Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Contents

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: GamerGate

Initiated by at 14:08, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
GamerGate 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 Fæ

The GamerGate case superseded, and by my understanding of procedure, took on the covers the original motions and amendments of Sexology. In particular "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages dealing with transgender issues ...". This request is a clarification to Arbcom to confirm the interpretation of "transgender issues", along with the practical expectations of how implementation can be possible in cases where the requestor is concerned about the likely hostile experience of taking any gender, and especially transgender, related case to a public English Wikipedia forum like ANI in order to request enforcement, based on past cases.

I am requesting that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" type conspiracy theory, shall be considered a breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics.

This request is that to avoid doubt, Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics. Anti-trans language includes the use of TIM (trans identified male) to refer to trans women, TIF (trans identified female) to refer to trans men and other deliberate use of misgendering terminology that may be established through case precedent, such as deliberately referring to a known trans woman as a man or a 'biological male' during Wikipedia discussion when trans woman is correct and accurate.

This request is that Arbcom lay out how individuals may best raise an enforcement request, without being first required to exhaust dispute resolution processes just because they are observing the incident. Given the topic, and the likely practical experience that LGBT+ contributors have when "fronting" initial complaints and later requests, it is unrealistic to expect requesters to be so expert in process and dispute resolution methods that their complaint about, say, the inappropriate use of transphobic language, that they will ever want to go through the hostile opposition research and open trolling and pillorying that is the recognized norm for gender and LGBT+ related disputes. It is also unlikely that any LGBT+ identified editor wants to seek out confronting someone who is deliberately misusing Wikipedia to be offensive about trans people; our experience is that doing so is likely to lead to being accused of causing a two-party dispute and be the subject of immediate hostile counter-allegations. A failure of cases to make it to a discretionary sanction stage, is not evidence of Wikipedia's policy implementation working.

My expectation is that given Arbcom's confirmation, it will become far easier to gain a consensus for the creation and improvement of guidelines that relate to civil discussion on Wikipedia for LGBT+ topics and issues, especially if external best practices such as GLAAD are used to inform and educate contributors to LGBT+ related topics.

Though I am raising this request based on my related experiences in the past two years editing trans-related biographies and topics, I have named no other parties. This is a technical request, not one relating to an active dispute. I am confident Arbcom members are aware of relevant examples without having to call people out in this clarification.

@Mendaliv: My request is based on reviewing https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=812091637#Sexology:_Motion_2 and the prior motion on the same page. I doubt that the original GG parties are directly relevant to this specific amendment, even if they might wish to make a helpful comment. I may be missing the point but naming them here seems overly wikilawyerish, probably.

With regard to the later points, sure, you are making Arbcom related procedural points that can be clarified. However the DS exist, and are supposed to apply to "transgender issues" today (see Template:MOS-TW for example). The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. -- (talk) 14:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Struck part of the opening statement, thanks to the clarification by clerk that GG is considered to include but not technically have superseded the Sexology "transgender issues". This case request for GG is correct in this sense. -- (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Sexology was specifically amended to apply to "all pages", not just articles, for the reasons you put forward. The focus here based on experience is more about article related POV comments that you infer, for example stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". Even then, abusive quotes can be used abusively, so editors on these topics benefit from very clear Arbcom level directives about how DS can and should be interpreted (c.f. Arbcom Fram case, where use of the n-word should never happen casually in discussion space).

WRT "I have several RSes here that identify ...", is fine. There's no attempt here to stop discussion of sources, as my words "not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion" are intended to make clear. If you can think of a different way of framing an Arbcom motion that better addresses your potential censorship concern, while making it easier to ensure that DS are applied for clearly inappropriate or uncivil transphobic language, please post it. Again, compare with the n-word being used as a rhetorical trick, sanctioning against casual racist abuse can be done without hampering the valid discussion of historical racism. -- (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pyxis Solitary: If anyone wishes to create a trans ideology article, based on the anti-trans myths found in various anti-LGBT+ publications, that great, it benefits the encyclopaedia.

What is a problem is a statement that a BLP subject notable for their anti-trans hate speech is not "trans-exclusionary" if all they are doing is fighting the "trans ideology", because that rationale is the same thing as using Wikipedia talk pages to promote and validate the existence of a "trans ideology". That ANI is not a workable venue for raising a Discretionary Sanction request about this (for most people) complex issue of transphobic language, is raised in this request. The alternative, as I have been advised several times off-wiki in the past, is to report all such cases to WMF T&S, which is part of why I would like Arbcom members to suggest better on-wiki processes. Note that you were not named as a party to this case, as we have no ongoing dispute and this request was procedural in nature. -- (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@AGK: If your intention is to restrict GG Discretionary Sanctions to article space and talk directly about articles, then this withdraws the motions agreed by Arbcom in Sexology which were amended to apply to all pages. For this to be true and enforced in this way (as currently it is not the community's interpretation of the existing DS as they apply to transgender related or any BLP page discussions), then Arbcom should consider a motion to make this explicit. Specifically this appears to mean that the Arbcom clerk's advice that the withdrawn Sexology motions are covered by GG is not the case. Obvious consequences of your statement, should Arbcom agree this as fact, is that enforcement requests based on Arbcom DS provide no protection from casual use of transphobic language, such as calling an openly trans woman Wikipedian a trans identified male, rather than a woman, or casually or repeatedly using Wikipedia discussions to promote the view that a gay agenda or a trans agenda exists, because anti-LGBT+ publications say so. For many Wikipedians, this is not a question of accepting free speech, but accepting casual transphobic language as the potential norm in Wikipedia discussions in a way that would never be acceptable with casual racist language or casual misogynist language.

(Responding 'to the room') As for the advice that people observing or being targets of this language should go to ANI, sorry, that's a joke. Nobody on the target end of this wants to be pilloried at ANI for having a thin skin, being a "gender warrior" (as one current Arbcom member neatly puts it), told they lack a sense of humour or repeatedly threatened with a topic ban for being "disruptive". Case histories already available, new ones not needed, as you are aware. -- (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. There are plenty of past cases I can point to of previous LGBT+ related cases where I have taken up dispute resolution, making your statement false whichever way it is read. Please focus on the case request, not hypothetical tangents. Your "7 million edits across all foundation projects" comment is unhelpful and appears to be an attempt to dismiss this request on the basis of my number of edits, which I fail to understand. -- (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mendaliv: This is a Clarification request, not a case request. This has never been a requirement for Arbcom to only accept clarifications if there is an active dispute. I know, having posted past clarification requests where there was no active dispute. -- (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@EdChem: Your advice would be the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to "grow a thicker skin". It does not work, unchallenged bullies become bolder. Unless we choose to improve the hostile environment that exists today, Wikipedia will continue indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as "humour" or "free speech". -- (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Greenrd: Being a trans person is not equivalent to being a Republican. A Republican being lobbied to change parties, is not equivalent to a trans person having to debate whether they have a right to exist, or being accused of being part of a "transgender ideology", just because they are alive. -- (talk) 16:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@Greenrd: Your views come very close to a rationale to automatically topic ban all openly trans Wikipedians from gender related topics, that way we instantly solve the problem of all those automatically biased "trans people" causing problems. Alternatively nobody ever, ever gets presumed to have bias because of who they are, does that sound like a good interpretation of WP:5P4, and an interpretation that I should not have to ask that you apply to me? -- (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Your question was answered already, it is perfectly legitimate to expect those making statements in a clarification request have read the requestors section before repeatedly asking the same duplicated questions. Cut & paste from 4 paragraphs above: Your assertion that I am failing to go to dispute resolution seems to ignore the fact that I am not in any current dispute needing dispute resolution. If your question was hypothetical for future events, sure I may try it, if I want to be the target of hostile opposition research, yet again, but so far the opinions from the one Arbcom member are not encouraging that DS would be enacted rather than AE devolve into debate. As we have shifted to hypotheticals: given the choice for a trans woman observer, would you expect her to enter into an adversarial debate by reporting transphobic language on AE or ANI and risk becoming a target, or would she be better off writing secretly to WMF T&S? -- (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@SilkTork: With regard to your opinions, how would that stop an editor dismissing and deriding another as a "gender terrorist warrior". Asking because of course you set a precedent that this is acceptable for Arbcom members to use, when the editor has not identified as any such thing. Thanks -- (talk) 12:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Corrected, sorry for the accidental misquoted example. -- (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Resolved as irrelevant

@Worm That Turned: As past Arbcom member @Risker: contacted me by email this morning in an official capacity about an unrelated issue, and has chosen to spend time researching me today, I shall continue to defer any reply until Risker confirms to me that they have stopped what they are doing, or gives an explanation of how these events are connected when they certainly should not be. -- (talk) 16:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I have perfectly good reason to be cautious as has been explained. Asking for clarification from either you or Risker about your off-wiki correspondence or coincidental actions, (i.e. on a related page with no edits in 2 years, then edited within hours of off-wiki correspondence is hard to presume in good faith is entirely improbable coincidence), so that I might contribute freely to an open request is not an attack against you or Arbcom. -- (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Sitush: You are correct, the quote should have been "diversity terrorist" which is more extreme language than I recalled.diff The reasoning that "gender warrior" might be a good thing, is virtually impossible to apply to calling someone any sort of terrorist, nor is "martyr" helpful. As a thought experiment, consider the repercussions if you were to argumentatively make the same allegations like this about an Arbcom member during a case. -- (talk) 19:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Risker: Please check your email to me in 2016, and the correspondence that you may have lost and have not mentioned here. Recall that you wrote to me, not the other way around. Your final email in 2016 was conciliatory, and gave me the very reasonable expectation that I would not be forced to enter into off-wiki correspondence with you again. I can provide a copy if you have deleted it. -- (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Please revisit your statement it makes demonstrably false claims about my motivation. This clarification is unrelated to the BC tribunal case, this was never in my mind as the BC tribunal case is completely unrelated to the issues of the use of transphobic language on Wikipedia by Wikipedians. Further this clarification request was created by me on 2 August 2019, while the article you link to was created by an indefinitely blocked user using a sockpuppet account on 3 August 2019, a day later. Further you are linking to sources which contain blatantly transphobic abuse and your remarks about these sources have been exhaustively addressed in detail as failing to meet the reliable source requirements of WP:BLP, with one of the sources you are defending containing hearsay which is under discussion at BLPN, a request that was posted over an hour before you chose to post to this Arbcom case. The Fiona Robertson twitter quote tangentially mentioned in an article not about the BC tribunal case is unrelated to the problematic hearsay allegations, Roberton was commenting on the BC tribunal case itself, nothing else, this is not evidence to support the inclusion of any other material other than Robertson's opinion about the BC tribunal case (which is remarkably tangential even for that). Your unnecessarily repeating the full legal name of a non-notable trans woman in the BC tribunal case, is "unhelpful" for Wikipedia and continuing repost these links to damaging hearsay in multiple forums is a matter of serious concern against WP:BLP which applies to this page as much as anywhere else. In no way does this censor factual and encyclopaedic material to understand the BC tribunal case, such as including the plaintiff's use of racist language reported in the press and raised as part of the case. In no way is this a threat, these are facts of policy. -- (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Greenrd: It has been stated clearly, repeatedly, unambiguously and accurately that "This does not and need not impede or censor the use of valid civil discussion on Wikipedia in order to create and improve articles about these or related topics." Your statement is false and states that it does the precise opposite of these words. Please revisit your statement.

You have made a personal allegation against me that there is a "trans ideology" that you espouse. I do no such thing and a "trans ideology" does not exist, neither does a "gay agenda". Please strike this unsourced and dangerously misleading personal attack. Wikipedia discussions are not a platform to promote harmful personal views about minority groups, or to promote myths about minority groups outside of the context of an academic discussion to improve Wikipedia articles that includes these topics.

It is not a transgender "ideology", for any Wikipedian to pursue the enforcement of Wikipedia policies, nor is it an "ideology" for any Wikipedian to make statements of verifiable fact and logic. In Wikipedia's voice, trans women are women. A transgender ideology is not a verifiable fact, it is a populist myth promoted by anti-trans lobbyists. A Wikipedian using Wikipedia to promote or air their personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement, is misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. It is not a personal attack, an ideology or a blockable offence to state these facts about Wikipedia.

It is a verifiable fact, that the current Wikipedia editing environment is hostile to any Wikipedian seeking to enforce policies in the area of respectful treatment of transgender Wikipedians and transgender people generally. As an illustration, see this "joke" made today diff, this is normal for Wikipedia and any objections to it will be a cause for derision and an excuse to pile on abuse. On this topic, Wikipedians can and do suffer personal abuse, attacks, misgendering, misrepresentation, extensive opposition research and are consistently the target of off-wiki canvassing and harassment intended to shut them up and force them to go away. This is happening right now for this Arbcom Clarification request. Should Arbcom wish to consider an alternative clarification and want to discuss evidence, they should consider how that can be done without those supplying evidence becoming targets of coordinated off-wiki abusive campaigns clearly intended to silence minority voices. It is a fallacy to believe that requests like this are open to all members of the community. -- (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@Greenrd: I am unclear why you want to double down. There is no argument here, there is no requirement for anyone to argue with you on Wikipedia to change your personal beliefs that a "trans ideology" exists, when it is simply an offensive anti-trans myth. You are consistently using Wikipedia to promote and air personal anti-trans views, rather than presenting verifiable evidence for article improvement. You are misusing Wikipedia, breaking consensus agreed policies and breaching the website terms of use. I am uninterested in what transphobic rubbish you want publish off-wiki, so long as you are not targeting and harassing Wikipedians, but none of what you have espoused in your Arbcom statement can possibly improve Wikipedia, it can only distress and drive away our tiny percentage of Wikipedia contributors who are openly identified transgender people. With anti-trans jokes, views and hounding being "normal for Wikipedia", and none of that highly visible anti-trans abuse in forums like ANI ever being the cause of sanctions or warnings because "free speech", then we may as well honestly explain to new editors that if they are transgender, the only safe way to contribute to this project is to go back in the closet, because they are not welcome here and the Usual Suspects (many of them being here for more than a decade) will happily be allowed to drive them off this project. -- (talk) 11:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Mendaliv (GamerGate)

First a technical point: Given this is a request to clarify or amend the GamerGate case, I think it is necessary that the parties to that case be notified.

Second: I don't believe this is a mere technical clarification, but may be a significant expansion of scope. The GamerGate case itself, after all, was explicitly scoped to the article Gamergate controversy and related articles including biographies (see WP:ARBGG FoF #1). I don't think Fae's point that the GG arbitration case superseded or "took over" the Sexology case is correct. I certainly don't find any indication of this in the casepage of either WP:ARBGG or WP:ARBSEX, but I admit I could be wrong and thus think some further explanation of this would be appropriate. I'll also note that the DS regime from the sexology case was rescinded in 2017. The clarifying note in ARBSEX that "Discretionary sanctions authorized in the GamerGate arbitration case, which may apply to this topic area, remain available." does not strike me as extending the GG DS regime to everything that the sexology case covered, but merely pointing out that articles previously covered by the sexology case which also fall under the GG arbitration case could still have discretionary sanctions applied under the GG case.

