point wherein some estimate was implicitly asked for. "Broadly construed" is, in my opinion, intrinsically ill-advised as any sort of standard, and this request is sufficiently afield from the original ArbCom evidence and findings as to illustrate that problem. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Casprings: I demur. Collect (talk) 23:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by DangerousPanda[edit]

Wholly unnecessary bureaucratic filing. The original decision was clear and flexible. If these specific items need to be subjected to the original case, it can happen without such a request for amendment - otherwise, you're going to create bad jurisprudence that requires everything to be vetted in triplicate before it can be subject to sanctions. Bad and poorly-thought-out idea all around. the panda ₯’ 15:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by A Quest for Knowledge[edit]

I'm confused. How can we possibly place the entire topic space of American politics under discretionary sanctions?? This is way too broad and overreaching. And what's the point of the discretionary sanctions broadly construed if editors have to ask for an amendment to include an article as part of the the sanctions? Are these discretionary sanctions different from all the other ones? What am I missing here? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gaijin42: Thank you for the clarification. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42[edit]

A_Quest_For_Knowledge The entirety of AP is not under DS. Merely there is a policy that DS may be applied to any AP article, without a full case being required to do so. Individual articles or topics still need to be explicitly placed under DS, its just that taht can be now done at WP:ARCA for things under the umbrella of AP. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Robert McClenon[edit]

I think that the Panda and A Quest for Knowledge are mistaken, and Gaijin42 is correct. American politics is not under discretionary sanctions as such. The ArbCom provided an optional procedure for any subarea within American politics to be put under discretionary sanctions if necessary so as to avoid the need for full cases. This request by Casprings is correctly filed. However, he has not established (in my opinion) the need in this specific subarea. Has there been edit-warring or other disruptive editing? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In the absence of further evidence from User:Casprings of disruptive editing, I would be inclined to recommend that the ArbCom decline this request, but would ask Casprings to submit diffs. I have tried to address the comments of User:Roger Davies above, but will restate that Remedy 1 was meant to avoid either the need to overburden Arbitration Enforcement with issues arising from disruptive editing of tens of thousands of articles in the area of American politics (which would result from a blanket imposition of DS) or the need for full arbitration cases in order to impose discretionary sanctions on topic areas. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The statement by User:Roger Davies appears to propose to be a change to Remedy 1 to replace it with discretionary sanctions for all of American politics. Since Remedy 1 was reviewed by the community with an opportunity for comment before it went into effect, would the large expansion of discretionary sanctions also be reviewed in a somewhat more public place than this board? What is the thinking of the other arbitrators, who either voted for Remedy 1 or did not vote? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {yet another user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This section is for administrative notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).

Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: American politics/Arzel: 1RR[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by - MrX at 17:50, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Link to relevant decision Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Proposed_decision#Arzel: 1RR

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

Statement by MrX[edit]

I'm seeking clarification of the 1RR restriction place on Arzel. Specifically, please expand on what is meant by "any specific edit". It is ambiguous, and as far as I can tell, has been interpreted to mean "the exact same content".

Note: I'm not seeking to have any pending AE decision overturned, as that is water under the bridge.

See this request for arbitration enforcement for further background: WP:AE#Arzel. Thank you.

@Seraphimblade: Please see two lines up ^. I'm not asking for the AE decision to be overturned. I'm requesting that Arbcom clarify the restriction in the linked decision. What does "any specific edit" mean? - MrX 22:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Seraphimblade: The definition of specific does not have the same meaning as "exactly the same" or "identical" (words, punctuation and formatting), the latter of which seems to be the standard that has been adopted here.

In other words, "specific" is vague. Do you mean "identical"?- MrX 03:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Sandstein[edit]

I'm "involved" only as an admin active at WP:AE where I and the two other named admins have expressed the view that the enforcement request made by MrX is not actionable. I don't see anything in the decision that particularly requires explanation for the purpose of enforcing it, so far.  Sandstein  19:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

Discussed and pretty much settled at AE[25] - I do not know why this second bite at the apple is being made here. See especially Whether the diffs presented would have violated the more common restriction is debatable but unlikely; they certainly don't show a violation of the remedy as written [26] (from User:HJ Mitchell) Collect (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HJM: I suspect the fact that all the uninvolved admins who commented on the topic previously appeared to be in agreement may be a good indication of where this issue now raised in a new venue might be headed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Response from Harry Mitchell[edit]

@Collect: Note that I closed the AE request as redundant to this one, as opposed to this one being opened because the filer didn't get their way at AE. I think the request is a genuine attempt to gain clarification. I'm not sure clarification is needed, since three experienced AE admins reached the same conclusion, but that's an answer to a different question. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Arzel[edit]

MrX's primary argument seems to be that the first edit constituted a revert because I returned the article (section) to a previous state. My argument against was that it is beyond the scope to expect an editor to go far back through history to ensure than an edit did not return to a previous state. MrX stated that the removal of an entire section would clearly constitute such an edit because it was clear that it would (I would have to disagree somewhat because articles can change significantly over many months and years.)

Also, if we take the opposite view such logic is simply not logical or enforceable. If I had added a section which had previously been removed the same logic would apply. However, how would one know that such a section had been removed prior without extensive examination of the history to look for such an edit. It would be a far more difficult assumption that something added had been removed at some point in the distant past, something I think even MrX would agree.

