Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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: Request a new arbitration case Request clarification or amendment of an existing case This includes requests to lift sanctions previously imposed Request enforcement of a remedy in an existing case Arbitrator motions Arbitrator-initiated motions, not specific to a current open request

Requests for arbitration

Geschichte

Initiated by Dennis Brown - 2¢ at 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Involved parties

• Dennis Brown (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), filing party
• Geschichte (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• [1], [2]

Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

• [3]

Statement by Dennis Brown

Sadly, I'm here about administrator Geschichte and two primary violations of policy. The first is blocking an editor, User:Jax 0677 on February 19, 2022 [4] while they were in an edit war with them. The rationale was breaking 3:RR although that wasn't the case, there were 3 reverts, not 4. The target was Template:Morgana Lefay. By itself, this is worrisome, but could have possibly been dealt with at ANI/AN.

They did show up to ANI to briefly explain their actions, which centered around their interpretation of WP:OWNERSHIP. They admit it should have been done via a discussion, which is normally a good sign, assuming they follow up. But they didn't. They did not reverse or modify their block, nor clearly admit being WP:INVOLVED. They only made the one comment at 9:30 22 Feb 2022 and went dark on enwp. Since their break from enwp, they did manage to edit the Norwegian Wikipedia, so they haven't been unable to continue the discussion, only unwilling. [5] This is clearly a blatant violation of WP:ADMINACCT.

I bring it here as a last resort, as only ArbCom can handle cases of admin abuse of tools and failure to be held accountable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:50, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

One note, I don't have a specific remedy in mind. Honestly, I think it depends on Geschichte's participation. I just know the current situation is unacceptable as is, and I'm not willing to watch it be swept under the rug. When admin blow off being accountable, it lowers morale and makes it harder for all other admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢

• You're absolutely right about 3RR Barkeep49, however, when you are the one edit warring with an editor, you shouldn't be blocking them. And I would disagree that ONE comment in an ongoing discussion, with no follow up after two weeks, meets WP:ADMINACCT. That would be one giant loophole. Just show up, deny it, walk away, go scot free. No, it requires a good faith effort to engage when there are legitimate concerns. I should ping 331dot, who modified the block unilaterally. Oh, and I'm not measuring against the other cases, the events here stand on their own. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 02:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Cabayi, perhaps you need to read the complaint better before scolding me while ill informed. The issues are INVOLVED and ADMINACCT. I never said a block wasn't warranted or appropriate, and in fact, have said exactly nothing regarding Jax 0677, nor did I list them as a party. It isn't about them. What little I said of the block was to provide background only. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• When I started this, I genuinely believed Geschichte would show up here and cooperate, be told that when his actions were called into question, he needed to do more than make one comment, and instead follow through the discussion as long as it was good faith, then he would get a reminder/warning/admonishment depending on his participation and mood here. I didn't expect or want a desysop for what appears to be a rare mistake, but we all expect accountability. For christ's sake, as some point you have to participate, show respect for the community and engage. I wrote Wikipedia:Communication is required specifically for editors that do this, I shouldn't have to point an admin to it. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  From my user page: "My patience is formidable.... But it is not infinite." - Scorpius (Farscape) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• I notice a couple of Motions, but may I offer a solution? Start the proceedings. Below, people are linking to how G is currently contributing to both no.wiki but enwp as well. They are not absent, they are not "unable" to participate. They do not qualify for the extra privilege those motions grant. Those are great, useful and fair Motions, they just don't apply in this particular case. Just accept and start the case, please. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Geschichte

Hello everybody! I just got an email about this case. While I knew someone were looking into the situation, I haven't been active in a while, initially to cool things down but also because of some work responsibilities. I will try to reply more in-depth shortly. Geschichte (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Jax 0677