I think the proper vehicle for this idea is not an ARCA-based motion, but a general sanctions regime as ratified by the community, or (failing that) a new arbitration case on LGBT+ issues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@: Thanks, that actually clears it up a lot for me. I think there are two parts to this: First, what the motion actually says (the DS regime is rescinded), and second, that there are some additional comments by the arbs indicating that the GG DS regime may be useful for the topic area. That certainly wasn't an extension or expansion of the GG case to cover all LGBT+ issues. If it was, why wasn't it reflected in the motion? And why wasn't it raised as an ARCA of the GG case rather than of the Sexology case? Similarly, even if it was intended to transfer "ownership" of the problem to the GG case, I think it raises almost exactly the same problem that led to the ARCA that spawned that motion: Just as it being inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to paraphilias, it strikes me as inappropriate to handle LGBT+ issues in the same regime as we handle ones related to Gamergate. While I have no doubt that some rulemaking, particularly related to misgendering and civility in discussions, would be a great idea, I don't think this is an appropriate use of the Committee's discretionary sanctions power. The Community should be given an opportunity to work together and scope this properly, rather than leaving it to "legislation by ArbCom". —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@: The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't. I think that would be evidence to present either here or in a new case filing, and why I think it would be better to open a new case if general sanctions don't happen. This is a different set of issues than covered by the GamerGate case (as the findings of fact in that case make abundantly clear) and it is frankly an improper use of the arbitration mechanism to do things this way. If Arbcom wants to clarify that they are uninterested in ensuring the current DS help to reduce disruption or harassment of transgender editors, and thinks someone else should do it, fine, but I really do not believe that's what the committee intended or indends the Wikipedia community to read in to a lack of implementation by administrators and a lack of requests for implementation. I think this is a very unfair statement both to the Committee and to the administrators who are involved in enforcing discretionary sanctions regimes. The fact that the Committee shouldn't be legislating has nothing to do with the individual arbitrators' belief that LGBT+ issues are important. This is clearly a matter for a new case, and not for expansion of DS regimes—which are supposed to be the exception, not the rule—to cover more and more areas of Wikipedia. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The expansion and consolidation of DS regimes revealed by MJL is shocking. This is not an appropriate use of the Arbitration Committee. The purpose of the Arbitration Committee is to end discrete disputes; it is retrospective in nature, and to an extent discretionary sanctions merely existed to provide a uniform means of ongoing control over areas of dispute while those disputes were ongoing. What is being contemplated here, and where discretionary sanctions are being used, is very prospective. What’s even stranger, is that these regimes are being consolidated into a case that made no evidentiary findings of fact related to sitewide discussion of gender. If you want to roll these things under the Gamergate arbitration case, the amendment must include new findings of fact. Otherwise this is policymaking, pure and simple. I have no doubt that the community will agree that issues of gender need to be handled in an appropriate way throughout the site. That is the community’s role in the absence of a discrete controversy with a finite scope. This is not the role of the Committee and is expressly prohibited by the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 16:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What's important here is that the Committee's role is in dispute resolution: There must be a dispute, and it must be properly before the Committee. This is the case because the Committee adjudicates disputes, and adjudication is by definition a retrospective and remedial action. Rulemaking or legislation, on the other hand, is prospective and deals with factual issues either not yet developed or not particularized to the individual level. This is a problem commonly found in administrative areas, the distinction between adjudication and rulemaking, so it is not surprising that the Committee has run into this same problem. But let there be no mistake: When the Committee seeks to regulate all pages, all persons, or all future events, it is engaged in rulemaking. What Fæ proposes is rulemaking, and it is improper within the arbitration policy, which I suggest you all read along with my comments: First, the scope of arbitration is clear that it is "To act as a final binding decision-maker primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve". While other tasks and purposes are mentioned, these are all adjudicative in nature. This is coupled with the clear statement in the section on policy and precedent, which states, "The arbitration process is not a vehicle for creating new policy by fiat. The Committee's decisions may interpret existing policy and guidelines, recognise and call attention to standards of user conduct, or create procedures through which policy and guidelines may be enforced." These are not vehicles for creating new substantive rules, which is clearly the aim of this request. Regardless of intent—and I'm sure both Fæ and the members of the Committee have only the best intentions aimed at resolving what is clearly an important area—this Committee is not a rulemaking body. The community is the relevant rulemaker.
I additionally object to the change of scope of the GamerGate case, which does not include generalized issues relating to LGBT+ rights either in article or talk space as Fæ wishes to expand it. Not one single finding of fact in that case dealt with gender generally. Therefore, I submit that the issue of gender is not and was never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and it would be manifestly improper as a matter of procedure and of practice to implement new discretionary sanctions to cover them. The fact that they are important issues and that there is active disruption is not relevant to this Committee's jurisdiction. The relative simplicity of the construction requested change—that things like misgendering be prohibited everywhere—is an even greater reason to deny this through ARCA: Why should the community be unable to handle it if it's properly requested to handle it? This is why these matters must be properly before the Committee before a decision is rendered: There must be evidence of failed resolution through other channels and that arbitration will end the dispute. I therefore move that this ARCA request be denied, and Fæ be encouraged either (1) to start a RfC requesting general sanctions in the area of LGBT+ rights, or (2) to file a request for arbitration requesting the Committee to decide on these issues. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 00:13, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @Johnuniq: Having read what you just linked, I agree that this is the most likely event to precipitate this request. On the basis that this has no relationship to Gamergate whatsoever, I renew my request that the Committee summarily deny the clarification petition and direct Fae to pursue other dispute resolution, and failing that, file a request for arbitration. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Regarding Fae’s indication of an unwillingness to seek lesser dispute resolution, I think this provides sufficient evidence of a failure to seek lesser dispute resolution. As others have indicated, the scope of the GamerGate case is not infinite, and so the scope of the discretionary sanctions, even as broadly construed as they typically are, is not infinite. If the problem Fae has personally encountered is indeed personally troubling, then Fae surely must have sought lesser dispute resolution somewhere, anywhere—even if not ANI then someplace else. The failure or refusal to do so terminates this Committee’s jurisdiction. Lacking jurisdiction, the Committee must deny this request. You cannot IAR your way around the arbitration policy—for if you can, it would be an utter slap in the face to everyone who has had a case request denied under it. All this says is that if you accumulate over 7 million edits across all foundation projects, you get special handling. Please don’t send that message. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In light of Fae’s statement that there is no current dispute requiring dispute resolution, and that this request is merely to deal with what is presented as a general problem, I renew my request that the Committee deny Fae’s petition here as inconsistent with the Arbitration Policy, which has always required a live dispute. If there is no live dispute, and Fae is requesting general changes to policy (or discretionary sanctions, however you wish to describe it) then all the more reason this petition should be denied and Fae directed to start an RfC, or a more preliminary discussion at one of the village pump pages. Furthermore, in light of Fae’s assertion that there is no active dispute requiring intervention, I withdraw my suggestion that the Committee direct Fae to file a request for arbitration: Fae’s own assertion that there is no live dispute would mandate the Committee’s denial of such a case request. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 17:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @AGK: An excellent analysis, and in my view the one that must carry. Fae is asking for something imminently unreasonable from the Committee; it is the equivalent of insisting that a round peg (LGBT+ issues) be forced through a square hole (Gamergate controversy issues). Even within the Committee's (over)use of the phrase "broadly construed", this is a step (or two or three) too far. The vast majority of the universe of issues subsumed under "LGBT+ issues" were not properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case (nor in Sexology, nor in Manning, nor in GGTF). The intentions here and in previous ARCAs are certainly noble, but those noble intentions must be enacted through the proper channels. And in light of Fae's confirmation that there is no live dispute here, that must be through community rulemaking processes.
    Moreover, Fae has raised a great deal of issues that should be substantiated by fact evidence in order to properly counsel the form of Committee action. I believe AGK tees up this very issue. Indeed, if the Committee is not required to collect fact evidence and make findings of fact before taking actions, how is it different than a policymaker by fiat? Certainly, there are cases where "interpretation" (i.e., providing binding or nonbinding guidance in the event of disagreements in application of past decisions in active disputes) and "amendment" (i.e., providing binding changes to previous cases in light of changed circumstances or errors) might be appropriate, but where the request seeks a complete change of the scope of those past cases, such requests must be denied as an improper use of Committee processes.
    I urge the Committee to respect the community's autonomy and first give it the opportunity to answer Fae's call for equity before concluding that it is utterly impotent to handle these serious issues. This community is not so bigoted as to be utterly unable to thoughtfully and reasonably handle such a request for general action. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 18:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with Vanamonde's point: Fae has failed to provide evidence that the administrators at AE are failing to enforce the interpretation of the GG DS regime being asserted here. Fae's further claim that seeking lesser dispute resolution is either futile or impossible, is both unsupported by evidence and, frankly, self-defeating: If seeking lesser dispute resolution is futile or impossible in the way Fae claims, then no interpretation this Committee could provide would change that. Trans individuals would still be unable to seek lesser dispute resolution. Therefore, Fae's request should be dismissed as self-mooting. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 20:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In light of how off-topic this request has devolved, I renew my suggestion that this discussion be closed as rejected. I am not sure what Fae is trying to do here, but I doubt it will end well if this discussion continues as it is going. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:46, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: My main problem with this is that the Footnoted Quotes/Editing of BLPs case actually made findings of fact relevant to the general area of BLPs, and it was clear from the outset to all involved that the case was intended to deal with all BLPs. GamerGate, despite the tucking of "gender" into a particular remedy, made a contrary finding of fact: Namely, the locus of the dispute was confined to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. The outrageously broad construction anticipated by this request would not be made acceptable by changing the name of the case. Issues with the breadth that Fae imagines are not and were never properly before the Committee in the GamerGate case, and are not properly incorporated into the GamerGate decision. This is an issue that requires one of two things: (1) a new case request, or (2) a reopening of the evidentiary record that results in new findings of fact to support this new interpretation of the remedy. I believe that if the Committee even takes on this problem, #1 is the best way to do it, and #2 still has some air of legitimacy. Doing it any other way, such as by pure motion or interpretive statement here, would be entirely illegitimate policymaking by the Committee and a violation of the Arbitration Policy's prohibition thereupon. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 15:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @GorillaWarfare: As I stated to NYB above, the problem with this idea is that the entire GG case was scoped to the Gamergate controversy, and there were no findings of fact related to gender issues in general. Using something so simple as a case rename to dramatically and unreasonably expand the scope of a single case, years after it was decided, with absolutely no discussion or findings on the record that the expansion in scope is necessary or prudent, is nothing but policymaking by fiat. It is illegitimate and it undermines the credibility of everything this Committee does. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 19:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: I have two points on that: First, I need to reiterate that there are no findings of fact or principles in the final decision or even in the proposed decision upon which the DS regime could possibly extend to all corners of the encyclopedia as regards gender. Reading the DS regime that way would render it illegitimate policymaking by fiat. This Committee cannot simply pronounce discretionary sanctions regimes without justification, and that justification must be part of the case. To do otherwise is, again, pure policymaking. Second: The existing findings of fact expressly and explicitly confine the scope of the controversy to the Gamergate controversy and related biographies. Reading the DS regime as escaping that scope would render it illegitimate policymaking in a content area that was not properly before the Committee. Simply calling it "uncontroversial" is not reasonable; there was no time for controversy to build as, from the look of things, this very aspect of the final decision was introduced in the 11th hour of the case and was never subject to serious discussion or debate among the parties or participants. Looking at gender on a sitewide basis was, as far as I can tell, never part of the evidentiary or workshop scope, and consequently was never briefed in any way for the Committee. This Committee cannot, consistent with the arbitration policy, simply tack on the equivalent of a legislative rider to a tangentially related case and then co-opt governance of such a wide area of Wikipedia. It is policymaking, pure and simple, to do that sort of thing with no mandate from the Community, no relevant case request, no evidence, no workshopping, and no discussion on point of that specific issue, where the final decision expressly and explicitly excludes a sitewide and topic-agnostic scope. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime insofar as it deals with gender, must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. A contrary reading is contrary to the arbitration policy and unsupported by the history of the case and a rational understanding of the purposes of arbitration as an adjudicative rather than rulemaking process. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 22:32, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @GorillaWarfare: Well, no, that would not be a legitimate scope for the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime. As I've said repeatedly, the scope of the dispute within the very first FoF of that case was explicitly the Gamergate controversy. The Committee does not have the authority to enact discretionary sanctions regimes of limitless scope or on matters tangentially related to the dispute, that were never subject to findings of fact, never workshopped, and never really discussed with stakeholders. This is why the arbitration process exists and what separates arbitration from policymaking by fiat.
    As to the dismissive suggestion that a separate ARCA be opened, I see no need to do so. I don't seek an amendment of the GamerGate case in the first place. The fact is that the interpretation being put forth by Fae, NYB, and yourself are contrary to the arbitration policy and therefore illegitimate. This Committee cannot simply ignore the arbitration policy when it's inconvenient. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    @GorillaWarfare: The remedy cannot have a scope that extends beyond the case in which it was enacted. That is fundamental to the concept of arbitration. Read the arbitration policy. The "scope and responsibilities" section is crystal clear on when the Committee is authorized to act, and that is not and has never been in any area at any time. There must be a dispute that the Community has been unable to resolve, and that (arguably) was the Gamergate controversy. The Committee limited the scope of the arbitration in the very first finding of fact in that case. The GamerGate remedies regime as written can be read as authorizing discretionary sanctions in all areas dealing with gender, but that would be outside the scope of the first finding of fact, and moreover outside the scope of the dispute for which arbitration was authorized. The sanction you are reading is either an invalid abuse of power or must be limited to the Gamergate controversy. The reading you are choosing is the invalid abuse of power. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

In light of the fact that the arbitrators commenting here have made multiple conflicting interpretations of policy, I am requesting a formal ruling on the following questions:

  1. Does the GamerGate discretionary sanctions regime apply to pages not within the scope of any evidence or findings of fact in the GamerGate case?
  2. Can the Arbitration Committee, consistent with the arbitration policy, enact discretionary sanctions regimes affecting pages that are tangentially related or unrelated to the case or dispute for which the regime is enacted?

Thank you. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 03:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

  • @MJL: You list three FoFs dealing with three individuals. Those are not sufficient to support a DS regime of such broad reach. There must be a rational, logical, explained, and documented connection between findings of disruption and the need for sitewide, indiscriminate sanctions against nonparties. You also point to the Manning dispute case as establishing the paradoxical claim that individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall. Not only is this a dramatic overextension of the Manning case, it would constitute an improper use of the arbitration committee as a policymaking organ, for reasons that I have stated repeatedly above. The arbitration policy expressly prohibits such policymaking. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the Committee doesn't show its work when it changes things, and instead just makes a motion: Things just get made up or done because they seem needful without regard to their propriety. There needs to be an explanation on the record of why the Committee finds the particular action comports with not only the arbitration policy but whichever policy the Committee is purporting to interpret (which is, by the way, the limit of the Committee's jurisdiction).
    In connection with the promised talk I'm going to have with WTT following the Ritchie debacle, which I anticipate will of necessity also talk about the matters I have brought up here, I am hopeful that some significant changes will be coming to how the Committee does business. This is just one of many cases where acting professionally requires some more form than we're accustomed to using.
    As an aside, I would oppose opening a case for "gender-related disputes" with MJL as a fictional party. There must be a live dispute for the scope of the Committee's jurisdiction to attach. You might as well name completely fictional parties like "Fairfax's Devisee" or "Hunter's Lessee" at that point. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Aquillion: The problem with the Committee creating a new generic framework of sanctions that aren't under the umbrella of a particular case is that doing so would be policymaking. The Committee is not authorized to make policy, it is authorized to adjudicate disputes. Without findings of fact, without parties making arguments, without the full framework of a case, Committee action here would blatantly be policymaking in violation of the arbitration policy. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 02:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Masem (Gamergate)

Fæ's concern is 100% valid. I was originally going to say though that trans-gendered issues didn't really apply to GG, but reading the discretionary sanctions about it: (i) The community Gamergate general sanctions are hereby rescinded and are replaced by standard discretionary sanctions, which are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed., the concerns of ridiculing transgendered individuals seem to fall within b and c of this. So if an editor is going about clearly mocking a known transgender individual (including on-wiki editors), that should be stopped immediately.