I looked back a reasonable amount of time (past month) to see if that had been recently added or modified. It had not. Perhaps there may be some needed clarification, but MrX's approach is not, in my opinion, reasonable. I was abiding by the spirit of the agreement even if MrX would claim that I broke some technicality (I disagree). Thankfully it would appear that the admin's agree. Arzel (talk) 22:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Gaijin42[edit]

There is GAMEing going on here, but I don't think its on the part of Azrel.thre is no ambiguity about the "exact edit" certainly if he was making multiple reverts touching the same content one would think it would count. However, there is an entirely different issue here. If the content in question was stable for a significant period of time then I would also characterize the first deletion as an "edit" and not a "revert". while technically this does remove someone's previous work, such would be true of any removal of any content anywhere, and certainly we do not count the first removal edit as a revert for the purpose of 3RR generally. I think to be counted as a revert the content must have been the subject of recent insertion/editing (hours, days, a week at the most, unless there are extenuating circumstances like a long running dispute) Note that this characterization is opposite of the one I made at AE, because I was not aware that the content in questino had been stable in the article for some time.

While I no longer think this is a violation of 1RR, I would say removing content, and then removing it again when reverted is somewhat in the spirit of edit warring though, and it would be better to have gone directly to discussion or an RFC (which has now been done) Gaijin42 (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seraphimblade MrX I think the ambiguity is "does the first diff count as a revert", since at some point in the past it was put into the article by (multiple?) someones . (Original version put into article March 11, 2013 [27]). while that removal does not revert the entire article to a prior state, it does revert that particular section to a prior state (its lack of existence). Personally I think removing content put into the article almost two years ago does not meet the common understanding of "revert", but I do see the wiki-lawyer argument as being one that deserves clarification. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

Just in case anyone is unaware, there is a concerted campaign to add negative material about Breitbart, in order to undermine its credibility as a source for the GamerGate controversy. I'm not sure which "side" is pro-Breitbart, and which is anti, but this is essentially an extension of the GamerGate battleground.

A Happy New-Year! Rich Farmbrough, 02:05, 1 January 2015 (UTC).

Statement by {other user}[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

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

American politics/Arzel: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics (February 2015)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by MrX at 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics#Arzel warned


List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • Sanctions as deemed appropriate by Arbcom based on Arzel's recidivism


Statement by MrX[edit]

(Note: The following was moved from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arzel on Timotheus Canens' suggestion.)

Arzel has a long, well-documented history of abusive and disruptive personal comments. Around seven months ago, Arcom gave a clear warning to Arzel that "continuing to personalize or politicize content disputes is disruptive to the project, and continuing behavior of this nature may lead to further sanctions, up to and including a ban from the project." Unfortunately it has had little sustained effect. Arzel spends a great deal of his Wikipedia time reverting other editor's contributions, complaining about liberal bias, and making insulting claims about editors' intentions. He gravitates to controversial political and news agency articles, but does very little to collaborate with other editors to actually try to improve the articles.

Evidence
  1. February 12, 2015 "So when Carson is called a hate extremist by the SLPC it is fine to plaster his page with that idiocy, yet when the SLPC retracts the statement it is not fine? Hypocrites." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
  2. February 11, 2015 "You confuse WP:NOTNEWS with WP:N and do many WP editors wishing to frame a political story. Hell, it is barely 2015 and the silly season crap has started already." (Personalizing and politicizing a content dispute)
  3. February 10, 2015 "Added response to the tripe. SPLC loses respect by the day." (edit summary - Politicizing a content dispute)
  4. February 10, 2015 "Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes, Al Sharpton.....it is pretty well-known. If anything, it is acting as a propaganda arm of the Obama administration." (Politicizing a content dispute)
  5. January 5, 2015 "Please don't wipe the media mentions from the talk page without discussion. You can't simply whitewash this out of existance. Also, please leave your conspiracy theories elsewhere." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  6. February 4, 2015 "Your answer speaks volumes about your purpose here. There is no evidence that this has long lasting notability, your statement has no weight. The event was political to begin with even if your man is trying to hide the fact behind stupid words and a cluelessness about reality."(Personalizing a content dispute, and a clear personal attack)
  7. February 4, 2015 "Some of your edits appear to be quite transparent in your goals." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  8. January 19, 2015 "If you want to attack Emerson for his views on Islam go do it somewhere else." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  9. January 12, 2015 "You are an admin, you should help reign this crap in, not propagate it." (Personalizing a content dispute)
  10. November 2, 2014 "Why do you feel the need to trash a living person?" (Personalizing a content dispute)

There are other milder examples from the past few months. I don't think there is any point filling the page with addition diffs, but will do so if it helps. Thank you.- MrX 03:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Arzel[edit]

1. The SLPC makes a really questionable attack on Ben Carson, which was quickly added by MrX when it was noticed. When retracted (which received a lot of attention) we are rewarded with laughs.

2. This is news, yet was added and re-added almost as it happened. and then complained that a notable fact was way POVish.

3. Truthful, and they did lose quite a bit of respect with this. It would have been nice if MrX had added Carson's response originally.

4. Section was title "Long been accused of left-wing bias" and I didn't start it, so I don't know how providing some examples politicized an already politicized section.

5. Virinditas put forth his theories about User:Marteau, I told him to stop.

6 and 7. Maybe a little rough, but MrX's previous comment was not much different. Heat of the moment.

8. You really need to read the entire section to see how a couple of editors apparently really were upset with Emerson while a few of us were trying to maintain BLP standards.

9. Related to Emerson, where it appears that the same story was being pushed into multiple articles as it was happening without any evidence of long lasting notability The article is basically a list of every beef that everyone has with FNC, don't really see how that fits in with WP's purpose.