I was recently blocked from all of Wikipedia by User:Geschichte. On February 19, 2022, I only did 3 reverts to Template:Morgana Lefay. WP:3R states that "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page — whether involving the same or different material — within a 24-hour period". I made a mistake with one of my reverts, but the overall impact came out in essence to only 3 reverts within the 24 hour period. Additionally, I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block. Furthermore, Geschichte who reverted my edits did so in violation of WP:BRD. The reversions that I did were "16:54, 19 February 2022", "17:00, 19 February 2022" and "17:55, 19 February 2022" [the reversions at "17:54, 19 February 2022" were in error, and "rm * Symphony of the Damned (1990) * Sanctified (1995)" was done because I added those back by mistake]. My block was reduced to restrict me from only editing Template:Morgana Lefay, which would serve the purpose of a 48 hour cooling off period involving editing that very template. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment - In my life, I have been given two theories about responses from suppliers. My old apartment manager once said "maintenance work orders shall be handled within three working days" and "if something is not, then it is time to involve me personally". My old supervisor at my company said "If something is a couple of days late, that might be OK", however, "If it has been one month, it may be time to try something else". --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Kurtis

I think ArbCom should wait to hear what Geschichte has to say in response to this, and then decide how to proceed from there. Maybe the fact that this is being brought to the committee's attention will be enough to spur him into reflection. A full case may not be necessary if he can show us that he's learned from what happened here. Kurtis ^(talk) 02:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Fram

@Wugapodes, how could this "have been handled effectively by the community"? We (well, admins) can block them (which seems an overreaction) or remove their autopatrolled right (which has no bearing on this situation at all), or we can ask them to explain themselves per ADMINACCT. It is clear from the ANI section that their response was unsatisfactory (basically, admitting a minor error wrt 3RR while completely igoring the actual issue, involved admin tool abuse). With their long history and as an active admin, they could have easily resolved this rapidly with something like "sorry, I got carried away there and indeed crossed the involved line in the heat of the moment, apologies, won't happen again": the whole thing would be long gone and forgotten by now. Instead, they tried to get away with their evasive answer: you can see on their contributions list how they first remained silent for a day, then only appeared at ANI when explicitly summoned by Ritchie333, then immediately started editing again, only to stop again when their response was criticized at ANI. This is a blatant and rather extreme case of ANI flu, and looks like an attempt to get the thing archived and forgotten by remaining silent, which is the exact opposite of what ADMINACCT asks. So please, tell us how the community should deal with this apart from starting an Arb Case after waiting two weeks and seeing them edit elsewhere? Fram (talk) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: "there was clearly edit warring, so I think it unlikely that anyone would have blinked an eye were it not for INVOLVED. " If I had noticed the block, I would have done more than blink an eye. Template:Morgana Lefay was created by Jax 0677 on 16 January 2022. On 19 January Geschichte started editing it, and then both editors started edit warring. Neither used the template talk page, Geschichte left this incredibly cryptic message[6], Jax replied very reasonably[7], and then the block by Geschichte[8]. Now, if that block would then have been done by an uninvolved admin, without a warning and without taking the same action towards Geschichte, then yes, there would be a problem, and that would be an unwarranted and one-sided block. Fram (talk) 10:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, it's not the flu, it's "work responsabilities" which never stopped him from editing every day in the past (last time they missed a single day here was somewhere in November), and which suddenly happen twice here (first when the ANI section was opened, and then again when they finally responded, got back to happy editing, and stopped completely the very minute their response turned out to be completely inadequate). Some people will probably laud Geschichte for engaging with the case: for me, this response here only further cements the impression that they can't be trusted at all and shouldn't remain a sysop. Fram (talk) 08:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by FormalDude

• I just want to second Fram's comments here. The very reason I closed the ANI was because there was effectively nothing the community could have done in this case. That's not to say the ANI was meaningless though, it shows a clear need for reconciliation from an administrator. This needs to be followed through with if Geschichte is unwilling to sufficiently explain themselves. ––FormalDude talk 09:02, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Echoing both Fram and Robert McClenon. This response from Geschichte is completely insouciant. A case should be opened. Continuing to wait is harmful to both ArbCom and the community. ––FormalDude talk 09:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