I question though if this really is appropriate for GG, because it is dealing with behavior that was not explored during GG. GG was more about disruptions on mainspace pages in the GG area, and extending to some gender-related disputes (individuals at the center of it). There were some behavior problems that were explored, but it was not for insulting other editors in the manner Fæ brings up (irrespective of the trans angle).

Adding what Fæ has asked as an GG extension feels wrong. Even going back to the Sexology case, that was more about POV conflicts than editors demeaning other editors or people. So if the Sexology DS was still active, it would be wrong to add it there too. So I really feel this is a worthwhile statement that should be made to address this type of behavior, but not as part of the GG DS. I don't want to discourage Fæ from pursuring this type of principle elsewhere on en.wiki, just that I don't think adding it to a DS that is in the same ballpark is necessary the best way to do that. --Masem (t) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Fæ, going off Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology, I'm not seeing any of the statements or FOF that point out the ridiculing of transgenders as part of the issue, though that may have been part of the off-site behavior. I do see mention about unprofessional behavior, so I can fully understand why its DS was moved from "articles" to "pages", but that doesn't still seem to suggest that it was due to ridiculing editors on trans-related issues. I can speak as a key party on GG that that case also wasn't about similar ridicule, but did involve similar unprofessional approaches several editors did on talk pages, leading to the DS to cover "pages" and not just "articles" (but that also was because we were being brigaded by IP, and thus bore the 500/30 rule).
But that said, stating that a trans ideology exists during discussions, appears and can deliberately demean Wikipedia contributors, if not strictly stated in the context of directly quoting a source for an article about this topic rather than an editor making this statement in their "own voice". is concerning. We clearly want to stop targeted insults from WP editors, obviously, but we also want to make sure talk pages are open enough to properly discuss an article, and we have to be able to separate these. I should not be wary of being hit with DS if I went to trans woman and said "I have several RSes here that identify (insulting term) as a negative slang for trans women, should we add it appropriately?" (which I can see some editors feel as if that is possibly insulting but clearly meant to improve the article), whereas if I went "Why not just call them (insulting term)?" I would fully expect some type of warning or action. Making sure when it is proper to apply a DS here would require more effort than what went into the GG or Sexology case, and hence why I think slapping an addendum onto the current GG is not a good approach. --Masem (t) 16:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
My primary concern is not with the intent, as I said, we should have some language - strong policy and/or immediate administrative actions like a GS or DS - to stop the disruption. It's more that GG, while it meets the topic area of gender-related disputes, didn't really have to do with editors using demeaning language. It's a convenient spot to put it in, but if a future editor came to review the DS, there's nothing in the case to support it being there. A community-agreed GS separate from any Arbcom case (but clearly allowing that GS to stand atop results of GG, Sexology, and GGTF) would be the more proper solution, to me. --Masem (t) 16:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
MJL: with GGTF, thought, there is at least clear review of an editor demeaning other people including other editors, and the language of its passed motions make that a reasonably strong point. GG didn't really have that. --Masem (t) 16:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Mendaliv states my concern is much more policy/procedures-based argument. --Masem (t) 17:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The point that Johnuniq brings up (which just came up at BLP/N) is exactly the concern I expressed above. To be blunt, talk pages of mainspace pages cannot be "safe spaces" where certain concepts are forbidden. There are going to be ideas and concepts that some editors may feel offensive, but if the context is wholly within the scope of trying to discuss improvements for the article, that's 100% acceptable use of a talk page. The case that Johnuniq is troubling because it seems to be aimed to stifle ideas that, while controversial, seem appropriate to discuss. These issues are waaaaay beyond the scope of what the FOF of GG resulted in, so again, I don't think this should be just amended onto GG. --Masem (t) 17:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: I would assume that "gender warrior" is a similar slang as social justice warrior, which is generally derogatory. But it does depend on context as your example suggests a positive approach. --Masem (t) 13:55, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the larger problem here is how DS are meant to be used. I always took DS to apply to the set of article/other spaces that are defined by the DS, with respect to the problems identified in the FOF and other remedies from the associated ArbCom case. So, GG being principally issues with edit warring and POV pushing, would mean that edit warring and POV pushing on "gender-related pages" is covered by it, but not other types of behavior problems (of which standard community actions should be sought). The way some here are suggesting, these DS would be for any perceived infraction on those pages. Otherwise, we start getting into the realm that multiple DS can apply to a single page (eg Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could potentially fall under both AP2 and GG due to her political support of LBGTQ). --Masem (t) 14:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

@, Mendaliv, GoldenRing, and Masem: The request would no doubt fall under Gamergate. This was the premise for the request I made earlier this year which resulted in this motion. It brought Manning (which dealt with issues related to transgender identity) unequivocally within the scope of Gamergate. –MJLTalk 16:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GGTF also was amended in the same motion. –MJLTalk 16:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. I am incredibly confused as to what I stumbled upon here. Though I was a fresh editor, the whole purpose of my original request was to avoid this one. Manning covered conduct as it related to gender identity. For the same reasons for Eastern Europe being amended did this occur. Arbcom has a clear interested in ensuring there are as few overlapping DS as possible.
    At the time, I suggested that GamerGate be renamed. However, Thryduulf had an even better idea to open up a case titled Gender-related disputes for the purpose of collating and renaming the existing sanctions. That'd be my preference now because we already have Findings of Fact from Manning and GGTF to justify DS. It's just a question of where to log it. –MJLTalk 21:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)


Further comments

I sometimes feel like there is this magical aura that follows longtime established users around. I just quite don't get it. I'll say something and am lucky if one or two people respond to me. Fæ posts here and suddenly this DS regime is a BIG DEAL. Nearly five times the amount of people have responded to this request compared to my own. Am I doing something wrong here? What did I miss?

Here are the things I've said a few months ago:

  • January 2019: I start editing Wikipedia more and more regularly. I clearly fall in love with the project side of Wikipedia.
  • 13 February 2019: My first post ever related to Arbcom. After thorough research to the current DS/regime and ongoing participation in this RFC started by WanderingWanda, I made a formal ARCA request that Manning be amended to clarify Gamergate which included the following reasoning:
...[M]y proposal is that the remedies [of Manning] continue forward with only a slight amendment to show that the case now serves as a clarification of Gamergate. This field of debate still has much activity, so in my view having this exact case to fall back on would be preferable. Gamergate did not once reference LGBT+ issues specifically, so I do not see the problem of having this (sic) Manning serve to supplement it. (emphasis added)
  • 21 February 2019: The motion to amend Manning is passed.
  • 28 February 2019: Anyone here remember the Humour article fiasco? Well, I was there. More than that, I tried to get it switched out before it was published to avoid such a controversy (archive)
  • 2 March 2019: Fæ gets a DS alert in relation to it. I simply think to myself, well at least people can't say this pronoun business doesn't fit under Gamergate now.
  • 4 March 2019‎: My rename finally took effect.
  • 5 March 2019: I suggest maybe we have used that moment to take consideration of the broader issues at play:Special:Permalink/886796817#Supplement_(2) (because it seemed like the community wasn't really quite grasping it).
  • I'm blanking on the last time we had a gender related controversy that touched arbcom. I've pretty much consistently referenced the motion I made because it has been (and still remains) the only significant thing I have ever done related to arbitration.

Okay, now that it is understood what my involvement has been in this area; let me explain what should happen: Please everyone just read Manning.

  • @Mendaliv: Do you want FoF? Here you go.
  • @: Do you want it made clear that pronoun usage is under DS/regime? Well here it is. In no uncertain terms the remedy reads: For the avoidance of doubt, [GG's sanctions] apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender... If someone reads that and questions whether pronoun usage falls under GG's DS, have them read it again until they get it right.

That now being said...

  • @GorillaWarfare and the committee: I am very sorry to take up your time, but I beg you not to just rename GamerGate here and move on. Give yourselves a break for now, but set a deadline. Then, this December; open up a fresh case page (if you need a party for sake of form, I'm more than happy to volunteer myself). Call it Gender-related disputes, skip the preliminary statements and evidence periods but just go straight to the workshop. Only using evidence from past cases, let the community help you remix the best parts of GGTF, Manning, and Gamergate to just create a neutrally worded case and discretionary sanction regime. Everyone will stop being confused about why we issue Gamergate related sanctions for transgender pronoun disputes, and we can all just move on. *sighs*

Thank you all. –MJLTalk 04:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: When did I say individual editors' pronoun choices are sacrosanct and must be respected lest the banhammer should fall? My interpretation of Manning is that any discussion about pronouns is under the sanction regime and only provides the method for editor conduct in this area to be more carefully scrutinized. Misgendering someone on purpose is likely to be interpreted as a personal attack just as much as calling someone is a bigot for a clear accidental slip up.
Also, you'll notice that there are more than three FoF for that case. One of such had to do with community conduct.
What is your preferred solution? Have three cases with three different sanctions again? Why??
Finally, point me to the section of WP:ARBPOL that specifically says a dispute has to be ongoing in the present moment a request is filed.
If the community cannot handle Disputes A, B, nor C; then they fall under Arbcom's remit. Once Arbcom makes a decision it is both binding and final. Then the following applies: The Committee retains jurisdiction over all matters heard by it, including associated enforcement processes, and may, at its sole discretion, revisit any proceeding at any time. It can and should open up a fresh case page to revisit Disputes A, B, and C to finally make them comport with one another. You should want this ideally. Arbcom could theoretically just throw out the DS/regime all together once it's back on the table in the proceedings I described. –MJLTalk 05:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sitush

  • People misgender on this project all the time. Almost always, in my experience, it is unintentional, although sometimes people get very upset about it. I only edit LGBT stuff occasionally and usually when it intersects with something that I more regularly edit. I get confused with the politics of it all, I sometimes tranpose the letters in various acronyms, I understand that some groups want to remove the "L" from LGBT, others want to add "Q" and/or "I", others use "+", and so on. Then there is the TERF stuff that boggles my mind, and now Fae is mentioning a couple of other terms I've never seen before. It is a minefield for anyone who is not right on the ball (a recent cartoon in Private Eye showed a teacher in a sex ed class writing "LGBT+" on a blackboard and one kid saying to another, "Since when did sex ed involve algebra?" Or something similar). I'm not entirely sure what Fae's intentions are here, nor even if they are correct in their interpretation of what is or is not a misgendering (which seems to be a very politicised subject), but it does concern me that inadvertent use of a word or acronym might lead to summary sanctions. I don't think we can compare this complex, oft-changing scenario with a multitude of neologisms etc with, say, use of the n-word. The latter is, I think, pretty well established territory but I suspect that the former is not. Am I misunderstanding something? Do I now have to first read several articles discussing the various terms before I write anything on the subject? - Sitush (talk) 23:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks @Johnuniq: for providing what appears to be the context. In light of that, I wonder why Fae didn't use TERF as an example in the request. Even I know it is a political hot potato, even if I don't necessarily fully understand it. I'm not convinced that weaponising a DS regime by amendment to resolve a current dispute is a good thing, if that is what is going on. Sort out the dispute and then ask for amendment etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • An excellent set of comments from EdChem. I think they're the way forward, both in terms of this request and any future developments/strategy. - Sitush (talk) 05:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @Worm That Turned: I am wondering whether mis-spoke when they mentioned "gender warrior" above. I recall their upset about SilkTork referring to "diversity terrorist" here and later clarifying it here. IIRC, Fæ continued to raise the issue in that case and elsewhere but I've not seen a mention of "gender warrior". - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq

I wondered what the background for this was. It appears to be Meghan Murphy where there are disputes over the degree to which the person or her blog should be described as trans-exclusionary radical feminist or TERF. The talk page shows the dispute including Pyxis Solitary saying "she's against trans ideology" which caused Fæ to respond with diff saying "trans ideology" was an attack on all trans people which, if continued, would warrant sanctions under WP:ARBGG. The issue of whether mentioning a "trans ideology" among off-wiki activists is a sanctionable attack should not be decided in a clarification request. Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EvergreenFir

I support this motion. The "Manning naming dispute" case made it clear long ago that transgender topics are an area with disruption. The GG case included issues of gender identity as well (see histories of discussions related to Quinn and Wu). Discussing that GG covers gender, cisgender and transgender, would be useful. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pyxis Solitary

This comment addresses the mention of my name in the  Statement by Johnuniq  regarding the Meghan Murphy BLP talk page discussion: First sentence description TERF vs radical feminist.

Allow me to shed all the light  from/to  Pyxis Solitary:
In reponse to the Murphy topic I said: "her history regarding transgender issues is that she is not against trans people, she's against trans ideology and transgender rights legislation. It's a fine line, but an important distinction".
To which the other editor mentioned (Fæ) replied: "By the way, Pyxis Solitary, there is no such thing as "trans ideology". If you continue to spout unsourced damaging nonsense that so blatantly attacks all trans people this way, you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia in line with the Arbcom Discretionary Sanctions applying to gender related topics that you were alerted to in May this year". That last bit refers to this notice she/he left on my talk page about a candidate for deletion.
Then this editor continued to pile it on with this and this. To which I responded here.
The editor continued with this. And I replied.
Followed by said editor continuing the inquisition. Again, I replied.
Editor continued with the same line of accusation. I responded. Editor continued. I again replied.
It's shameful how ArbCom has made it possible for the Discretionary Sanctions policy to be weaponized as a threat used by editors with axes to grind.

By the way, the same IP editor that personally attacked me in the article, and accused me of being a "TERF" in the talk page, attacked me again with a bogus statement attributed to me with a fake signature — which was deleted by editor Fæ before I returned to the discussion. And of course, IP editor left another accusation in my talk page. Pyxis Solitary yak 06:15, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited) 08:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC); (edited: emphasis mine) 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: After reading the comments here about Gamer Gate, I just want to say that I did not know about "Gamer Gate" until a d/s alert was posted on my talk page (the template was added to the talk page of the candidate for deletion after discussions were well underway). I'm not into video games and I don't do Twitter and Reddit, or whatever other vomitatus platforms were involved. There are billions of people on this planet ... but there aren't billions of gamers and people who waste their time as an Internet chatty-Cathy -- and many of them are Wikipedia editors. Do those of you who created the Gamer Gate d/s really think that every editor who edits the subjects that were added under it knows what GG is? Pyxis Solitary yak 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re: GamerGate)

That MJL I do still think that it would be a good idea to have a new case, Gender-related disputes covering

  • Disputes and controversies related to gender, gender identity and gender expression (including pronouns)
  • Disputes and controversies related to gender gaps (i.e. editors and content) and actions/projects/etc related to these
  • A review of what existing sanctions exist, how they are being used, and how well they are or are not working
  • What, if any, areas that are covered need not be covered any longer
  • What, if any, additional areas should be covered
  • Whether collating all the existing and new sanctions into one set would be desirable (and if so, do so).