10. In response to this edit. JamesMLane added it back twice with two other editors removing. Crooks and Liars is not a reliable source for a BLP.

Sections in which I discussed which were called politicizing were politicized before I became involved. My two statements to MrX were probably a little rough for which I apologize, I just wish editors would not use WP to score political points (not specific to MrX), which oftens appears to be the case. Note: I didn't have a chance to go back to MrX's page and didn't see that "warning" until just now.

Just want to point out that the so called warning was not on my talk page and that I didn't know it existed until this complaint.

Statement by Collect[edit]

I retain my dislike of "dramaboards." I do not see the evidence educed as proof of much at all. I suggest Arzel be told not to make future attacks on editors and that he be told to remove any which other editors tell him could be so considered. A decent acceptance of conflict is essential to reach compromise, while removing opponents will result in unbalanced articles. I would rather live with opponents keeping an eye on my edits than with no opponents and the "truth" ruling all articles, especially BLPs. emended Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Crooks and Liars"[29] was not and is not a suitable source for any BLP. emended Collect (talk) 15:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have made a point in my editing never to prejudge anyone on the basis of weak evidence. Collect (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Gamaliel[edit]

For each of these violations there is likely a reasonable excuse or explanation, but together they and many, many others add up to a long-standing pattern of behavior. It is well established, most recently in the Gamergate case, that a pattern of negative and problematic behavior even in the defense of justice or policy is not acceptable. No one is saying adding poor sources or violating BLP is acceptable, but constantly responding to alleged incidents of such in a manner that is pointy, uncivil, and personalizes disputes is counterproductive and inappropriate. Behavior like this is the reason that political articles are a hornet's nest that many users want to avoid. It poisons the atmosphere of collaborative editing and encourages retaliatory behavior from other editors. We're long past the point that, as Collect suggests, this editor be asked nicely to refrain from such behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 14:31, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

Anything deemed disruptive because of opposing SPLC's listing of Carson as an extremist simply isn't. It's what should be expected of editors that identify a BLP violation. It was pretty well proven that the addition was in fact erroneous and a BLP violation and editors that upheld that high standard on WP should be commended. BLP trumps everything and getting BLP right is the overriding goal. If that means an editor is uncivil or edit warring or violating a ban, BLP trumps that. Ultimately being right is the underpinning of our BLP policy and why it trumps all the other machinations of process. Processes that protect BLP violating material are to be ignored. The "ultimately correct outcome" is the objective that improves the encyclopedia. --DHeyward (talk) 02:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment from Harry Mitchell[edit]

Given the recent inability of the committee to make decision on this page, I suggest that you state that Arzel has engaged in sanctionable misconduct (if you feel he has; I haven't read the diffs) and then refer the matter back to AE for a determination of what exactly the sanction should be. Or even authorise AE to make a determination on whether there is sanctionable misconduct.

ArbCom is good at forcing warring parties apart in complex cases. ArbCom is much less good at handling what are essentially enforcement requests. AE on the other hand is very good at handling enforcement requests, because that's what it does. That's all it does, all day every day. We're also much better at dealing with off-topic comments and other nonsense, meaning that AE requests don't get bogged down in lengthy discussion between non-parties.

The last thing anyone needs is another thread in which thirty people spend a fortnight going round in circles. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:07, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Courcelles: After all these years, I'd have thought you'd have worked out that I'm fond of slightly unorthodox solutions! ;) But anyway, it was just a suggestion for a more efficient way of dealing with this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

American politics: Clerk notes[edit]

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

American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • @HJ Mitchell:, I would entirely agree with your sentiment, except that there is no enforceable remedy from this case other than the 1RR, of which I see no evidence of violation. Something, whether the topic ban I've proposed below or another idea entirely has to be passed here to give AE something that is actually enforceable; a warning is, IMO, not an enforceable-at-AE sanction, it requires further action of the Committee. Courcelles 05:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion (Arzel topic banned)[edit]

For this motion there are 13 active arbitrators, not counting 1 recused. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Arzel (talk · contribs) is indefinitely prohibited from editing any page about or making any edit related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces. This restriction is enforceable by any uninvolved administrator per the standard provisions. Arzel may request reconsideration of this remedy twelve months after the passing of this motion.

Enacted - --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support
  1. As proposer. Given how binary this request is, might be easier to just vote. I've chosen "politics of the United States" instead of "American Politics" -- the latter is ambiguous, whether it refers to one country or two continents is entirely a matter of interpretation. I would not oppose a site-ban of some duration, though I will leave someone else to propose that if desirable. Courcelles 03:32, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Minor tweaks to first sentence. Added second sentence about enforcement to make it clear it doesn't need come back to us.  Roger Davies talk 04:19, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | My Talk 21:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Thryduulf (talk) 14:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. AGK [•] 11:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose
Abstain
  1. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification request: American politics (April 2015)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Casprings at 11:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Casprings[edit]

I am asking for clarification on what related to the politics of the United States, broadly construed, across all namespaces means. Mainly, do these edits [31] [32] [33] [34][35][36][37] violate the topic ban. This is the subject of a current discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arzel Clarification will enable the resolution of the discussion. Thank you.

Statement by Arzel[edit]

Anthony Watts is not a politician and I have made no political arguments. My approach to the American Politics TBAN is to avoid any articles which are under those categories. There are a ton of articles in those categories, so it is pretty broad. It is a reasonable approach, which reasonable people would assume makes sense. Additionally, American Politics affects pretty much every aspect of your life through regulations, specific legislation, political talking points. It is almost impossible to find something which someone somewhere would not be able to find some tangential connection. I was TBAN'd partially for supposedly not assuming good faith, I do find it ironic that no good faith has been afforded me by JPS, CaSprings, and others.