This is, somewhat openly, a case of using the sledgehammer of an ARBCOM case request to force an admin to the table to meet their ADMINACCT obligations. 331 has done what XRV would do/have done, so we are left just with the admin side of the issue. And I can't really blame the usage - functionally everyone paying attention would rather Geschichte engaged and didn't need to progress any further. I would like their ultimate engagement to now consider both the tools use involved aspect and the adminacct aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

As I mentioned at ANI, I would like an answer for the following questions to Geschichte:

1. Why did you block a user you were edit-warring with?
2. If you thought you could voluntarily step back from edit-warring, why didn't you think Jax 0677 could?
3. If you think Jax 0677 was trying to take ownership, do you think Jax 0677 would have reasonable grounds to think you were too?
4. Why did you block Jax 0677 from the entire site, preventing him from editing several million articles he has never been disruptive on?

I agree with Fram that we need a satisfactory response to these questions per WP:ADMINACCT but I also agree with WTT that the response is not urgent and we can sit on it for a bit, provided Geschichte is not disruptive elsewhere. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

This definitely can't be ignored. Waiting at least a little longer for Geschichte to respond would be the logical next step. North8000 (talk) 17:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by caeciliusinhorto

On the topic on Barkeep49's question as to whether Geschichte responded "promptly and fully": they may have responded promptly, but Jax's initial statement noted that "I feel that it is a conflict of interest for the person who reverted my edits to institute the block", and both Fram and Ritchie explicitly cited WP:INVOLVED before their response. After their response, but before Geschichte's most recent edits at no.wiki, Fram called them out on avoiding the involved concerns. I don't see that any response which completely ignores the involved concerns can be considered "full". Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by WaltCip

The intention of this case filing, it seems, is to produce a more salient and explanatory response from Geschichte for his ADMINACCT actions (and possibly an apology). It is to that end that the determination of a need for a case should be subordinated.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

As nearly everyone else has said, all Geschichte needs to do is apologize for his actions, promise not to do them again, and poof -- this all goes away. --WaltCip-(talk) 19:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

As multiple people have noted, this case is similar to the last two case requests involving administrator conduct, followed by inactivity by the administrator and failure by the administrator to provide an explanation of their use of administrative capabilities. During the preliminary consideration of the last case, I criticized the Arbitration Committee for its delay in accepting the case because they were waiting for a statement by the subject administrator. This statement is partly a response to pushback that I received from the Arbitration Committee. (The arbitrators were acting reasonably in pushing back, and I am acting reasonably in further explaining my criticism.) I will try to explain further my thinking, and to continue to explain why the ArbCom should not wait for a further statement from Geschichte. I have previously stated, for instance, in this essay, that ArbCom acceptance of a case should not require a decision on the merits of the case, but only on whether a judgment on the merits of the case is needed. Some arbitrators have stressed the need to be deliberative, but the time to be deliberative is in considering the case, not in waiting to take the case. Avoiding taking a case is avoiding deliberation.

As I previously commented, the "optics" of waiting for an extended period of time for a statement by an administrator who has gone silent are very bad. It looks to many non-admin editors as if the administrators on the ArbCom are circling the wagons to protect another administrator, and are more concerned with protecting their own than with ensuring the integrity of the encyclopedia. An arbitrator said that I should have noticed that the ArbCom always waits for a statement from the defendant administrator. I have noticed, and I strongly disagree, and I think that ArbCom should consider the signal that it is (unintentionally) sending to non-admin editors, that the ArbCom is trying to protect administrators.

ArbCom should accept a case involving administrator conduct based on a concept similar to probable cause, and the time for a defendant to make a statement or provide a defense is in the trial, not in deciding whether a trial is in order. ArbCom is making an error in waiting for the defendant to decide whether to hear the case.