This would be quite a large case, which the Committee probably has not got capacity for while Fram is ongoing and Palestine-Israel 4 is pending so I suggest adding it to the queue rather than opening immediately. In the mean time, I would strongly encourage Fæ and everyone else to try and resolve any disputes using the current available methods (AN/I, AE, etc) so that there is good, recent evidence to feed into the review. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde (GamerGate)

  • I confess I am not as familiar with the GamerGate dustups as some, but this request, and the responses to it, baffle me. I cannot see how disputes related to transgender rights and transgender activism do not fall under "any gender-related dispute or controversy [broadly construed]". If the Meghan Murphy dispute were under discussion at AE, I for one would consider it within the scope of the discretionary sanctions. I see no purpose being served by addressing a hypothetical statement about a gay agenda. The very reason discretionary sanctions exist is that it is sometimes difficult to determine in advance what disruptive behavior will look like; DS regimes allow administrators to make decisions on a case by case basis, and with a few exceptions that don't apply here, we are generally quite good at sanctioning disruption when it is brought to our attention. , if editors are being disruptive in the way you describe, and you believe their edits to be sanctionable under GG discretionary sanctions, why are you here, rather than at AE? Do you have any evidence that admins are unwilling to apply these sanctions in this situation? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    , You have not answered my fairly straightforward question. If you are seeing conduct that you believe to be sanctionable under the GamerGate DS regime, why are you not seeking sanctions at WP:AE? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
    , I did read your statement. I wouldn't have posted mine otherwise. You state that "The problem being raised here is how Arbcom expects them to be enforced, because they just ain't"; but you have no evidence for that assertion. How do you expect admins to enforce discretionary sanctions when no requests for enforcement have been made? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:56, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • In case this wasn't clear already; I, personally, would be quite willing to sanction editors making unsupported allegations under the current discretionary sanctions regime. I'm sure other administrators would be, too. But our willingness and ability to implement such sanctions stems not from specific behaviors being declared verboten by ARBCOM; it comes from being able to detect disruption when we see it. As such, I see no purpose in ARBCOM spending time and effort on this (unless you're looking at a new locus of disruption that isn't explicitly covered by the DS regime, of which no evidence has been provided), and I think that editors concerned by such disruption need to use the primary mechanism for ending it before anything else. There are situations where AE has not done a very good job (the case above this one is an excellent example) but absent evidence of AE failing at its job, I don't see why we're here at all. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything more to do here; surely this can be closed? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:18, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Judging by comments elsewhere and recent edit history, this is not a good faith request for clarification, it is an attempt to use arbitration sanctions to enforce Fae's views of how a subject should be covered, in a context where numerous attempts to do this via normal Wikipedia processes are failing. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

What EdChem said, absolutely. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdChem (GamerGate)

  • Given the quote from Masem, it seems to me that there is a lack of clarity here about the coverage of some gender issues under the DS regime.
  • The fact that there is a lack of clarity does not mean that the suggestion by is the way to resolve the problem, nor does it mean that Guy's observations of attempts to weaponise DS regimes is necessarily incorrect.
  • Please, in clarifying, make clear that there are distinctions between misgendering / comments that can give offense that occur as a consequence of mistake or ignorance, those arising from deliberately provocative wordings and made with an intent to cause offense, and situations where an editor might be looking to push an agenda and express outrage. The Manning naming dispute included plenty of examples from the first two categories and a motivation to right great wrongs has led to postings / main space edits that are inconsistent with policy-compliant editing.
  • As a gay man, I've experienced comments and behaviours that I found obnoxious even though they occurred from ignorance, been targeted by deliberate homophobia, and had times where I have had to decide whether to speak up or hold my tongue. I'm all for WP being a safe environment for all members of the broader LGBTQIA+ community but some incidents call for discussion, education, and persuasion and not sanction or threat (which is exactly how DS notices can be perceived, notwithstanding the notion that they are information only, etc).
  • Short version, clarification is appropriate as the Committee's various motions appear inconsistent... but sensible clarification that does not weaponise the DS regime for those who might want to use it to advance a campaign, and that makes it clear to AE admins and others enforcing the regime that it is important to understand the actual issues. Societal understanding of LGBTQIA+ issues and acceptable behavioural standards are changing and will continue to develop, no doubt too slowly for some and too rapidly for others, and also vary from place to place. I don't envy the Committee or AE admins in trying to balance issues in this area, but I do believe that deliberate provocation and being intentionally offensive calls for a strong response but that this approach is counter-productive for dealing with ignorance or misunderstanding from editors of good will. EdChem (talk) 23:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Addendum: Guy has commented at my user talk page, which has led me to reflect on my words and to add a clarification. The term "safe space" has different meanings in different contexts. I believe in a WP that is free from homophobia, transphobia, biphobia, racism, anti-semitism, and prejudices in general when it comes to interactions between editors, and I heartily endorse Guy's term "respectful space." We need to be able to cover difficult subjects in a policy-compliant way, however, and that means discussions of topics and considering views that will sometimes cause a degree of discomfort. I don't mean a safe space in the sense that views that will cause disagreement should not be expressed, even though there are safe spaces in which such rules may be appropriate. WP is not a therapy or support space and should not impose standards that are more appropriate to such spaces, but it is also not a place where deliberate deadnaming, crass generalisations or outright bigotry are tolerable. Consequently, I state for the sake of clarity that "respectful space" is closer to the mark on what I meant as a norm for on-wiki communications than are some connotations of "safe space."

I would also like to clarify that, in referring to my own experiences, I was not thinking solely of on-wiki experiences, or even only online experiences. The first time I had homophobic abuse screamed at me was shocking and a little frightening – and would have been more so had I been alone or in vulnerable circumstances – but I quickly decide that ignoring the event was the wisest course of action. It was illegal, no doubt, but pursuing it was not worth my time, nor was given this individual the satisfaction of having provoked a response. I would encourage to consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved, and whether dismissing something as not worth pursuing is actually a more dignified and effective way to communicate that it isn't worth supplying oxygen to, either by replying or by seeking redress. EdChem (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@: I am sorry to read that you see "consider whether there are times when silence is the most eloquent response, where providing a response is not worth the time or effort involved" as "the equivalent of telling newbie LGBT+ contributors to 'grow a thicker skin'" (after a "trim, minor" that was certainly not minor in the sense a minor edit). If someone throws a homophobic slur at me, choosing to ignore that person or not respond is not me giving in to a bully, it's me exercising my right to choose how to spend my time and comes after I have considered whether putting in the effort to challenge the person is justified. That you might make a different decision were you in my place does not even slightly alter either my right to decide for me nor whether my choice is best for me. I am all in favour of preventing bullying on wiki and find transphobia just as repugnant as homophobia and other prejudices – but I don't believe that means that challenging / confronting a bully is always the wisest course of action. Bile spewed by throwaway accounts can be dealt with via WP:RBI without giving the person behind the account the satisfaction of being discussed on ANI. Arguing about minor incivilities can divert attention from broader issues and risks advocates being painted as reacting to every perceived slight and not directing their energy to the central issues – and worse, it gives opponents a way to distract advocates with a series of small provocations. You want to see Wikipedia's culture to become more inclusive, which is a worthy goal. I also agree that telling editors to "grow a thicker skin" is counter-productive and offensive. Neither of those, however, mean that every single incident must be attacked as if it occurs in isolation. Strategies for seeking change can also be counter-productive. As an example of such an approach, refusing to engage at ANI and instead advocating to lodge frequent complaints with T&S in the hope of a cultural change being imposed from outside will provoke resistance and alienate editors who would be allies. People can share goals but differ on questions of strategy and even about the severity of individual incidents – that doesn't necessarily make them wrong and it certainly doesn't make them enemies who you might tell to "fork off." Frankly, I find your suggestion that my comments were the equivalent of "grow a thicker skin" to be so inaccurate as to be ridiculous, and your implication that I was supporting Wikipedia continuing "indefinitely as a publisher of lockerroom type transphobic and homophobic language which is protected as 'humour' or 'free speech'" to be offensive. All I did was ask that you consider where choosing not to respond can, at times, be a suitable response... and you reacted with an over-the-top post that suggests to me that you have lost perspective. Seriously, stop and reflect, because you are damaging your credibility and that is undermining the pursuit of your goal. EdChem (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

I concur with Guy and EdChem, and I thank EdChem for their reasonable and rational statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

I also thank them both for the "respectful space" concept, which is much more appropriate for Wikipedia than "safe space" is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:41, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Greenrd

I have some familiarity with the nature and content of typical political debates between trans-exclusionary radical feminists, trans people and their allies, and people somewhere "in the middle" - and they are very much political debates, let's be clear about that. Regarding process and venue, this proposal, due to its highly contentious nature and tangential relation to the GamerGate case, is an entirely inappropriate use for the clarification process; as others have opined, consensus should be sought in the community or it should be brought to full arbitration, if desired.

As a political activist myself, I perceive this proposal as something that would have the effect of giving one political faction special privileges in terms of advocacy on Wikipedia, even as other factions have their freedoms restricted by this proposal, or indeed already have their freedoms restricted by long-lasting community mores, which I believe would be fundamentally unfair. There are a range of views within the community on using Wikipedia for advocacy or agenda-driven purposes, from strong opposition on the one hand, to a feeling that by e.g. unabashedly promoting the achievements of women and feminists, one is improving Wikipedia, to (e.g. on Israel/Palestine) perhaps a resigned acceptance of the fact that many contributors will have strong views one way or another and the participation of people with multiple perspectives actually helps to create balanced articles. Indeed one can take different views on this sort of agenda-driven work on a case-by-case basis, depending on the nature of the changes and the degree to which they act to introduce imbalance into the encyclopedia, or to correct pre-existing imbalances in the encyclopedia. What we shouldn't have on Wikipedia is any privileging of people belonging to particular political factions based on what political faction they belong to, as opposed to based on the behaviour of individuals within those factions and whether it comports with Wikipedia's mission.

Also, what is really not acceptable in the content of this proposal is that it does, I feel, conflate the identification of political factions, potential sources of bias, and organised activity, with conspiracy theorising (which often brings connotations of insanity, or at least eccentricity). This conflation is rather like if someone were to say that to claim that some Republican supporters might have a bias in relation to articles about Republican politicians, and to make a big deal about the fact that an editor is a Republican political activist and spends a lot of time advocating for Republican political causes, is unacceptable prejudice against Republicans. That would be ridiculous, because the exact same thing could be said about Democrats and articles about Democrat politicians, so it's an instance of a more general point that's not at all specific to any one political party or faction.- greenrd (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

@: From my perspective, this is about potential biases of sources and editors, and the ability to draw attention to that on Wikipedia discussion pages. Your argument seems to be that your beliefs that are relevant here arise from your identity, and are not ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. That's fine, but that, surely, paints a picture of you being more, not less, biased, than someone who has ordinary political beliefs that are subject to rational debate and persuasion. I mean, you can't have it both ways. Either your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but arise from an activist/ideological grouping to which you belong and therefore it is fine to be descriptive about that, or they do arise from your identity, in which case you are definitely biased and therefore it ought to be fine to call attention to that fact, although of course we should try to be civil about doing so on Wikipedia. -greenrd (talk) 17:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
@: You seem to suggest that we should not examine too closely your implication that your beliefs arise from your identity, because that would lead to a slippery slope where trans people would be allegedly banned from Wikipedia by people like me on the grounds of bias. But this is erroneous because, for one thing, I do not believe that your beliefs arise from your identity. In point of fact, not all trans people agree with the "trans ideology" that you espouse, so in my view, your beliefs do not arise from your identity, but from your social or ideological milieu. I know of some people on Twitter who, despite being trans, actually agree with some tenets of "gender-critical"/"terf" ideology. I do not share their views, but they exist. Also, I do not support banning people from Wikipedia on the grounds of political bias alone. But the point is, it is important to be able to point out that people subscribe to belief systems, and to be able to name them. It is not something that I see or participate in very often on Wikipedia. But it is an important element of discussions about biases, or alleged biases, emanating from sources used in articles and editors alike. And banning it - for, and to the benefit of, one ideological grouping only - would be censorship, would harm the workings of the Wikipedia community, and would be grossly unfair to people not in that ideological grouping. -greenrd (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@: "Trans women are women" isn't a magic incantation which instantly and automatically resolves all arguments about trans people in favour of your opinions. But you must be aware of this, because in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jessica_Yaniv_genital_waxing_case, you wrote "once the legal issues are better understood, if any", suggesting that you thought the legal case could go either way. But surely, if Yaniv simply is a woman for all intents and purposes, then it is simply illegal to discriminate against her - no need for further discussion. My view is that trans women are women in most, but not all, contexts (for example, not in sports). I realise that statement of my opinion might offend you, but it is not my intent to offend you. I am merely pointing out that I have one opinion on this question, some other people have another opinion (namely, trans women are women tout court) and yet other people have yet another opinion (namely, trans women are not women at all). And to reiterate, these opinions are not completely determined by identities - as I wrote above, not all trans people subscribe to the same beliefs on these questions. If you want to disagree with that - for example, if you want to argue that the trans people who disagree "aren't really trans people" or something like that - you can, but you have to actually argue for the opposite - you can't just jump forward in time to the hypothetical point in time where you've persuaded me of the opposite, and then accuse me of making false generalisations about all trans people, because I explicitly have said that not all trans people hold these beliefs, and until you persuade me otherwise, that is my position. You can call those beliefs what you like - I am not attached to the term "trans ideology" and would happily substitute any unambiguous alternative that you may have to offer - but please don't try to tell me they don't constitute a belief system, because I don't buy that. -greenrd (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
@: I feel the need to defend myself at this juncture. I don't think the average person would read this exchange and say my views were anti-trans, and your calling them such is something that I perceive as a personal attack. I did not air my views here for the sake of airing them, but in order to attempt to elucidate my arguments. However, I may have erred on the side of brevity, sacrificing some clarity. My arguments were as follows: (a) Drawing a direct line from your trans identity, through the proposition that "trans women are women", to proposition X, is not a way of proving anything you like relating to trans people, so I personally don't think your argument goes through (and to be clear why this is relevant: why did you mention that trans women are women, if not to use that statement in the service of an argument? And if it is the case that it was not to support your argument, perhaps you are really the one gratuitously "airing your views" in this forum!). (b) There are a range of views about trans people and what legal or social rights they ideally ought to have, including the views of a subgroup within the trans community that I haven't even named yet, because I don't want to risk inflaming this discussion further. So even trans people themselves do not speak with one voice on this question. I didn't even go so far as to outright assert that most trans people subscribe to the dominant orthodox view, because I don't know for sure that that is true, although all the evidence I've seen so far suggests it is. So I reject your accusation that I was somehow irrelevantly airing my opinions. In my view, they were relevant to my argument, which I have labelled (a), that merely reiterating that trans women are women does not establish what you seem to think it establishes. And I would have liked to have quoted someone else there to avoid the impression of soapboxing, but I don't know anyone else who holds the view that I wanted to use to make my argument. Generally speaking, it is usually considered acceptable in arguments relating to political issues for someone to use their own political opinions to give an example of how an apparent sticking point may be resolved. And even if some other people think my views were not relevant, in my view it would be unduly harsh to harshly sanction someone over a legitimate difference of opinion over what was relevant to an argument being made. And if we are not even to be permitted to make certain arguments, such as the ones I have made here, that disagree with you because they will rest on claims that it will be forbidden to even make on Wikipedia, as you have just advocated, then in my view a grave policymaking mistake will have been made. In that scenario, as I see it, any form of perceived offence against trans people in particular and perhaps other groups too, including allegedly offensive points such as even merely acknowledging that other views exist, will have been raised up to the status of an unimpeachable shibboleth, to the detriment of frank and fearless discussion about proposals such as yours, and frank and fearless discussion about the propriety or otherwise of any edits and other actions on Wikipedia along the same lines as what your proposal talks about.-greenrd (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Clarification by Risker

I have not read this request except for the reference to me in the (currently) last paragraph of Fae's statement above, and have no comment on any suggestions being made by any editors about any historical cases, their enforcement, or whether or not anything needs to be clarified about them. Thus, I have retitled this section as a "clarification" since I'm not really making a statement about the matter before the Arbitration Committee.

I did not *directly* contact Fae about anything, via email or otherwise, until after Fae emailed me at my personal email address. Instead, what I did was respond to a suppression request from Fae that was received in the OTRS queue more than 12 hours prior to my reading it, and responded by OTRS email asking for clarification about what edits Fae felt should fall under the suppression policy. Fae then emailed me directly at my personal email address (which is not included in the OTRS emails) accusing me of having a conflict of interest and requesting that I pass the suppression request to another oversighter. Arbitrators who follow the Oversight OTRS queue will be well aware that a ticket that has been untouched for more than 12 hours is extremely rare, particularly when other requests have been addressed in that timeframe. I responded to the personal email from Fae instructing them to respond directly to the ticket and not to email me personally; I copied my response to the Oversight mailing list so that other oversighters would know what was going on, and arbitrators who follow that list can read the discussion there. It is my understanding that another oversighter has "taken over" the ticket, and their first question to Fae was to ask them to clarify what was perceived to be suppressible on the page linked in the request.