JPS, Do you know that I was TBAN'd by editors like Casprings for supposed incivility and battleground behavior? Your actions hear are far worse than anything I have done in the past. Where is your civility or assumption of good faith, the pile of unfounded attacks against me are growing quite fast. Same goes for you Casprings. Your claim to want to work collaboratively in the future has now rang false twice. You were not involved in this issue yet you apparently found time to come attacking me personally. Arzel (talk) 14:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Seraphimblade:, @Dougweller:, @Salvio giuliano:, Regarding "Hand's up, don't shoot". As I stated in the AE, I don't see it as American Politics. The saying started as a result of the shooting of Michael Brown, and I felt then and feel now that it is a police/race relations issue. That some politicians later co-opted it does not seem relevant. It wasn't tagged as an American Politics article (my main metric). However, that said, if you want to consider it American Politics, fine. I don't care. I made one edit a month ago, completely unrelated to anything political, noting that editors were failing to discuss and edit war over a known fact with RS. I haven't edited it since, and hadn't planned on editing it again. If you all feel it is clearly related to American Politics, then go add an American Politics category to the article, simple, no harm done. Arzel (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Seraphimblade: here is the thing about HUDS. I had no belief that it was related. I have asked a few times what exactly makes some people think that it clearly is, but have yet to receive a response as to what they think makes this the case. And if it clearly is (in their minds) then it clearly should have this as a category. I don't think it is a unreasonable expectation. If you are going to TBAN someone from something, then they have to be able to know what is included in that group. Since I honestly did not think it was related, I had no reason to even ask. Now this is largely academic since I have not commented on it since and have had no intention to comment further. Arzel (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Seraphimblade:, Well I think I am now starting to understand why some call it political. Local law municipalities are (universally from my experience) non-political elections in the US. Most elections in at the local level in the US are non-partisan affairs, and this was not a government official that was being protested, but a police officer. That was not a (IMO) political protest. Like I say though, I have no intention to edit that article further, and I will concede the point. Arzel (talk) 00:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cardamon: I suggest you take a look at the American Politics categories. There is a lot contained within those pages. The whole point of categories are to group like things together. I find it highly interesting that now people are saying that they really don't include things which are related. Seriously, why even have them? Arzel (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thryduulf: Where did I "deny" Watts article as being scientific? The groups Political and Scientific together do not equal everything, so it is possible to be neither. I would ask that you kindly retract that statement. I find it interesting that you use the word "deny" which means to not believe a known truth. The assumption is that you are saying that the article is both political and scientific as a matter of fact. How about you provide some evidence that it is a political article. Arzel (talk) 14:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Zad68: I am confused by what you think was problematic about the Judith Curry article link. I was linking to an article showing problems with the AR3 predictions as related to global warming. I said that JPS wouldn't like it because he already had a predisposition regarding Curry. Furthermore, if that is "problematic" given my history, what about the history of JPS? I feel like you are holding me to a much higher bar there. Not to mention that I was called an idiot by Guy. I have remained civil throughout this process and have not been treated in kind and yet my behavior is problematic? Arzel (talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by jps[edit]

I never understood how topic bans were supposed to work and here is an excellent example of the problem. Arzel is taking a political stand on a biographical article that is basically arguing that global warming denial is 1) a misnomer and 2) not political. You all found fit to ban him from political articles, so now we in the WP:FRINGE-editing community get to deal with his advocacy on articles related to global warming as he and apparently a good number of good faith admins see fit to say that this is not within the remit of his topic ban because there aren't any specific edits about American politicians, for example. Is such an outcome really the intention of the committee when they enact this kind of topic ban?

I think it's fairly obvious that Arzel is here to support an agenda that is related, broadly, to an American conservative political stance. There's nothing at all wrong with that except that the committee had deemed it fit to sanction him at least in part with a topic ban from American politics. It's clear to me that he will continue to support this particular agenda in any way he sees that he can, even if that means skirting the edges of this ban as long as the community allows him. Why ban in the first place if this is so unenforceable?

My opinion? Just lift the ban.

jps (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have to plead astonishment that the committee would enact a topic ban "broadly construed" and then turn around and say that when someone makes edits in a "gray area" the topic ban doesn't apply. Like it or not, it is only the scientific consensus on global warming that is apolitical. Opposition to that consensus is necessarily political. Arzel's WP:FRINGE opinion that the science is not "settled" with regards to the fact that carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere due to human action is not the main cause of the warming trend seen today is a political not a scientific stance. It's much the same way as if he had gone into some page and declared that tobacco doesn't cause lung cancer or DDT didn't decimate bird populations or any of a number of other political opinions that masquerade as scientific claims. jps (talk) 18:57, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request for clarification
Dear Arbitrators: Would it be possible for the committee to make a definitive consensus statement that would clarify what exactly the committee means by "broadly construed" in relation to topic bans? I would suggest that by analogy to normal discretionary sanctions, a single "uninvolved" administrator who thinks a topic banned user's toe has crossed the line should be enough, but the fact that admins are afraid to take action without this clarification being made maybe means the committee hasn't been clear enough in this.
jps (talk) 14:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Fut.Perf.[edit]

@AGK: Uhm, it is at AE, that's why it's here now. What exactly do you mean? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Stephan Schulz[edit]