In this case, the defendant has already had two weeks to respond, and has not respondedand their response has been inadequate (and has made a few edits to another Wikipedia), but ArbCom should not be waiting for a further response as a precondition to opening a case. In this case, there is sufficient evidence of a misuse of administrative capabilities for ArbCom to open a case, and then to decide whether to wait for a statement, and to decide what remedy to implement, either without or with a full evidentiary proceeding. It is time to accept this case, and delays in opening cases on administrative conduct are a self-inflicted injury to ArbCom.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

• I'm growing tired of the "circling the wagons" mantra. It is in no way reflective of reality, especially when there are admins complaining about the behavior of an admin. It is, in fact, becoming tedious and disruptive. ArbCom is a deliberative body, so let them deliberate without what amounts to heckling and badgering.
• Once again, the subject of an ADMINACCT complaint has absented themselves from a proceeding. I expect more of a response from an admin than they have given, but the Arbs get to decide. Yes, we all make mistakes, and I've made some really stupid ones. When I make a mistake, I do my best to fix it, to root cause it, and to take steps to reduce the likelihood of further stupidity. The Arbs are smarter than I, so I doubt I need to state the (to me) obvious to them. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• (But I will anyway. It's what I do.) I think @Geschichte: should have absolutely not blocked Jax 0677, Jax 0677's block record not withstanding. Geschichte should have stopped reverting, reminded Jax of WP:3RR, and then reported to WP:3RRN, just like any other user in a content dispute after trying to engage them in discussion on the talk page unsuccessfully. If Geschichte had just stopped and discussed, there would have been no edit war. Of course, with a full block in place, discussion was impossible. (Who knows, maybe in a discussion. they might have decided they were wrong.) What I would need would be 1) an admission of doing it wrong, 2) an understanding of what they should have done, 3) an expression of familiarity with partial blocking, and 4) an assurance that there will not be a recurrence. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• Wot Cabayi sed, I'd expect better of both of them. (Geschichte and Jax) --Deepfriedokra (talk) 08:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• They had time to partake of an AfD yesterday, but not to partake here? Maddening. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
• Perhaps they are waiting for ya'll to open the case before responding? --Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Darth Mike

By their own admission, even though Geschichte knew that there were inquiries into their actions, they chose to disappear 'to cool things down' [9]. Geschicte wasn't completely absent from all projects, per their edits on Norwegian Wikipedia. Their lack of communication was a choice.

The question that I have for Geschichte is very simple: How can the community have trust in an administrator who chooses to disappear when they know that their controversial actions are being questioned? -- Mike 🗩 14:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by RoySmith

I like telling aviation stories, and there's one that's particularly germane to the question of how fast or slow arbcom moves.

An old grizzled pilot and his brand-new copilot are flying along when a warning light starts flashing on the control panel. The old pilot takes out his stopwatch and calmly starts winding it. The new guy looks at him in shock and says, "What are you doing! We've got an emergency! Why are you winding your watch?" You need to do something NOW! The old guy looks back and says, "Well, kid, I've never killed anybody while winding a clock". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Lugnuts

Geschichte has been an admin since January 2006 (!) (RfA). I don't see anything obvious jumping out in the ANI history of issues about them, so pretty much a clean record for the best part of 16 years. Using ANI as a guide, it states "This page is for discussion of urgent incidents and chronic, intractable behavioral problems". Did the original issue count as urgent, chronic or intractable? I don't think so. If their conduct had long-term issues around civility, or invovled blocks, etc, then we'd have a problem. But making one (bad) block? I don't see a net positive for the project as a whole for further action, as long as Geschichte simply states they were wrong in this one-off incident. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:34, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Amakuru

I don't have much to say about this, other than that obviously the action of Geschichte in using the tools when INVOLVED fall well short of what's expected of an admin. This is a one-off incident that needs to not occur again. However, I'm bemused by Worm That Turned's decision to "accept" the case today. Yesterday, you made the very sensible observation that "we take reasonable steps to allow the subject to make a statement before considering whether we open a case" and "Arbitration is glacially slow by design - we aim for "right" decided by cooler heads not "fast"". That doesn't seem consistent with a decision to suddenly throw the book at Geschichte and launch into a full case, less than 24 hours after the previous comment. This has only been open for 3 days, and I urge that we give Geschichte the time to respond and hopefully apologise and promise not to repeat the offence, after which perhaps a case can be avoided.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: fair enough, thanks for the explanation and that seems reasonable.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:38, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by QEDK