To the best of my knowledge, what Fae refers to as a "conflict of interest" is in fact that I was an arbitrator in the 2012 case whose remedies including their being banned from English Wikipedia; I was also one of the arbitrators who supported the motion lifting Fae's ban (with conditions) about nine months later. To the best of my recollection, I don't think I've commented or participated in any other disciplinary activities related to Fae. I have, however, revision-deleted, deleted and suppressed outing and personal attacks directed at Fae on several occasions since that time; and I have, on at least one recent occasion, publicly and directly agreed with Fae's position in a discussion on the Wikimedia-L mailing list. In order to explain to my fellow oversighters why Fae might think I had a conflict of interest, I referred to the 2012 case and 2013 motion; while looking at the decision again to ensure I had my facts and timing right, I noticed there was a link missing to the motion that allowed Fae to return to editing Wikipedia in 2013, and I fixed that.

I do not believe that I have any kind of conflict of interest with respect to Fae, although it is possible that Fae has a conflict of interest when it comes to me. It is a little odd for anyone to suggest that conflict of interest on an oversight ticket should be determined by who sent the ticket, rather than what the request actually was. I've recused based on the nature of the request on multiple occasions. It would be bad practice to allow those requesting suppression to pick and choose who deals with their request; if they send it to the list, they're going to get the oversighter who is willing and able to respond. The entire point of oversight is to identify and remove problem content *as quickly as possible*, and that isn't possible when the requestor decides they don't want Oversighter A or B or C to deal with the issue.

Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the actual clarification request, and is only provided here because there's no other suitable forum for me to point out that, despite Fae's best efforts, I have nothing to do with this matter. Risker (talk) 17:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


Statement by Andy Dingley

GamerGate was a low point for the Internet, and indeed WP. If anything good did come from it, at least WP took a fairly strong position in opposition to it, as represented by this arbitration.

Clearly the request here is inspired by recent activity around a number of pages involving Jessica Yaniv: Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Yaniv genital waxing case, the imminent Yaniv v. Various Waxing Salons, British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, Meghan Murphy et al.

The questions are: does the GamerGate arbitration, and should the GamerGate arbitration, extend that far?

My first impression is that Fae is using GamerGate as a BLUDGEON to stifle any discussion about Jessica Yaniv. All the usual tactics are rolled out, the warning boxes on user talk: pages[1], the repeated stripping of sources and content from an article during an AfD; the denigration of sources used; the description of the Vancouver Sun as a mere 'tabloid' because the word tabloid (used as a contrast) appears in that article's lead[2]; the repeated accusation that other editors have made an allegation[3] which they have never made; the aspersions cast at other editors for being 'uncollegial' and then immediately using 'colleague' instead as an implication of sock- or meatpuppeting; hatting great sections of Talk: debate; riding two horses in claiming that only one narrow waxy issue is relevant within a far broader story, then claiming BLP1E applies; and of course, hiding behind BLP as the unchallengable excuse for any position held. So far, so much as usual.

I don't expect WP to keep this article (at least for the near future). BLP will see to that, and as yet, few of the defensible broadsheet sources have covered it. Although I'll be amazed if there isn't a significantly different situation in a few months. It's a most unusual situation, as it has flipped the usual allegiances and political standpoints end-for-end. Those who have previously advocated for transgender politics are finding themselves torn between the coverage, as highly negative as it is, or deleting it.[4][5] Jessica Yaniv is, quite literally, the taser-threatening[59:34 in Yaniv's own last night's twitter debate with Blaire] transwoman in the girls' changing room[Yaniv's November 2018 Tweet photos] that the TERFs warned us of. Fae evidently sees no such conflict: in Fae's mind (as expressed here), transphobia is transphobia, and negative coverage of one transwoman is an attack on all of them. Now that's an honourable position and I respect it a great deal, but I do think they're backing the wrong side here. Jessica Yaniv is just not someone who's actions are at all defensible. And yet BLP is still in effect and WP is not a channel of investigative journalism.

So should GamerGate apply? Does GamerGate apply? Well per GamerGate#Remedies "(b) any gender-related dispute or controversy," it would indeed seem so. I was shocked to read this. I've avoided GamerGate so far, as a depressingly negative issue in all areas. But to find that the sanctions do indeed claim to be so far-reaching in their scope? That's a terrible idea. It loses track of the concrete problem at GamerGate, it tries to solve all the world's ills in one line. And today, its main result seems to be giving Fae a BLUDGEON for pushing their PoV into these articles, to suppress coverage of someone, who Fiona Robertson, the SNP's National Women’s and Equalities Convener has described as a "female predator".[6] I do not believe that the GamerGate sanctions have ever been intended to support the actions and deniability of female predators, and we should not encourage their use for such. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

  • I'm now considering raising Nblund, and maybe others, at ANI. I am very tired of the aspersions being cast by them. My one mention of KiwiFarms was to state that it was clearly unreliable. Yet here, now that the talk: page has been conveniently deleted (in the middle of this, and the ANI TBAN thread!) my condemnation of KiwiFarms is being presented as if I'd added it to the article instead! That's clearly into "When did you stop beating your wife?" territory. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Simonm223

I am not surprised the JY related pages ended up tied into this discussion, though my understanding is that this arbitration request was established because of a separate WP:BLP dispute over how to handle naming of people who have been identified in the media as TERFS. That said, I would strongly support the assertion that the JY related pages fall under the Gamergate discretionary sanctions. I say this because, frankly, with some of the egregious WP:BLP behaviour I've seen in the course of the JY discussion, extra administrator attention and extra strictness about norms would be very helpful. This has included:

  1. Speculation about whether a woman has a penis.
  2. POV fork created by a subsequently blocked sockpuppet of a user previously indeffed for making transphobic comments which also was created specifically as an WP:ATTACK page.
  3. Accusations that a BLP not currently involved in any criminal prosecution was engaged in child molestation. (Also by the subsequently blocked sock who created the attack page.)
  4. More speculation about the state of a BLP's genitals masked as a quote from a "RS" (actually a tabloid and not something that should be considered reliable).

And so on. Frankly, the fact that we're addressing a POV Fork attack page at AfD rather than speedy deleting it is already a bit galling and suggests enhanced oversight of this article is necessary. As such, I dispute Andy Dingley's assertion that treatment of gender issues outside the bounds of Gamergate is outside the spirit of the previous Arbcom ruling and hope that, if any good can come of this rather convoluted request for clarification, it's additional oversight of the BLP minefield that currently exists here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Edited to add that I don't disagree at all with Newyorkbrad and Aquillion here about the confusing nature of the nomenclature at play here. My concern is that the tool of arbcom enforced sanctions is necessary in this space; it's not that they need to be tied specifically to GamerGate. Simonm223 (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad

This comment is not about the substance of the request, but concerns the procedural confusion and nomenclature. It is causing confusion, and probably will continue to, if every discussion of allegedly poor editing in this topic area involves a citation to "the GamerGate case" or "GamerGate discretionary sanctions." Many topics relating to sexuality, including references to trans persons, are very remote from the topic of GamerGate. Indeed, some of the editors who edit on those topics may never have even heard of GamerGate. They are going to be unnecessarily confused when they receive a DS alert and, in addition to having to absorb all the other rules and procedures governing discretionary sanctions, they also find themselves puzzling over what "GamerGate" is and why it is coming up in a seemingly unrelated context.

The initial version of what became the discretionary sanctions for BLPs was adopted in an arbitration case called "Footnoted quotes." Needless to say, the overall topic of BLPs had little to do with the dispute over whether long quotations should be included in footnotes or not. People involved in BLP-related editing disputes did not easily understand when the "Footnoted quotes" ArbCom decision was cited to them. Ultimately, the Committee resolved that confusion by renaming the name for the BLP sanctions category to something more comprehensible. It might make sense to do something similar here.

As I finish typing this comment, I realize that it may not be directly related to the clarification request, so if the Committee wishes to treat it as a separate suggestion and discuss it elsewhere, I have no objection. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Mendaliv: The "GamerGate" discretionary sanctions topic-area already includes, in addition to GamerGate itself, "any gender-related dispute or controversy, [or] people associated with [such a controversy], all broadly construed." To the extent the scope of the "GamerGate sanctions" extends well beyond the specific issue of GamerGate, that was a ruling made (uncontroversially) in the original decision four-and-one-half years ago; it would not be the result of the non-substantive naming clarification that I suggest. Related discretionary sanctions were previously also authorized in the "Sexology" case (originally, authorizing DS for "pages dealing with transgender issues and paraphilia classification") and the "Manning naming dispute case" ("For the avoidance of doubt, [the "Sexology"] discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender"), which were later incorporated into the "GamerGate" sanctions. The mere renaming I suggest would not impose DS in any area not already subject to them, and not surveyed in prior, full-fledged prior ArbCom cases and decisions. (Whether the change requested by Fae would do so is a different question.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

Agree with Newyorkbrad that it might be best to have a separate case-name for gender-related stuff, but it's worth pointing out that there are a few pages clearly covered by GG general sanctions that wouldn't be obviously covered by gender-related ones, so just renaming wouldn't necessarily work. If possible it might be best to split it into two separate discretionary sanctions with their own notices etc. Definitely using the GG general sanctions notice for gender stuff is going to be confusing to users, though, and will get more confusing going forwards as GG itself fades into the past. --Aquillion (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Regarding the issue Guerillero raised before, ArbCom could also authorize new sanctions under a new name, reproducing the Gamergate gender-related ones, and state that such things shouldn't be placed under Gamergate going forward. This might lead to some confusion, but I would argue that it is less than leaving all future gender-related controversies under the Gamergate sanctions forever, which is only going to lead to more confusion as time passes. --Aquillion (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
@Mendaliv:: The practical effect would be solely to rename existing sanctions (ones that have uncontroversially existed and been enforced for years now.) I don't think that doing so can reasonably be considered making policy - it was still originally enacted as a result of a case before ArbCom that clearly required it. While a broader overhaul to the way general sanctions work may one day be necessary, it seems silly to gum up the works, reject a simple solution, and demand that an existing sanction be kept under a confusing name purely out of hope that that vast undertaking will one day occur. Especially since, of course, there is precedent for renaming sanctions, so there's no particular reason why that shouldn't extend to spinning off an existing sanction under a more comprehensible and appropriate name. --Aquillion (talk) 02:25, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

Ignoring the merits and just addressing the procedural issues that NYB brings up, I am against renaming cases. The title has meaning when the case is accepted and post hoc renaming breaks that meaning. Unlike Footnoted Quotes which had no active sanctions, Gamergate has plenty of active sanctions that will continue to be enforced for many years. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nblund

  • If editors are following WP:NOTFORUM then I can't really imagine a scenario where the claim that "trans women aren't women" would ever come up in the first place. Pontificating on trans issues adds nothing of value to the project, and we would stand to gain a lot by strongly discouraging those kinds of digressions on article talk pages.
  • I also want to second the points made by EvergreenFir, as well as Simonm223. The Yaniv case is only the latest instance where I've seen Gamergate-ish behavior. The social media communities that are trying to push that particular case in to the spotlight increasingly resemble Gamergate in the sense that they are largely centered around harassing/doxxing/humiliating various semi-public figures who displease them, and they view Wikipedia as another forum to spread that abuse.
Editors who come here just to create attack pages are probably easy to catch, but Andy Dingley's comments in this thread illustrate why good faith editors also need more guidance here: he has referenced Kiwi Farms and Miranda Yardley enough to make it fairly clear to me that he's seen the same toxic online communities that I've seen. He clearly recognizes that they aren't reliable sources, but he keeps referencing various versions of "Yaniv is a predator" (which is a rallying cry for those communities) for no apparent purpose (see also:1,2, 3, 4, 5,6). I really don't think he has a malicious intent, but it's still dangerous and irresponsible and off topic, and it resembles some of the behaviors that got people sanctioned around GamerGate. Maybe I'm overreacting, but it illustrates how this kind of material can start to spin out of control in a way that makes Wikipedia complicit in what are effectively mass online bullying campaigns like Gamergate, and I think it calls for more clarity on talk page conduct. Nblund talk 23:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Andy Dingley: I'm not casting aspersions or questioning your motivations. I'm pointing to your repeated references to BLP violations elsewhere as an example of the sort of stuff that needs to be clarified as either acceptable or unacceptable. It adds nothing and I'd prefer you'd stop, but I'm not calling for you to be punished or even arguing that your actions are unique. Nblund talk 10:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JJE

Noting here that Fæ has just been banned by the community from commenting on human sexuality-related topics, so they probably can no longer comment on this clarification request, or at least are unlikely to. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck

Harassment is a big problem on Wikipedia and we need to tackle it seriously. However, Fæ's proposal for ArbCom, that any wording that "implies [...] an agenda" or is "anti-trans" should be immediately punished as a DS violation, is unenforceable unless ArbCom is prepared to publish a glossary of banned language. The very fact that this is a contentious area where the use of language is itself contentious means that a non-expert in transgender issues cannot be expected to know the boundaries of civil discourse without stumbling upon someone's sensitivities first.

I echo Sitush's comment about unintentional offence being met with heavy sanctions, and Newyorkbrad's comment about the breadth of this DS area beyond the GamerGate topic causing confusion to uninitiated editors working on articles relating to LGBT+ issues. Deryck C. 19:11, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

If any editor directs trans-phobic language against another editor, that should be treated as a WP:NPA violation with utmost severity, irrespective of the GamerGate / transgender issues DS. Deryck C. 16:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by AReaderOutThataway

I have to concur with Mendaliv that this request would be a prospective, pre-emptive misuse of ArbCom. Worse, the entire notion is subjective. We've seen repeatedly that certain editors (including the filer of this requests, whose topic-ban from human sexuality broadly construed has been reinstated in the interim) have novel and activistic ideas of what might qualify as "transphobic", and even "mis-gendering". E.g., it's been seriously proposed by some of these editors that if Editor A makes up a fake word like "zerm" and declares this to be their pronoun that other editors should be sanctionable if they use singular they or take any other, generally acceptable, approach to gender neutrality or pronoun avoidance. This is not ForcedSpeechPedia, nor FarLeftPostmoderistLanguageReformPedia, nor MakeEveryoneOnMySideFeelBetterThroughPoliticalCorrectionPedia. The only expansion we need to the WP:AC/DS authorized for this entire range of topics is faster topic-banning for abuse of Wikipedia as a soci-political lobbying platform. The modern US politics topic is almost getting that locked-down already, and the encyclopedic result is better, even if some far-to-one-side-or-the-other editors have a sore metaphorical booty about getting muzzled on the topic. — AReaderOutThatawayt/c 00:24, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by May His Shadow Fall Upon You

I'm very late to the game, but since the request is still open, I thought I'd chime in. It should be denied for the following reasons. (1) As stated above, this is prospective and not remedial, and therefore not something ArbCom should do. (2) It's unclear as to what, exactly, is transphobic speech. There are some examples that are patently obvious but given that language is evolving and what can be considered "transphobic" is often highly debatable, this is basically a minefield. (3) It's unclear what the practical ramifications of "shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction" would be. The key word in discretionary sanctions is "discretionary." So now it would be mandatory sanctions? In short, I don't see how the current DS is inadequate in any way. May His Shadow Fall Upon You Talk 16:11, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by