I have not followed the US politics ArbCom cases, but I have to agree with jps above that climate change denial is indeed very much a political and nearly exclusively a US political topic. While science is a process, and while climate change is a complex topic, the basics of anthropogenic global warming are well understood and there is a strong scientific consensus. Three recent independent studies with different methodologies have all found agreement to the basic science to be around 97-98% of qualified scientists. In most of the world, this is accepted by parties throughout the political spectrum, with very few exceptions, most of them very much on the political fringe. The dissent is nearly exclusively driven by conservative "think tanks", which have managed to make this into a divisive political issue in the US. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:17, 21 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Two Kinds of Pork[edit]

Climate change denial is a world-wide phenomenon. In context of the edits made to the BLP, one would have to construe very broadly indeed to make that about US politics. Like bent over backwards broadly. As to "Hands up", when the Justice Department get's involved in a controversial subject, it's always political. Even though he shouldn't have made it, Arzel's claim of canvassing has merit, however seeking scalps is unseemly.

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

It would avoid a lot of confusion and frustration if the committee simply struck the "broadly construed" qualifier. Some of the admins at AE are (in good faith) expressing the view that only "edits to add or remove mention of US politics" or "workings of US governments and interactions with those governments" fall under the ban. It would be hard to imagine more narrowly construed interpretations. Others (including myself) take the "broadly construed" qualifier more, well, "broadly." When language causes so much confusion amongst well-meaning people it's best simply to strike it. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:31, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ubikwit[edit]

Agree with the point made by SBHS above.
While CC may not be inherently political, the attempt to dismiss a peer-reviewed book published by an academic press and authored by a renowned scientist because the statements he makes in the book have political implications that the Wikipedia editor doesn't like would seem to breach the "broadly construed" qualifier.
The discussion and material at issue do not directly relate to science, but to FRINGE positions and analysis presented by a blog that is documented as being funded by petro-chemical, etc., CO2-generating industries that are intent on discrediting the science supporting the scientific consensus and preempting government efforts to regulate the offending industries. The fact that there are obvious political issues implicated in the edits related to attempts to dismiss the Mann book and the characterization of "denialist", etc. with respect to the WUWT blog seems to call for attention if not considered to fall under "broadly construed".

In response to the misleading post below, I'm pasting one of Arzel's comments[38] (referenced in the now archived AE case) in its entirety below.
"The change to the lead is really going against discussion. There is no consensus for this change and looks like edit warring. In addition the new lead has some serious logical issues.
  • The argument put forth is that "Denial" must be included for NPOV and that MOS doesn't matter, even though MOS says "Denial" is a NPOV word to avoid. I don't see how that can be justified. Also, it clearly fails MOS because it is not "widely" used.
  • The other argument is that skeptic [equals] denier. This is simply not true. The two words have different meanings in a literal sense. Those that are strong proponents of climate change have stated effort to say that they are the same in order to label a skeptic as a denier.
  • This leads to the logical problem. If they are the same, then why is there such a concerted effort to use the word "denier"? I would like a response from Manul and Ubikwit as why "denier" must be in the lead for NPOV reasons if the word "skeptic" is [equal] to "denier" It does not make sense other than to further promote the effort by climate change proponents to label skeptics as deniers even if that term is not widely used. I would call it OR if not for a couple of source which make the connection, but it is certainly not main stream as there are few that say they are the same.
  • Also, this is not a science article, so the continued refrain of "peer reviewed" has no place. Arzel (talk) 13:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)"

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

The primary statement by skeptics is that the science is wrong or lacking. The fact that their disagreement interferes with another persons political objective is secondary. Watts doesn't make a political argument. Rather he states that the science others are basing their politics on is faulty. There is no evidence that he holds a political opinion as he makes personal choices that would make him a green party member (i.e. his home is solar powered). The people that most vociferously oppose Watts' blog have political positions that he jeopardizes but scientists without stated political objectives are not particularly critical. ---DHeyward (talk) 06:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by JzG[edit]

Anthony Watts is an American political figure. While climate change may be a global issue, climate change denial is unquestionably an issue of American politics, much more so than any other country, and the fact that Watts has received funding for his blog from the Heartland Institute, an American political think-tank, clearly establishes that the blog and its author are American political figures.

It is the funding from and links with the Heartland Institute, more than anyhting else, that places this within the realm of US politics.

This edit removes a significant chunk of relevant text that establishes the political context of Watts' blog. Again, the attempt to portray climate denial as a legitimate scientific debate is at the heart of the American-dominated, politically-motivated climate denial culture.

Making contentious edits to a biography of an American climate denialist funded by an American political lobby group associated with climate denial, and whose work is cited by American climate denialist politicians, puts this into the realm of editing in the area of American politics, IMO.

The comment by jps above nails it. If Arzel is banned form American politics broadly construed, then he is banned from making these edits to this article. If the Committee thinks he should be allowed to make these edits to this article then they need to vacate the ban. Guy (Help!) 07:02, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cardamon[edit]

@Arzel: Saying that a page is not related to American politics unless it is in the category “American politics” seems to be construing your topic ban narrowly, rather than broadly. Cardamon (talk) 09:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Statement by NewsAndEventsGuy[edit]

Some parts of Anthony Watts (blogger) are obviously political as diff 4 in the opening post easily demonstrates. That edit

This edit touches on politics, broadly defined (duh). In my view its so blatant I'm not going to bother arguing the same point on the basis of the article text that was changed.