This seems to be a clear-cut violation of WP:INVOLVED (in the meantime, let's throw 3RR and BRR out of the window). The question essentially comes down to whether Geschichte understands what exactly they did wrong and hold themselves accountable, if yes, we can probably be on our way and otherwise (if unresponsive, assume no) issue them an admonishment and close this by motion. To conclude, it's important to distinguish between singular incidents of tool misuse and egregious administrator conduct (which might or might not involve the admin toolset). --qedk (t 愛 c) 14:56, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

The lack of a response does feel very WP:IDHT to me, if it were up to me, I would prefer higher levels of admin accountability but from where we are at now, does the case really go above the level of admonishment? That is the primary question at this point (and the later the response comes is where I feel that it should be). --qedk (t 愛 c) 15:33, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

I am loathe to add to the volume of text here, but there are some aspects of this no one is talking about. This is more than just one bad block. Here are some (not all) relevant edits, all from Feb 19 except the last two:

1. 16:36 - G makes a WP:BOLD addition of items to the template with an unhelpful edit summary
2. 16:54 - J reverts it via "undo" with edit summary "WP:WTAF"
3. 16:56 - G misuses rollback to reinstate the bold addition
4. 17:00 - J reverts again via "undo" with edit summary "WP:BRD"
5. 17:04 - G's second misuse of rollback to reinstate the bold addition
6. 17:04 (2) - G posts a cryptic and unhelpful message at J's user talk page linking to WP:BEFORE
7. 17:10 - J responds to the message asking for an explanation
8. 17:11 - G posts a message at Talk:Morgana Lefay (note: article talk, not template talk)
9. 17:50 - J posts a {{uw-brd}} message at G's user talk page
10. 17:55 - J reverts again, with edit summary quoting WP:NAV and linking to WP:BRD
11. 17:56 - blocks Jax for "Violation of the three-revert rule" (although Jax did not violate the three-revert rule)
12. 18:03 - G responds to the uw-brd notice, saying "...Three reverts, now that is a block, so the situation will now cool down for 48 hours, and I will also not edit the template further during that time", which is a serious misstatement of both WP:3RR and WP:COOLDOWN
13. Three days later, Feb 22, posts a message at ANI that doubles down on G's misstatement of policy, and ends with, "That the block was instituted after three reverts and not more than three reverts can be considered an error on my part ... In hindsight, though, it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion.", which is the only statement from G admitting error that I'm aware of to date; it does not actually encompass all the errors that were made.
14. Mar 8 - G's statement here at ARC asking for more time to respond
15. Today is March 12. Here are G's global contribs and enwiki log showing activity between Feb 19 and today.

G was edit warring to reinstate their bold edits, misused rollback twice to do it, made no real meaningful attempts at communication, misused their admin tools to block the editor they were edit warring with (after that editor posted a uw-brd warning on G's user talk page), and then misstated policy in defense of their actions.

G did not provide a follow-up explanation when asked by J, and did not unblock, did not apologize, has not shown they fully understand what they did wrong, and has not said they won't do it again. G needs to follow WP:ONUS, WP:BRD, WP:ROLLBACK, WP:INVOLVED, WP:COOLDOWN, WP:ADMINACCT, WP:ADMINCOND, and understand WP:3RR and our other policies.

G did not wait weeks for J to respond at a time that was convenient for J prior to removing all of J's editing privileges site-wide. G just "flipped the switch" and shut off J's editing privileges site-wide, expecting J to then ask for them back. I think it's unfair that G gets to respond at their leisure, a courtesy that they did not extend to J. Arbcom should do the same: resolve this by motion now, "flip the switch" and turn off G's admin privileges, and let G ask for them back if they want to, which they can do at their convenience.