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

GamerGate: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @ and Mendaliv: As far as I understand, it is not accurate to say The GamerGate case superseded and ... took on the the original motions and amendments of Sexology. However, discretionary sanctions were rescinded in the Sexology case by the motion Fæ has linked to, and it seems clear from the discussion of the arbs in and around that motion that this was done because the GG sanctions, which cover all "gender-related controversies," already covered the "transgender issues" topic that the ARBSEX sanctions covered. So I believe ARBGG is the correct case to file this under. GoldenRing (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

GamerGate: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • We usually issue guidance on this page without formal motions. I think this request can be handled well enough by arbitrator comments (or Views and discussion, if you want the jargon). We have been asked: is use of discussion pages on Wikipedia to state or imply that trans people are part of a transgender conspiracy, agenda, ideology or similar defamatory "gay agenda" an example of conduct enforceable under Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions? In many cases, the answer will be no. In my view, such conduct must take place in the context of content relating to gender. Mentioning gender or transgender questions does not in itself trigger the DS regime. The GamerGate discretionary sanctions were designed to deal with conduct at Wikipedia articles, and the scope of sanctions does not extend to all corners of Wikipedia. None of this is to say that Wikipedia does not need, or ought not to develop, a set of rules for enforcement of the issues highlighted by Fae; I make no comment about that here. The arbitration decision about GamerGate simply does not stretch endlessly beyond edits to the related articles and closely-related discussions (eg talk page or noticeboard threads about conduct on the articles). Its scope is clear and this request seems to raise new matters that should be addressed separately, probably in a fresh arbitration request. The prospects of the latter being accepted are poor if there is no prior attempt to develop proposals by community consensus. AGK ■ 12:17, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    Those protections already exist under GamerGate. An acceptable reading of the decision is not that the enforcement may happen against any insult, allegation, or slur. Both the setting and the content of the offending edit need to be correct. Your proposal removes the first test, and therefore needs a fresh case. AGK ■ 13:23, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • We have various guidelines and policies on conduct, Wikipedia:List_of_policies#Conduct, which assist us in dealing with unacceptable behaviour in the community, including discrimination and personal attacks. Wikipedia:No personal attacks covers the area of concern, particularly where it says that these types of comments are never acceptable: "Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, religious or political beliefs, disabilities, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors." If existing policies are not felt to be strong enough, then discussion could take place with the community as a whole on the appropriate talkpage of the relevant policies. SilkTork (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm struggling a bit with this request, and I'm not sure if it's my misunderstanding or Fae's. Discretionary sanctions are available for the area of transgender issues - all pages, not just mainspace. That means that in that area, an uninvolved administrator can implement a discretionary sanction - i.e. a restriction, or any sort of block or ban - at their discretion (subject to awareness etc). I think that's clear. Yet, what Fae is asking for is Arbcom confirm by motion that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. Well, I don't know a specific placed sanction that would be breached in those circumstances (has someone placed a sanction that Fae is asking for clarification on?) I guess the answer is "no" because I'm not sure how well all the bumf that goes along with DS simply because mention of gender comes up.
    That said, I do take Fae's point well, Wikipedia does need some way to manage anti-trans language, and as SilkTork explains, NPA does cover most of areas. Where they are lacking, that is the place to bring up the discussion, not trying to use DS - which needs to be used only in the rare cases that discussion cannot sort things.
    Finally, I see you refer to "gender warrior", a comment made by an arb. I cannot recall said comment, but out of context would consider that a positive comment - of someone who is fighting for equality across the genders. Could you point me to the context? WormTT(talk) 12:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    , at my talk page, you refuse to answer my question because I warned you for violating unban condition off wiki, under threat of a block, 4 years ago. You're now further refusing to answer questions because a former arbitrator has responded to a request directed to a team she is on - which has apparently nothing to do with this request.
    You no longer appear to be seeking clarification from this committee, and I have no positive words to describe your behaviour, which I believe speaks for itself. As far as I am concerned, this request should be closed and archived promptly. WormTT(talk) 16:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • DS can be placed on articles where this kind of behavior is happening, but I don't think we can (or should) say that anti-trans or transphobic language, shall be considered an immediate breach of the discretionary sanction. That is far too black-and-white for what can be a very complex issue. I would probably be considered by many to be on the strict side of enforcing BLP/NPA when it comes to anti-trans language, but even I can easily see cases where such a motion would backfire. Probably the most common would be when people use transphobic language without realizing they are—it's hardly uncommon for people who are editing in good faith to use language that is outdated and/or offensive without realizing it, and this is best addressed by correcting the language and moving on—not slamming them with some sort of arbitration enforcement action. I think that our existing policies allow for adequate handling of anti-trans language, and if the concern is that they are not being enforced properly, I don't think this kind of action is going to help things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:42, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    Fae, I'd recommend dropping the stuff about Risker. It's not relevant to this request, and your attempts to involve her are not reflecting well on you. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
    I do like NYB's point about naming. I agree that it's very confusing (and bears with it a fairly negative connotation) to lump topics like transgender issues in with the GamerGate sanctions when there is really no GamerGate connection. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Mendaliv: NYB is correct. The GamerGate sanctions were authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed. This means they apply to any gender-related dispute or controversy or people associated with any gender-related dispute or controversy, broadly construed, regardless of whether said dispute/controversy/person has anything to do with GamerGate. I take it that you disagree with that, but would ask you to open a separate ARCA if you wish to ask for it to be amended. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Mendaliv: If you do not wish to have it amended then I suppose we can end this conversation. But that is the scope of the remedy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:56, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3

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

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


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



Information about amendment request
  • Remove ambiguity


Statement by Zero0000

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

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

Statement by JJE

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

Statement by

Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the amendment request or provide additional information.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • While it does not seem like the current wording has been problematic yet and it is technically impossible for non-admins to delete articles, I am fine with the suggestion of adding 'created' to clarify to what by is referring. Mkdw talk 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: German war effort

Initiated by K.e.coffman at 14:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
German war effort arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German_war_effort#Remedies


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
  • New remedy (please see statement)


Statement by K.e.coffman

Per the Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#General conclusion and remedy, "Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions."

Instances of recent (August 2019) uncollegial behaviour by Peacemaker67:

  1. An unprovoked personal jab: it makes me question whether this is yet another example of something that K.e.coffman just doesn't like, typically because there are Nazis involved. [7]
  2. This is apparently in response to my comments [8] where I mentioned the word "trivia" once; another unprovoked jab: I just do not (...) accept K.e.coffman's perennial argument about what constitutes trivia in military history biographies. [9]
  3. Relitigating the arbcom case at a Featured article review: I've made observations on the editing behaviour of two editors based on long experience, which I can back up with many diffs, many of which I used in the ArbCom case, particularly with respect to K.e.coffman. [10]
  4. Accusations of a lack of competence and having an ideological motivation: They both [K.e.coffman & Assayer] have demonstrated over an extended period significant deficiencies in understanding what is a relevant piece of information for a military biography (...), and both constantly harp on about useful and interesting information that has been included in good faith in the interests of our readers. With these two editors, this only occurs in the cases of Nazis... [11]
  5. Doubling down on aspersions after they have been pointed out to Peacemaker67 by others: It is not a personal attack to point out a pattern of editing behaviour and a demonstrated lack of experience or knowledge in these matters. [12]

The diffs 2 through 5 are from Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1 where I have not mentioned Peacemaker67 nor engaged with his arguments in any way. Yet he found it appropriate to attack me and another contributor.

Compare with pre-Arbcom diffs, with the same tone and similar language:

Since the arbcom case concluded, I've observed other instances of Peacemaker67's incivility and combattiveness, as well as claiming special status as a project coordinator; these comments were directed at me and another contributor: "too smart by half"; "ambit claim"; "if you want to be a coord, run at the next election"; "Because we have been elected by the members of the project to administer parts of the project (...). You haven't"; etc.

I discussed these and other diffs on Peacemaker67's Talk page in December 2018: User talk:Peacemaker67/Archive 20#Request. The responce was: The lack of self-awareness in this post is breathtaking.

I thus don't believe that further discussion with Peacemaker67 would be productive and I'm bringing this dispute here, based on a continued pattern of behaviour pre- and post-Arbcom case. I'm requesting an amendment to the case with either an admonishment, a warning, or a one-way interaction ban, depending on how the committee views these diffs. --K.e.coffman (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Peacemaker67

G'day everyone. This is an transparent attempt to re-litigate the German war effort case, in an attempt to achieve something KEC and his/her supporters were unable to achieve with the original case, that is some sort of sanction against me. It also digs up material that pre-dates the ArbCom case, and which was considered during the case, and for which I was not sanctioned, in an attempt to "fatten the brief". I can only assume this has been brought because KEC wishes to clear the field of editors that disagree with his/her POV and problematic editing approach. KEC comes to this request, as he/she did to the original case, with unclean hands, something that was pointed out by DeltaQuad in the findings of the case, due to his edit-warring, citation removal sprees and content removal sprees, the latter two of which continue unabated [16][17][18][19][20]. My views on KEC's editing approach were made clear in my evidence at the case, and I link it here for ease of reference. KEC's demonstrated editing behaviour has not changed since that time and I stick by my assessments of it, and do not apologise for restating it when it continues to be displayed. Long-term patterns of behaviour are telling in this regard, and one cannot indefinitely assume good faith when an editor fails to change their behaviour despite clear indications that there are problems with it. As I mentioned in my evidence during the case, I continue to avoid KEC wherever possible, because his/her "censorious editing behaviour, wikilawyering and repeated refusal to “drop the stick” [are] frankly quite odd, unpleasant and exhausting". The attempt to insinuate that I am in any way pro-Nazi because I believe all military biographies (including those on Nazis) should be balanced, neutral and contain appropriate levels of detail is given the lie by several FAs I have written on senior Nazis such as August Meyszner. I provided links to the rest in my evidence at the case, so I won't repeat them all here but the whole idea is risible.

This particular issue is a content issue regarding the Albert Kesselring article, which is currently undergoing a FAR brought by KEC, and I have contributed to the FAR having been alerted to it by dint of being a member of WikiProject Military history. I otherwise normally avoid KEC, for the reasons stated above, unless he/she edits a page on my watchlist. KEC and several other editors believe that the Kesselring article should be delisted as a FA, and several others, including myself, disagree. In fact, nearly all of those that think it should be delisted are represented here already, which should tell Arbs something. I have made clear, both in the case and on the FAR page that I consider KEC's views on what should be in a Featured military biography betray a lack of understanding of what should be included in a military biography. This is an issue of competence which KEC should have developed by now but apparently refuses to acquire. This has been clearly shown hundreds of times. The problem here is not only that KEC has never written a FA on a military person or even reviewed any that I am aware of (except this FAR), but that he/she works almost entirely on Nazis biographies (often through deleting material from their articles, or nominating and prosecuting their delisting, see Pudeo's statement), and has consistently failed to demonstrate that he/she has acquired knowledge during his time on WP of what the general consensus (developed over the creation and review of hundreds of FA military biographies by the Wikipedia community) is regarding what sort of detail should be included in such biographies. He/she has made thousands of edits deleting what he/she sees as "trivial" information from military biographies, almost all on Nazis. KEC's definition of "trivia" is extremely broad, and includes details of early life and World War I service, meaning that all that often remains is material on their World War II service and any war crimes. Essentially, due to KEC's narrow focus on Nazis and war crimes and lack of knowledge or acceptance about what a comprehensive military biography should look like, he/she only possesses an anti-Nazi hammer, and sees everything as a nail. If he/she had actually developed military biography articles to FA him/herself (perhaps even outside the narrow area of Nazis as well), he/she would have had to develop the necessary competence and modify his/her views in order to get consensus from other editors for the articles to be promoted, but because he/she has not done that he/she remains unmoved. As I said during the case, this behaviour does not contribute to the encyclopaedia, it harms it. KEC has done good work elsewhere, but this problematic behaviour continues. These are not "aspersions", they are observable facts, and I provided many diffs demonstrating their existence during the case, and have added a few more above.

Drmies was completely out of line in suggesting in the Kesselring FAR that Hawkeye7 could be blocked for disagreeing with the comments by KEC. Just because KEC makes a comment does not mean it is accurate, and the suggestion that Hawkeye7 could be blocked for disagreeing with KEC smacks of an attempt to intimidate. I suggested Drmies step back and take a deep breath because it was completely inappropriate behaviour to be threatening an editor because they did not agree with a criticism. If Drmies found that patronising that says more about them than me, and also doesn't make it so, nor does telling someone to step back and take a deep breath when they have threatened another editor constitute a personal attack.

No sanction is warranted here, because I have provided evidence for all of the comments I have made about KEC's editing behaviour and competence (and which have not been directed at his/her character), either here or in the original case. My observations about KEC's editing behaviour and competence are based on many diffs (above and in the case) and long experience. They are not "aspersions", because an aspersion is an attack on the integrity of a person. I have not commented on KEC's integrity or character, I have made observations on KEC's demonstrated editing behaviour and competence to draw conclusions about a content matter on which he/she is advancing his/her opinion. Neither are any of these comments a personal attack. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:09, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll add that, when it comes to "clean hands", it is hardly "collegial" behaviour for KEC to maintain a user page that mocks the efforts of good faith editors and "grave-dances" over his/her "victories". Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Also, to Szzuk and others advancing conspiracy theories regarding MILHIST, clearly MILHIST is a branch office of the Cabal, and we must be stopped. The lack of MILHIST people piling on here despite many of them stalking my user talk page (unlike KEC's boosters who found their way here without any difficulty) put the lie to this nonsense. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies

This is not unexpected. I was very dismayed by Hawkeye's comments at the FA review for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1, but given their history of ownership and antagonism "none of this is true" was maybe to be expected (and yes, I consider calling another editor "liar" to be blockworthy, esp. when the subsequent attention to the review proves that the editor concedes that at least some "of this" was true). What I did not expect was Peacemaker's personal attacks and belligerence--just search for "Drmies you need to take a deep breath and step back", twice. Note that another editor agreed this was ad hominem (I don't think I know Figureofnine very well, and this comment suggests they have a properly uninvolved view). Playing the man, not the ball, is definitely "uncollegial behavior".

And while we're at it, perhaps the committee is interested in this little note by Pudeo, which is just as bad. Pudeo wasn't part of the first case, I know. Drmies (talk) 15:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Pudeo

The approaches here are just fundamentally different. Most content is far from perfect in Wikipedia, even FAs. And indeed the newest FAR resulted in improvements. Yet K.e.coffman's drastical appraoch treats German military biographies in a vastly different manner than any other military biopgrahies, as discussed in the ArbCom case. Multiply this ad nauseam in various GA and FA reviews: Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Speer/archive1, Talk:Joachim Müncheberg/GA2, Talk:Erich Hartmann/GA1, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Albert Kesselring/archive1, and you might see some signs of frustration, as there usually is to WP:CPUSH. BTW, Assayer popped up in each of these reviews started by K.e.coffman despite his infrequent editing pace, hence my WP:TAGTEAM point.