That said, even though I disagree with Arzel's opinion on the underlying matter I think the AE complaint against him is a fine example of a misguided "gotcha" complaint. The goal of sanctions should be prevention, for the sake of better articles. "Gotcha" complaints are really truly disruptive, and this is that kind. Many editors at the underlying battlefield are displaying problem behaviors, but I don't think Arzel is one of them.

In sum

  1. Yes, its politcal
  2. No, Arzel's edits at Anthony Watts (blogger) do not require further sanctions
  3. Yes-OMG-Yes, other editors at that article are edit warring with opinions and VAGUEWAVEs and disruption but little evidence of seeking meaningful compromise

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Zad68[edit]

I'm an uninvolved administrator commenting here because I had seen the request at AE, reviewed the discussion, dug into the several pages of ArbCom history, and was looking to close. The clarification of the scope of this topic ban from (as stated) "the politics of the United States, broadly construed" must be made in the context of why the topic ban was applied to the individual editor Arzel in the first place. In short the topic ban was placed because Arzel has had a long history of treating Wikipedia as a political ideological battleground and personalizing content disputes. Previous sanctions that tried to get Arzel away from that behavior hadn't worked, and ArbCom determined that Arzel was essentially incapable of avoiding that behavior when it came to American political topics--that was the reason for the topic ban.

So, evaluating this request at AE, I'm not working so hard trying to determine where a hard edge of "politics of the United States, broadly construed" might be drawn (as if that were possible), but rather I am looking to see whether Arzel's history of politicizing and personalizing content disputes is cropping up here.

Based on this, Arzel's edit I am most concerned about isn't any of the above, it's actually this one, where Arzel links to the blog site of Judith Curry, which describes itself as for "discussion on topics related to climate science and the science-policy interface," and Curry is active in American politics related to climate change. In this edit, I see Arzel personalizing the content dispute by titling the link "Something you won't like," and referring to Arzel's own expertise (unprovable on Wikipedia of course). This edit takes place inside a long article Talk page discussion here, where Arzel repeatedly knocks the conversation off-track from identifying the best-quality reliable sources and representing them accurately (the job Wikipedia editors are supposed to be doing), as others in the thread were trying to focus on.

I'd like to emphasize that many of Arzel's other comments on the Talk page are fine, grounded in WP:PAG and avoid bad behavior. Even considering the above, Arzel's behavior at the Talk page isn't all that, and it's the kind of stuff that goes on every day on Talk pages of many contentious topics and usually isn't a problem worth a sanction. But the history of this particular editor makes it problematic and needing some kind of action.

So my view is that Yes Arzel's involvement at this article Talk page should be viewed as in the area of the topic ban, and if ArbCom agrees I'll probably go back to AE and close the request with a short block. Zad68 14:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adding: I looked at the "Hands up" edit, I don't understand either the original Talk page comment from the IP that Arzel is responding to, or Arzel's response, and so it isn't a factor either way here. Zad68 14:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Rich Farmbrough[edit]

There is a clear problem here, which has recurred many times. The form of words "broadly construed" was introduced to prevent wiki-lawyering, gamesmanship and fuzzy edges. It does no such thing, of course, it merely makes the boundary of the problem wider and more ill defined.

The fact that people are repeatedly coming back to the Committee for clarification of this term shows that it is not working. And taking the matter to AE to define the edges is worse - it often results in sanctions for matters that do not impinge on the original issues.

I would suggest a speedy ad-hoc, non-punitive but binding, resolution of "boundary disputes". It is pretty much clear I think that if there is a boundary dispute we are away from the causus belli - spending resource on disputes over the detail of something that was supposed to resolve disputes throws the whole system into disrepute.

It should, after all, be fairly easy to delineate any reasonable restriction, since it would be contrary to natural justice to impose a restriction without clear definition - indeed it opens the way for abuse of the restriction in terrorem, as we have not infrequently seen.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC).

Statement by Flying Jazz[edit]

I haven't been involved with Arzel to the best of my memory. I'm here to write about whether the article under consideration would fall within the purview of American Politics. Arzel's edit at [39] cites Jason Samenow's description of Watts's blog as a conservative/skeptic blog, and I share that view. The connection of the "Anthony Watts (blogger)" article to "the politics of the United States, broadly construed" follows directly from that view. My statement is not intended to reflect on Arzel or on other aspects of his edits. He may or may not have been "caught" somehow doing something that people on the other side of a battle think is "wrong." I don't know and have no interest in that matter. I'm here only to make a statement about whether encyclopedia article A falls within the purview of topic B which I regard as simply a matter of the logical analysis of plain text. Flying Jazz (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Peter Gulutzan[edit]

Two clarifications. Ubikwit says Arzel attempted to dismiss use of Mann's book because of "political implications" -- actually the objection was about using Mann for calling Watts and his blog denier / denialist, and it was initiated by me not Arzel, who took the milder line that "[Mann] can state his opinion on the issue, but it cannot be stated in WP voice" etc. JzG says Watts "received funding for his blog from the Heartland Institute" -- I see no evidence for that, it appears rather that Heartland helped raise money for a study of surface stations, as the article says. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 02:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

The committee appears inclined to regard climate-change denial as not inherently political and thus not part of "America politics, broadly construed." In contrast, the committee recently held that comedian Lena Dunham’s biography was clearly part of "gender-related controversies, broadly construed," and that "Campus Rape" also was a "gender-related controversy, broadly construed."

I’m afraid you find yourselves in a tight place. You want to believe that climate change denial can be separated from politics, while campus rape cannot be separated from gender. Your critics will say that this shows a view of politics and of gender that lacks nuance. They may be more blunt. Yet the unfortunate administrators cannot indulge in nuance and must find some heuristic with which to make swift judgements in the face of heated argument.