None of the comments by Hawkeye7 or Peacemaker67 were actual personal attacks. While K.e.coffman's commentary is civil on the surface, it's hardly of the honest type. As DeltaQuad referenced in her proposed decision vote in #Conduct of K.e.coffman, K.e.coffman updates their userpage with post-dispute gloating and collects diffs of things their opponents have said in K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour (which I nominated for MfD, no consensus §). As an example, they mock MisterBee1966 on the polemic userpage[21][22]; whereas MisterBee1966 had nominated K.e.coffman for Military History Newcomer of the Year in 2015. Talk about uncollegial behaviour. --Pudeo (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde (German war effort)

This request rather depresses me, because, to the best of my knowledge, I've gotten along quite well with most of the protagonists. So, I will confine myself to saying that if ARBCOM ends up examining this latest conflict, it should examine the behavior of all of those involved, and not just of the two named parties, whose conduct is not the most blame-worthy in this mess. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Figureofnine

I was just pinged by Drmies above and hence alerted to this request. The examples cited by KE coffman are disturbing. There needs to be zero tolerance of that kind of thing. Regretably a civility noticeboard dealing with just these kinds of issues was shut down a few years ago, which shows you how unseriously civility is viewed on Wikipedia. If editors can't abide by a simple civility directive they are a net negative to the project. Figureofnine (talkcontribs) 19:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Assayer

After a pause of about four months I provided an extensive review of the article on Albert Kesselring [23]. PM67 saw it fit to comment on a brief addendum, claiming that this was typical of my criticisms and would demonstrate my significant deficiencies in understanding what is a relevant piece of information for a military biography. If someone openly picks up some minor point,[24] misrepresents the underlying argument and infers that this was proof of general incompetence, I call that a straw man argument. I do not understand, why PM67 somewhat routinely casts aspersions like that, because in general I have found them amenable to new historical research on war crimes. But they should be called upon to stop that and to focus on content.

As to Pudeo’s insinuation: Not only did I comment on Albert Speer and Albert Kesselring well before any FA review was initiated. I also rewrote a portion of the Speer article back in 2017 to keep it at FA level.[25] Besides, the verifiability of the content I provide may speak for itself. I got the impression that it is not my “editing behavior” (PM67) which annoys some authors, but my approach, which has been perceived as being “hard line anti-Nazi de WP” - as if an anti-Nazi approach was by any means a problem. The military history of Nazi Germany is indeed different from other military histories, because the German military became complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity to an extent hitherto unknown. To claim that this is a military history like any other promotes the myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” and is not in line with the findings of military historiography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Assayer (talkcontribs) 02:18, 31. August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz

Biographies of Nazis (as other areas in which there are significant myth promotion and POV promotion - from some circles outside of Wikipedia) merit extra attention. At the very least we want avoid such non-mainstream lionizing content from creeping into Wikipedia.Icewhiz (talk) 06:45, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SN54129

Re. This is an transparent attempt to re-litigate the German war effort case. There is a certain irony in the Lead coordinator for WP:MILHIST accusing others of relitigating it...when neither he personally nor his colleagues (by extension, MILHIST as a body) ever accepted the committee's ruling over GWE. From the September 2018 MILHIST coordinator elections—that opened less than a month after the case closed—of the candidates

  • User:Arius1998 (said I have reservations with the specifics as exhibited in the findings of fact and the remedies)
  • User:Auntieruth (said I did not agree with the findings of fact)
  • User:Cinderella157 (said the decision generally lacks credibility, although to be fair had just been topic-banned)
  • User:Hawkeye7 (said I cannot agree with the findings of fact)
  • User:Kges1901 (said I disagreed with several of the FoFs and some of the remedies)
  • User:Peacemaker97 (said they had have reservations about a couple of the FoF)
  • User:Zawed (said Some of the findings and remedies didn't seem to match the evidence presented)

Of those seven, six were elected. The philosophy has not changed, and this is at the heart of the current request: the same mindhive-approach and intransigence to change that caused the original case was literally, unambiguously, restated less than a month after WP's governing body adjudicated. Now, everyone's entitled to disagree with arbcom, of course;* but when one's disagreement is in effect a refusal to take on board valid community criticisms, leading to the reoccurrence of the same behaviors, then it's beyond being a mere disagreement and is actively disruptive. ——SerialNumber54129 11:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

* I've been known to do so myself on occasion :)

PS, is there a word limit here? ——SerialNumber54129 11:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Szzuk

My opinion is this;

  • a) MILHIST are an unofficial canvassing board
  • b) A command structure is in place; there is a commanding officer and subordinate officers
  • c) There is a system of rewards; barnstars, badges, A Class reviews, GA and FA support
  • d) There is a system to co-ordinate the "protection" of FA and GA
  • d) There is a system of punishments; exclusion, narky remarks, obstruction, personal attacks and in the original ARBCOM case wikihounding

The Kesselring article is full of Nazi apologia and MILHIST are protecting it. It doesn't look like much has changed since the original ARBCOM. The KEC talk page is the unofficial anti-MILHIST page and that situation won't change until this matter is sorted out.Szzuk (talk) 12:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave

One of the principles of the case, "Criticism and casting aspersions", reads An editor must not accuse another of inappropriate conduct without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. Comments should not be personalized, but should instead be directed at content and specific actions. Disparaging an editor or casting aspersions can be considered a personal attack. If accusations are made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate dispute resolution forums. (emphasis mine). The diffs presented by K.E. Coffman demonstrate that Peacemaker has continued to ignore the principle even after the close of the case.

Our civility standards apply regardless of any content dispute or conduct issue on the part of another editor. If Peacemaker and others notice a pattern of problematic behavior, this needs to be raised at the appropriate venue, not on these various article and project talk pages. –dlthewave 16:00, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Dank

I'd prefer not to say anything. Please don't take on an explosive issue like this one at a time when there's too much to do and not enough people to do it. - Dank (push to talk) 11:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC) [Tweaked to remove "Framgate" 18:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)]

Statement by Laser brain

I don't recall having ever had any interactions with K.e.coffman nor was I familiar with this case until now. I followed the Featured Article Review discussion for Albert Kesselring here and read up on all the background. That said, I find this filing to be borderline frivolous and the examples posted of PM's or Hawkeye's alleged transgressions to be utterly unconvincing. Having deep experience in the Featured article process, which includes our most rigorous review of content, these interactions strike me as normal discourse when there are content disagreements. I don't see any personal attacks or aspersions, nor do I view it as problematic to point out obvious patterns in editing behavior. --Laser brain (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by

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.

German war effort: Clerk notes

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

German war effort: Arbitrator views and discussion


Motions

Requests for enforcement


Arbitration enforcement action appeal by Buffs

Extended confirmed protection removed from the specific article. Discussion about the application of ECP more generally, including logging, is happening at WP:AN#Why is Ibn Saud under restrictions??. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Procedural notes: The rules governing arbitration enforcement appeals are found here. According to the procedures, a "clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved administrators" is required to overturn an arbitration enforcement action.

To help determine any such consensus, involved editors may make brief statements in separate sections but should not edit the section for discussion among uninvolved editors. Editors are normally considered involved if they are in a current dispute with the sanctioning or sanctioned editor, or have taken part in disputes (if any) related to the contested enforcement action. Administrators having taken administrative actions are not normally considered involved for this reason alone (see WP:UNINVOLVED).

Appealing user 
Buffs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Buffs (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Sanction being appealed 
Currently, ECP is in effect for the Ibn Saud page as Ymblanter applied in 2016. Prior to this action, there was no significant evidence of disruption nor evidence presented that connected it in any significant manner to the Israeli-Arab conflict discretionary sanctions in place. This has been discussed at WP:AN#Why_is_Ibn_Saud_under_restrictions?? and there seems to be at least a significant concern that this oversteps the bounds of those sanctions and should be reverted. Likewise, I do not see it listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration_enforcement_log/2016#Palestine-Israel_articles as required...
...This is a problem for MANY articles and it appears that such discretionary sanctions and ECP are being applied gratuitously/inappropriately (look at WP:AN for examples. I realize this is not exactly the location for such a discussion, but this is one example of many and it should be noted. I think part of this is that "broadly construed" has been taken quite literally by many editors and taken to lengths that are not reasonable (think: the difference between "all doubt" and "all reasonable doubt" in court hearings in the US). Likewise, admins have been sloppy about reporting such actions with no sanctions/steps being taken against "whoops, I forgot it". As such, ArbCom and others lack sufficient oversight on ECP applications and discretionary sanctions. For example, currently on WP:AN, of the articles listed that have had ECP applies, 30% lack any justification whatsoever. Again, this instance is simple one example of a larger problem. The only point I'd like made in the closing of this request is that this issue has been noted. Perhaps such input will be an impetus to more oversight on such actions.
I'd like to add that my concern is not so much with Ymblanter personally. I really don't know about his/her editing habits. But I think that a lack of oversight on this process has allowed it to spiral into what it is today. Ymblanter's actions are a symptom, one I'm not certain is intentional. `
Administrator imposing the sanction 
Ymblanter (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

notification

Statement by Buffs

See above

@Newyorkbrad:, @Hut 8.5:: Thank you so much for your inputs. May I ask for comment about logging such ECPs? Is that not part of the requirements? While this may not exactly be the forum to use (or maybe it should be?...I don't know). I think a review of the articles under ECP is in order to make sure they've been properly logged. To be blunt, this seems like the proper forum to ask such a question/direct such questions, but I could be wrong. Buffs (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad:, @Hut 8.5: Thank you to both of you. Buffs (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Ymblanter

As I said at AN, the case is similar to the one (AirBNB) which caused the currently pending PIA ArbCom case. For this article, I would be willing to unprotect. It will obviously need to be reprotected if PIA-related disruption starts, or if the outcome of the ArbCom case would require protection.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (involved editor 1)

Statement by (involved editor 2)

Discussion among uninvolved editors about the appeal by Buffs

We should not be preemptively locking down articles that are not "broadly construed" to be in the conflict area. We should be as unlocked as possible to allow as many people to edit Wikipedia. If disruption occurs, then we have escalation steps that we can take, up to and including locking it down. But to lock it down when nobody ever edited it in the first place just seems so wrong. I think it should be unlocked and the edit notice be removed. If someone does edit in the article in a way that is disruptive to the IP conflict, then we can deal with it then the same way we deal with it now in other articles that are not locked down with ECP protection but where edits are broadly construed to be an IP area edit. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to add a comment on how crazy the whole area is, this is not the proper venue for this anyway, when I asked about it, I was told you needed to file an ARBCOM amendment request, not an AE action, but in any event, I stand by my original comment that the article should be unprotected and all articles should be unprotected until it really and truly needs to be ECP protected. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by Buffs

  • The rules governing the Israel-Palestine discretionary sanctions have become so complicated that I find it helpful to translate the current request into more straightforward terms before addressing it. The editing environment on articles about the Israel/Palestine conflict has become so contentious that, as a major exception to our status as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit," editors are not allowed to edit articles on this subject until they have accumulated 500 edits on other subjects over more than 30 days (and thereby attained "extendedconfirmed" status). It is unfortunate that imposing this requirement became necessary, and it should not be expanded beyond that necessity. In this case, editing of the article on Ibn Saud was placed under this restriction because one paragraph of the article relates to Israel/Palestine, but the rest of the article doesn't. Articles that are only tangentially related to Israel/Palestine should not be placed under extendedconfirmed restriction unless there has been an actual problem with the editing of the article. Here, the article history reflects no edit-warring or undue contentiousness on any Israel/Palestine aspect (or any other aspect). The administrator who restricted the article has agreed that the restriction can be lifted, and I !vote to make it so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Buffs: I'll leave it to an admin who is more active than I am in actually enforcing these sanctions to respond to your question. In principle, all sanctions must be logged, but if there are dozens or hundreds of articles being put under ECP (I actually don't know), listing them all might inundate the logs. If you have any concerns and they aren't addressed here, you might raise them in the review case that ArbCom will be opening on the Israel-Palestine topic-area in a couple of weeks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Agree with what NYB said, the article has only a weak connection to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and there's no track record of disruption on that issue. If that kind of disruption does occur then the article can be reprotected. Hut 8.5 06:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Buffs: I believe that protections done under ARBPIA should in theory be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, but in practice given that there's so many it often doesn't happen. If you want to start a discussion about it then WP:AN or posssibly some ArbCom talk page would be a better venue than here. Hut 8.5 17:56, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm no fan of preemptive page protection of any kind, but I can understand the need in certain rare circumstances such as the current Israel–Palestine area. Nevertheless, that need has to be balanced against our fundamental desire to make editing as free has possible. In articles whose connection to I–P is tenuous (as in Ibn Saud), I agree that ECP should not be automatic. Brad has proposed a workable razor: if there is evidence of significant problems in marginally related articles, then ECP can be applied, but it should not be applied in the absence of any problems. I'd certainly support that as general guidance. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This was already being discussed at AN. Either AE or AN are viable venues for appeal, but AN supersedes this AE. This should be closed without further ado and the discussion continued at AN. FWIW, I agree that the protection is not in line with current practice and have removed it. I would have done so when this was first reported but have been unable to edit due to phab:T232491. GoldenRing (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Gbabuch

The General Prohibition is enforced, for preference, using extended-confirmed protection and this appears to have been effective in this case. If this user keeps editing A-I articles, please report to me, another admin, or back here; the result should be a longish block. GoldenRing (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning Gbabuch

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Huldra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 23:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Gbabuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
WP:A/I/PIA#General_Prohibition :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 09:10, 9 September 2019 the same, undo revert
  2. 01:17, 6 September 2019 the same, undo revert
  3. 17:14, 5 September 2019 with edit line "formatting shift" s/he moves Hebrew text before Arabic on the Solomon's Pools article (located on the West Bank)
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Given an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 21:57, 5 September 2019
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 
  • Gbabuch has less than 100 edits, and by the "General Prohibition" he should not be editing this controversial area. They were made explicitly aware of this on 21:57, 5 September 2019, asked to revert, but only removes the request. Huldra (talk) 23:07, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: the user "devalues" the Arabic script on a West Bank article (by placing it after Hebrew): that is not only a "reverted because they lack EC user rights": I would have reverted anyone who did that. (Yeah, picky, I know: this is the IP area..) Huldra (talk) 23:59, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I am not very happy about all articles coming under ECP. I find IPs and newbies having edited these articles virtually every time I log on, most of the time they do perfectly good ce. Like this IP today at Susya. I would off course never revert such an IP, just because they technically do not fulfil the EPC demands.
And of course Gbabuch can remove my edits from their talk page, but when they do so (and do not revert, as I asked them to do), I think it is fair to assume that they have no intention of reverting their article edit.
The reason I reported Gbabuch was not only because they violated 30/500, but because of the POV edit (putting Hebrew first), combined with less than honest edit line (Their edit line was "My formatting for aesthetic purposes"), when there clearly was more that just "aesthetic purposes". (Unless they define Hebrew first as being more "aesthetic"...lol), Huldra (talk) 21:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

Discussion concerning Gbabuch

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

Statement by Gbabuch

Statement by Buffs

Removing a notice on your talk page should not be considered a detrimental or dismissive act. No one is required to keep such notices on their talk page. As a community, we need to abide by our own rules instead of casting aspersions on actions that are permitted under our own rules (see Wikipedia:User_pages#Removal_of_comments,_notices,_and_warnings). "But he just removed it as soon as I posted it." So what? That he saw it is the important thing. It isn't your place to log wrongs on their user talk page. Buffs (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@GoldenRing: um...yes? ECP for Solomon's Pools has not been logged... Buffs (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Gbabuch

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • If this article is subject to the extendedconfirmed restriction, can't this implemented simply by an admin's EC-protecting the page? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If the user is simply being reverted because they lack EC user rights, per se., then that is something myself and several other admins just recently declined at RfPP. But if prioritizing the Hebrew text over the Arabic is a point of contention, then yes, ECP would be the next logical step. El_C 23:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    • @Huldra: Extended confirmed protected indefinitely. El_C 00:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • Note that some of what I'm referring in my first comment (and many more issues) is likely to be addressed at the soon-to-be-convened WP:ARBPIA4. El_C 18:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Gbabuch moved the order of languages in Solomon's Pools to place Hebrew before Arabic on 5 September. Soon after, they were notified of the discretionary sanctions which apply to the Arab–Israeli conflict and their edit was reverted by Huldra. The next day they reverted to their preferred version and were reverted by Huldra once more. Yesterday, they reverted again and were later reverted by SharabSalam. It's pretty clear to me that edit-warring in that manner is sanctionable in any article, and doubly so in any article under discretionary sanctions. If the I–P sanctions are to remain useful in tamping down misbehaviour in that area, we should not be backing away from imposing sanctions in the face of a clear breach. I suggest that Gbabuch should be subject to a topic ban from all pages related to the Arab–Israeli conflict, broadly construed, reviewable after six months. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • AFAICT, ECP has effectively solved this problem. Is there anything else to do here? GoldenRing (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Lsparrish

Lsparrish is given a logged warning to avoid edit warring or promotion of fringe material on articles under discretionary sanctions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Lsparrish

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
JzG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Lsparrish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary sanctions :

Requesting a topic ban from fringe science topics.

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 

Lsparrish is basically a WP:SPA advancing the fringe field of cryonics, an area which is a long-term focus of civil POV pushing by advocates of the commercially lucrative but scientifically insupportable freezing of recently deceased individuals, or parts thereof (normally the brain).

  1. 31 August 2019 Mainspace ediot tagging Cryonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as {{npov}} in WP:1AM dispute, reverted by Daviid Gerard
  2. 8 September 2019 Mainspace edit adding freeze/thaw of a nemetode - irrelevant to crynocis as sold to humans, reverted by me
  3. 10 September 2019 Series of edits advancing pro-cryionics POV, reverted by David Gerard
  4. 10 September 2019 Mainspace edit tagging Cryonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as {{npov}} in WP:1AM dispute, reverted by Roxy the dog
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

See [26]. Edits to:

These support fringe views pretty much consistently. Lsparrish has occasionally tried to make these articles less like sci-fi and mroe like an encyclopaedia (e.g. [27]) but the overall weight of contributions is consistently to advance a field that is, bluntly, a scam.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[28]

Discussion concerning Lsparrish

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

Statement by Lsparrish

Hello everyone. It is good to see more eyes on these edits, as well as constructive comments from uninvolved editors.

I fully acknowledge that cryonics is unproven and does not enjoy general acceptance. However, I feel I have raised reasonable concerns with the current text of the Cryonics article. I would be interested in resolving these in collaboration with others if permitted to to so.

As you can probably tell, I'm still getting the hang of editing Wikipedia, and some of the rules as to what is considered edit-warring are still a bit opaque to me. I've been mostly puzzled by the very rapid (and often accompanied by snarky and/or accusatory comments) reverts to my recent changes on the article, which were (I thought) not particularly POV pushing, rather the opposite. I hoped that a few reverts here and there of these seemingly hostile reverts would draw additional scrutiny from uninvolved editors. Edit warring, according to my previous understanding of the concept, involves attempts to wear out the opposition with repetitive reverts, something I've never purposely done and have no intention to do under any circumstance.

Regarding my comments on Talk being basically POV pushing, it may be that I've been a bit more verbose or stubborn than was merited. I've tried, perhaps unsuccessfully, to strike a balance between pushing back on extreme POV (which seems to be that anything speculative must therefore be fraud) and the demands of brevity / Wikipedia's scope. Cryonics has been marketed as speculative from the beginning, and I'm hopeful that further sources will be found noting that this is actually okay, regardless of whether I'm involved in the article's future development.

That being said, I'd be grateful for another chance to get this right, and welcome any feedback on how to do a better job and be a better editor. Lsparrish (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by David Gerard

Lsparrish has an extensive history of attempting to edit-war WP:PROFRINGE edits into the article, and long-winded and tendentious justification of his edit-warring on the talk page - look at the history and talk for many examples. He has been warned several times, both on his own talk page and the article talk page, that discretionary sanctions exist in the area, and is quite aware. It would be good if this stopped, but he's been promoting cryonics online for at least the last nine years, and there's no visible reason to say he'll stop even if he were to claim he would - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

Thoughts from an uninvolved editor:

  1. Regardless of anything else, there no consensus on the talk page for the NPOV tag or for Lsparrish's changes. It seems like a classic WP:1AM situation at Talk:Cryonics.
  2. Regardless of anything else, including 3RR, there is clear edit warring shown on the article's history, right up to today.
  3. Edits like this and this (both from today), and this (a month ago) shows, to me, repeated attempts to insert a specific pro-cryonics POV.
  4. Random House is not really the best publisher for scientific or academic information, IMO.
  5. Cryonics#Reception has a lot of sources establishing cryonics as fringe.
  6. In addition, I did a quick search, and was able to come up with many examples (not all of this is in the publisher's voice, some are quotes from scientists):
    • This list from NIH says it all to me: "Through the centuries, a variety of anti-aging approaches have recurred. Among them have been alchemy, the use of precious metals ... grafts (or injected extracts) from the testicles, ovaries, or glands of various animal species; ... consumption of elixirs, ointments, drugs, hormones, dietary supplements, and specific foods; cryonics; and rejuvenation from devices and exposure to various substances such as mineral and thermal springs"
    • NYTimes "other fringe fields like cryonics"
    • Chicago Tribune "generally viewed as a fringe pseudoscience"
    • WaPo "science fiction at its worst"
    • LATimes "After 23 years on the fringe, however, cryonics is clearly evolving from cult phenomenon into California’s latest--and perhaps most troubled--growth industry"
    • Skeptics Magazine "the stuff of science fiction and pseudoscientific web sites"
    • This Oxford book by the publisher of Skeptics magazine lists Cryonics between acupuncture and Omega Point.
  • I was going to say, "but it's a new editor with 170 edits, let's give them a warning". However, looking at their talk page, I can see that over the last three months, they've been given three warnings from three different editors (none of which are the filer). Unfortunately, these warnings have not effected any change in behavior.
  • There may be a conversation to be had about how to portray cryonics, but it's not by edit warring or taking a 1AM position. There needs to be compromises; sources put forward; text proposed; !votes made, and–regardless of anything else–consensus needs to be followed, and sticks should remain on the ground. Levivich 14:49, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Buffs

I was going to add my two cents in here and had a list of things I'd found...

Suffice to say "what Levivich said" is sufficient/spot on. Buffs (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JFG

This is essentially a content dispute. The editor under scrutiny has been warned against pushing fringe POV, and s/he welcomes a civil debate on the wording of the article. No sanction necessary. — JFG talk 10:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Lsparrish says I have raised reasonable concerns with the current text of the Cryonics article. I would be interested in resolving these in collaboration with others if permitted to to so, and he has indeed argued for it, while edit-warring {{npov}} into the article, but this misses the crucial point that after a long period of arguing this view, he is failing to accept the consensus that his changes are excessively WP:PROFRINGE. Content disputes are easy to deal with. Editors who refuse to take "no" for an answer, are what sanctions are for. This is one of those cases. This is not a report asking admins to weigh up whether cryonics is quackery, and if so, whether this should be stated in Wiki voice. It's about an editor with an admitted fringe POV edit-warring on an article under discretionary sanctions, after being warned. We block or TBAN people for disrupting articles under sanction in WP:1AM disputes even if they are right. Guy (help!) 15:51, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Calton

        • I did not mean to imply anything else.
        • No, that's exactly what you did, when took pieces of the article by Pein and stitched them together so it said the opposite of what the full quotation said. I mean, you had to actively work to get around the "entirely undue aura of respectability" in the middle of the sentence.
        • An article in The Baffler is not an excellent source.
Yet it was good enough to use as a rebuttal when it suited your purposes. --Calton | Talk 06:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The discussion below gives the false impression that the sentence "It is a pseudoscience,[3] and its practice is quackery" is the lead sentence of the article. It is not. The lede sentence is a technical description. It is followed by the very reasonable observation that mainstream science regards cryonics with skepticism. Only then does the above sentence appear.

There is value -- even in a neutral encyclopedia -- in saying things directly and without caveats. Cryonics is indeed a pseudoscience, and its practice is indeed quackery. Saying anything less definitive would be deceptive and a disservice to our readers. I suggest that those below arguing that the sentence above is "unencyclopedic" or that there is some amount of doubt about the nature of cryonics would be better advised to do some research about it rather than to shoot from the hip. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Lsparrish

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This certainly does look like POV pushing. There is also a pattern of edit warring. Lsparrish has tagged the article for POV issues five times in the last two weeks [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] and is now edit warring to reinstate one of the edits JzG linked to above [34]. I would support a sanction here. Hut 8.5 21:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This is an absolutely clear breach of the standards of behaviour required for any articles under discretionary sanctions. Lsparrish was made aware of these, but continued, nonetheless. I believe a topic ban from all pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science would be appropriate. I suggest that an indefinite term, reviewable after six months, would provide them with the opportunity to demonstrate their bona fides in other areas of the encyclopedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Lsparrish is unfailingly polite, as the complaint here acknowledges. He even seems downright pleasant on the talk pages. He refers to articles published in seemingly reputable scientific journals and book series. I'm a bit confused and maybe there's some context I'm missing – am I a total fruitcake for thinking many of his points are reasonable? Haukur (talk) 10:25, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • It's classic WP:CPUSH coupled with edit-warring to insert that POV. The whole reason we had an ArbCom case and discretionary sanctions was because of editing such as this. It's possible to cherry-pick studies to make all sorts of crackpot theories look respectable, when the mainstream opinion regards the issue as so fringe/pseudoscientific that any serious scientist who advocates those theories would indeed be considered a "fruitcake". The only people who take seriously the conjecture that frozen corpses might one day be reanimated are those desperate not to die and those who stand to make a lot of money out of that desperation. We have discretionary sanctions in this area for a reason, and this is a compelling instance of it. --RexxS (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • There's plenty of pseudoscience out there and we should certainly be on our guard against it. Look at the sources in Homeopathy, where we have multiple scientific articles to back up the assertion that it is indeed pseudoscience. The sources backing up the sentence in Cryonics that I quoted seem much less impressive, as Lsparrish has correctly pointed out. Cryonics is widely viewed with skepticism, it's unproven, it's speculative, it's not mainstream, it may never work. All this can be adequately backed up and should be asserted in the lead – and it was in the lead in what appears to me to have been a fairer (if imperfect) summary of what reliable sources say.[35] The categorical sentence asserting without any qualifications that cryonics is quackery and pseudoscience is new as of last month. It's not an NPOV reflection of the sources and it's explicitly contradicted even by one of its own citations. Lsparrish has a perfectly reasonable case here in regarding the current text as biased. Haukur (talk) 13:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Cryonics is categorically quackery by any definition of the word, and the reputable sources say just that, contrary to your assertion otherwise. WP:ASF requires us to assert statements without qualification when they are made by reliable sources and not contradicted by other equally reliable sources. That is the case here. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • One thing Lsparrish objects to is this very categorical sentence currently in the lead: "It is a pseudoscience, and its practice is quackery." His concerns seem reasonable since the sentence is not even a fair summary of the very sources that are cited in support of it. The first one I checked, Schechter 2009, has a pretty balanced discussion, including this: "Many scientists deride it as a form of high-tech quackery. ... Other equally prominent scientists, however, are not so quick to dismiss it"[36] As far as I can see, Lsparrish is making reasonable efforts at attaining NPOV text based on reliable sources. I object to any one-sided sanctioning of him. Haukur (talk) 11:39, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Another citation for the pseudoscience-and-quackery sentence is to an article in The Baffler which describes itself as "America’s leading voice of interesting and unexpected left-wing political criticism, cultural analysis, short stories, poems and art." A weird place to look in for an authoritative source on something like this, but let's see what we have. The author is Corey Pein, a journalist best known for his book on the "Savage Heart of Silicon Valley". And, yes, this article too is a denunciation of those evil capitalists in Silicon Valley. Pein sure isn't impressed with cryonics, that much is right.[37] But even this source does not back up a picture of universal condemnation. On the contrary, the article positions itself as fighting against a rising tide of respectability for cryonics. It mentions a cryonics company enjoying "a reputational boost in recent years" and apparently "the reputation of cryonics" itself has been "rescued" and it has gained an "aura of respectability as the thought leaders of Silicon Valley have trained their enterprising, disruptive vision on the conquest of disease and death." The article mentions favorable coverage of cryonics in multiple mainstream sources. And it mentions, disapprovingly, that there are "university-affiliated researchers" doing cryonics stuff. This is a source meant to back up cryonics being uncontroversially quackery and pseudoscience and it very much fails at doing that. That's two sources I've looked into and both paint a very different picture than the sentence they are being cited for. Haukur (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, Haukurth but this is plain nonsense. Nobody can read [38] and take away the same impression that you portray. The entire article is a condemnation of cryonics as money-grubbing quackery. The actual quote is "In recent years, cryonics has regained an entirely undue aura of respectability as the thought leaders of Silicon Valley have trained their enterprising, disruptive vision on the conquest of disease and death." and by missing out the "entirely undue" qualifier, you create a spin that does not exist in the article. The sources are clear; cryonics is quackery; and Lsparrish is clearly in breach of the discretionary sanctions. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I totally agree that the article by Pein is a strident denunciation of cryonics. I did not mean to imply anything else. But it's also a source saying cryonics has been growing in respectability, which is relevant information for how we should portray it. The word 'quackery' is very strong and we would need many excellent sources to be able to assert it. An article in The Baffler is not an excellent source. The Society for Cryobiology Position Statement from November 2018 might be the most authoritative and up-to-date mainstream source and it uses the wording "speculation or hope, not science".[39] Haukur (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Since I have never worked in this field I needed to begin with reading articles and sources and getting up to speed. I call them as I see them and I don't apologize for that. But I have to admit that I have got a bit sidetracked here – AE is a place to discuss user conduct and not to get into the weeds of article wording. And it is true that Lsparrish has engaged in some edit warring and if someone wants to give him, say, a 24 hour block for that, then I don't strongly object. But it still seems to me that he has been bringing valuable sources, discussion and balance to the cryonics pages and I think we would be undermining ourselves if he were topic-banned. Haukur (talk) 15:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would take no action. The discussion between Haukurth and others indicates that this is a content dispute about how to describe cryonics. AE doesn't resolve content disputes. Sandstein 16:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This is not a content dispute, because there is no dispute about how to describe cryonics. It is pseudoscientific quackery and all the respectable sources say so. This is solely a behavioural issue. --RexxS (talk) 20:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I would oppose a sanction for now. Writing "It is pseudoscience, and its practice is quackery." in the 1st paragraph of Cryonics is sloppy, not very encyclopedic, and it deserves criticism, not for being inaccurate, but for not having the dispassionate tone we look for in encyclopedia articles. More importantly, Lsparrish seems like they're capable of learning to put the encyclopedia above their personal beliefs. ~Awilley (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I share the concerns raised by several other administrators. Even if it is true that cryonics is "quackery", I certainly think the concern over using that actual term in an encyclopedia article is a legitimate one to raise (and I'm as anti-woo as they make 'em). If the fact is that it's woo, the article certainly should demonstrate that, but we don't need to hit people over the head with it like that. The article on Adolf Hitler does not lead in with "Adolf Hitler was a murderous, genocidal monster", not because he wasn't, but because that's not the tone we use for articles. So, I believe this is a legitimate content dispute, and I would therefore not support sanctions. (However, I would caution LSparrish to be careful nonetheless—if it gets to the point that you're trying to edit articles to present woo as something legitimate, or even "maybe" legitimate, then I'll sanction without a second's hesitation.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Given that the discussion seems to have ended, I would seem to think that there is not at this time a consensus that sanctions are needed, though perhaps a caution to Lsparrish regarding edit warring and general conduct on DS-covered articles may be in order. However, since there were several who disagreed, I'd like to ask if there are any objections to that before moving forward with that as the result. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with a logged caution. Bishonen | talk 21:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC).
  • I don't object to a caution. Maybe you could throw in some advice for him. Haukur (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur with Seraphim and Awilley above. Certain editors get very carried away when writing about these topics and forget to write informatively in neutral and dispassionate language. I miss the days when WP:MORALIZE was part of NPOV. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)