How are they to guess what you intend? And how will journalists interpret that intent? One heuristic that explains the results here is, "do what the US Republican party and Movement Conservatism would do." That’s certainly consistent, but it's likely not the framing you'd prefer.

Your recent decisions are expansive in banning feminist editors, while taking a narrow view in banning conservative editors. There is doubtless a sound intellectual basis for your decisions, but you have not stated it or shown how to apply it in the general case. MarkBernstein (talk) 18:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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

American politics: Clerk notes[edit]

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

American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

  • Apologies, I missed the link at the bottom of your statement. My colleagues appear to have since covered the relevant points here, so I have no further comment to make. AGK [•] 21:34, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Amendment request: American politics (March 2016)[edit]

Original discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Initiated by Sir Joseph at 13:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Case or decision affected
American politics arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. six month topic ban from Bernie Sanders


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



Information about amendment request
  • removal of topic ban


Statement by Sir Joseph[edit]

I was given a one week topic ban from the Bernie Sanders article.I then filed an appeal.during the appeal one admin decided that because I mentioned that I found it troubling and perhaps anti-Semitic that out of 535 members of Congress we focus on the Jew he thinks I should be topic banned for longer. Bishonen claimed in the ban statement that it's not for filling an appeal but it's for a battlefield mentality and to protect the page. Have you seen the page? I'm not the one who is bullying others. And it's still a battleground. I'm not the one using wikilawyering. Go to eb.con and see their article. Their claim that in the future I will be disruptive is not true either. I have been nothing. Look at my history. I've not edited the page until I've reached consensus. I've taken the one week ban but the six month ban is just a bunch of administrators acting inappropriate. I never accused others of being anti-Semitic. I said it is a perception of anti-Semitism when you single out the Jew. Coffee is also making up facts with regards to the timeline. He changed the ban after Spartaz blocked me because coffee had banned me incorrectly. All you have to do is look at the timestamps. So now an admin is lying to cover his tracks, besides covering his bad block. Regardless, discussion about the ban is allowed, it says so right on the ban. So which is it? Are we not allowed to question or are we? I've yet to have one good reason why I am being singled out and banned for six months.

after coffee modified his faulty ban, I did not edit the talk page. So I still don't see the issue. Spartaz saw that edit and blocked me based on the initial ban and undid the block when it was pointed out to him that the ban was clarified that bans usually mean talk pages as well. As for my comment on my talk page, that's not a personal attack at all, and the receiver has said and gotten away with far worse.

Statement by administrator Coffee[edit]

For full clarity, I was the imposing administrator of the original 1 week Arbitration Enforcement topic ban on Sir Joseph (but per WP:UNINVOLVED, in relevance to this extended ban I am uninvovled). That ban was upheld at WP:AE by multiple other administrators, and then closed by EdJohnston with the note that a 6 month ban could be put in place if seen fit. As I noted at WP:AE, after the continuous refusal by Sir Joseph to WP:DROPTHESTICK and his continuous battle ground mentality in dealing with this matter (including the egregious behavior of accusing other editors of being antisemitic, which is what pushed me to ban Sir Joseph from all pages relating to topic, not just the article space - as noted at Sir Joseph's talk page), I felt that my 1 week ban was indeed not enough - as had been noted by several other admins. I felt originally that my action would be enough to deter Sir Joseph from continuing his behavior in relation to that highly visible page, but after watching his reaction that idea went out the window. I now fully support the actions of Bishonen here, in the extension of my original ban, as I think it is the only reasonable way to prevent furthered disruption to the Bernie Sanders article moving forward. That's all I'll comment on this matter at this time, you can see the rest of my earlier comments at the AE appeal, etc. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Francis Schonken[edit]

Please find the OP's PA on the TB-ing admin here – Unless this is a slip of the tongue, being angered over being TBd, quickly removed, I suppose this should come with a sanction, one-week block or something of that order. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sir Joseph: below a suggestion in the first arbitrator comment is "I suggest you rewrite your statement to focus on why you think your topic bans were inappropriate and not on why everyone else is terrible." At your talk page I see you are engaged in trying to find ways to beef up your case that "everyone else is terrible", contrary to that arbitrator suggestion. Why don't you give up on that aspect, and start preparing the suggested rewrite on your user talk page? I'm sure that would have a bigger chance at mollifying arbitrator stances as expressed below. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Guy Macon[edit]

Note: I attempted to discuss this on Sir Joseph's talk page because he is blocked and cannot reply here. I moved my comment here after Sir Joseph removed it from his talk page (which of course he is free to do).[40]

I would like to expand on what I said at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement:

Regarding Sir Joseph's various and sundry accusations of antisemitism towards me, my only interest in the Bernie Sanders page is to bring it into compliance with the consensus atTemplate talk:Infobox#RfC: Religion in infoboxes and Template talk:Infobox person/Archive 28#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion. I don't particularly like being called antisemetic for attempting to implement the consensus from infobox RfCs. I choose to edit using my real name and that's the sort of false accusation that tends to follow you around.

As my extensive edit history clearly shows, I have no particular interest in religion articles or political articles. Contrast this with Sir Joseph's edit history, which shows that his primary interest is articles related to Jews and Judaism. His recent edits include Western Wall, Zionism, Jerusalem, Katamon, Purim, List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, 2016, Mohamed Hadid, and of course Bernie Sanders, and his first ten edits back in 2005 included Tisha B'Av, Niddah, Reconstructionist Rabbinical College, Rabbi, and Four species. There is nothing wrong with having a primary interest (my primary interest is electronics and software engineering) but there is something wrong with someone who's primary interest is articles related to Jews and Judaism calling me antisemitic when it is an easily-verified fact that I have little or no interest in the subject.

I would also like to comment on Sir Joseph's unsupported assertion "The claim that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish is the one that is dangerous and is a BLP violation."[41] made during his AE topic ban appeal. That comment is indicative of the problem that the other editors on the Sander page are facing when dealing with Sir Joseph. Leaving aside for a moment that it is a bald-faced lie -- not one single editor has ever claimed that Bernie Sanders is not Jewish and Sir Joseph has been told this by at least a dozen editors -- it also shows a determination to Right Great Wrongs by hijacking a discussion that should be about removing his topic ban and turning it into a discussion about Bernie Sanders being a Jew -- itself a violation of the topic ban.

In my opinion, the best interests of the encyclopedia would be served by an indefinite topic ban from all pages relating to Jews of Judaism, broadly construed, with the standard offer that if Sir Joseph shows that he can edit constructively in other areas for six months there is a high probability that a request that the topic ban be lifted will be granted. Material removed by request of uninvolved admin.[42] --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 8 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: some of the entries in the discretionary sanctions log are under the previous username Yossiea~enwiki. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Refactored 01:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And now Sir Joseph has "As per Guy Macon policy, I declare myself to be Jewish" at the top of his talk page. I think that it is pretty clear that he intends to make this a WP:BATTLEGROUND. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:12, 6 March 2016 (UTC) Material referenced was removed by an uninvolved admin.[43] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC) Reply[reply]

Statement by Spartaz[edit]

Coffee is quote correct that my block of Sir Joseph was a result of my personal failure to realise that the original sanction had been amended. This wasn't clear in the notice so I assumed that what it said at the time of the block was covered why the notice on Sir Joseph's page. It would have been less confusing if Coffee had struck out the original notice and inserted a new one. I voted to extend and confirm the topic ban at AE and the outcome reflects the consensus of admin opinion expressed. On that basis this clarification has no basis. The outcome is not manifestly perverse but there was some poor judgement at times - i.e. why an article block and not talk page? That's just stupid as 95% of AE reported problems have a talk page element.

And that takes me to my real concern. I personally strongly disagree with any admin whose actions are being reviewed at ARCA taking an opportunity to block the appealing editor. This strikes me as very poor judgement - especially when followed by an indef for a legal threat that I personally cannot see. My response to seeing that was real-life head shaking and jaw dropping. There has been some very poor judgement in this case by Coffee and its perfectly understandable that Sir Joseph finds the outcome so hard to accept when the process and decision-making has a hint of half-arsedness about it. I don't think the committee can, in fairness, dismiss this appeal without considering whether Coffee's poor judgement has undermined the credibility of the AE process and whether they have good enough judgement to be working in this area. Spartaz Humbug! 20:16, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MarkBernstein[edit]

ArbCom should use the current ARCA request, or some other pretext, to put the kibosh on any and all "Is ______ Jewish?" controversies, in info boxes and elsewhere, for a year.

The underlying content issue is complicated. It’s also ancient: passages in Exodus and Deuteronomy are dedicated to it. Whole books have been written on the parable of the four children, which addresses just one aspect of it. In modern times, it was the subject of the Jacob Gordon’s great Konig Lir, it was (alas) extensively litigated by the Nazis, and it's a controversial touchpoint in contemporary Israeli politics, where determining “Who Is A Jew?” determines immigration policy.

No good can come of this topic. In the current political environment, the topic can and will attract kooks and zealots, along with misled teenagers of all ages with a Bright Idea.

The data value of the "religion" field in the info box is marginal to all save the fascist fringe of the American right. No one’s research will be greatly impeded by removing it for the coming months, or by freezing it. I would also suggest that the freeze be proactively extended to questions of who is or is not Chicano, Puertorriqueño, etc.

Simply remove the infobox line for the time being, or freeze them and topic ban the entire project from further discussion for the rest of the year. At the cost of muddying the encyclopedia on these rather narrow matters for a few months, we gain freedom from constant vexatious dispute. More important, we may avoid having one of these vexatious disputes blow up into international headlines, to the projects lasting (and perhaps irretrievable) discredit. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by DHeyward[edit]

I would add that it appears Coffee is a bit too involved if he is blocking based on a statement of informing the ADL. That is not a threat, let alone a legal threat. Coffee needs to withdraw a bit. --DHeyward (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by GoldenRing[edit]

@MarkBernstein: A sound suggestion which, sadly, the rules are going to preclude here. Something needs to be done about this dispute, though, or it's going to end up with arbcom doing something about it in pretty short order. The level of battleground and idht evident in the various RfCs around it is pretty depressing. For a dispute that boils down to the question, "When someone says, 'I am Jewish,' does he mean he has a Jewish mother, he identifies with Jewish culture or he holds to some version of Jewish belief as a religion? And is this worth mentioning in an infobox?" the number of characters spilled into pixels is truly staggering. GoldenRing (talk) 10:40, 10 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by {other-editor}[edit]

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

American politics: Clerk notes[edit]

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

American politics: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit]

I do see that as a threat intended to intimidate, though not a legal threat. I'm glad it was withdrawn. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Concur. Ill advised, but hardly a legal threat. Gamaliel (talk) 04:58, 7 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
More