One other thing while I'm here: on Feb 20, 331dot downgraded the block on J from a full block to a partial block of just the template page. Why was J partially blocked but G was not partially blocked? In this story, I see G receiving markedly different treatment than J. Admins are, in fact, treated differently by other admins than regular editors; this is a pretty clear-cut example of it, IMO. Levivich 18:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

@Primefac: it's nice you are worried that "a summary desysop gives Geschichte absolutely zero motivation to participate in a case to defend what amounts to a inappropriate reaction to a singular set of events".

Are you worried about how this incident, and your response to it, gives Jax zero motivation to continue editing, or anyone else? 100% of your comments are worried about the accused, G. You haven't said anything about the victim, J. That's your bias: you only seem to care about the admin, how the admin feels, what effect this will have on the admin. Don't forget the rest of us, ok? Levivich 13:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by User:力 (powera)

If there isn't an additional statement from Geschichte (expanding on I will try to reply more in-depth shortly.), the committee will have to do something. I agree with the comments that there is no rush. I also agree that, while this doesn't look good, the comment In hindsight, though, it is crystal clear that this should have been solved through a discussion. is probably sufficient to meet the obligations under ADMINACCT for a one-off mistake. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 19:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by 331dot

I reduced the block that prompted this case because it seemed excessive for the incident; I didn't remove it completely in order to encourage talk page discussion of the underlying dispute. In hindsight perhaps I should have. I was not aware of any larger concerns with G. 331dot (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Celestina007

I agree with Dennis Brown. My thinking is every alternate approach has been “used up” and this is literally the last resort. The unfortunate reality for any system operator is (if not careful) overtime, the line between acceptable editing and unacceptable editing becomes thin/borderline and overtime it becomes very blurred. G hasn’t acted or behaved as an administrator should or ought to and that is the long and short of it. Celestina007 (talk) 14:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

Just noting Geschichte participated in an RM [10] and an AFD [11] yesterday but has still not responded here with anything other than his initial threadbare statement. This is a blatant flouting of WP:ADMINACCOUNT and I don't see how any member of this committee can view his refusal to participate as "justifiable" at this point. And remember, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrative actions, especially during community discussions on noticeboards or during Arbitration Committee proceedings" (emphasis mine). It's been three weeks since the initial block in question and a week since this case request has been open. Calidum 14:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {Non-party}

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

Geschichte: Clerk notes

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

Geschichte: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <8/1/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

• Noting that I am watching this case request. On first read, it's not clear to me that Geschichte failed in his ADMINACCT responsibilities, unlike in the last 2 administrator conduct cases. I will continue to think about that and hope that they will respond to this request with further thoughts about this incident. I also await to see if editors have evidence of other administrator tool use contra to policy. Finally I would be remiss in noting my strong belief, to quote WP:Edit warring, The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly; it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is absolutely possible to engage in edit warring without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Dennis Brown except Geschichte didn't deny everything. My response would be different if there wasn't an admission that it should have been solved through discussion (and also the admission that 3RR wasn't violated). I can understand why that would be less than satisfying for Jax and other editors. But if this was a one off incident? Then I need to think about whether they responded "promptly and fully" to pull the standard linked to at ADMINACCT. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Robert (and others who might share his thoughts) I can't speak for all my fellow arbs, but from my perspective, and from what I've seen them write in other situations, we should provide reasonable waiting for parties, especially in cases with only 1 or 2 parties as with Admin conduct cases, to respond. This is why when we added parties to the IRANPOL case mid-case we started the time period for the evidence phase over, to give all those non-admins a fair amount of time to participate. This is why we communicated several times with Tenebrae before issuing our topic ban. So I disagree with your assertion that I am contributing to the circling the wagons around another admin, as opposed to acting on a principle for how I think ArbCom should act. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  So after thinking things over, I've settled on a metric for judging whether ADMINACCT has been satisfied: the expectation is to respond to reasonable topics of concern but there is no expectation to respond to specific questions. In this case there were/are two major concerns: whether the block itself was appropriate under policy and procedure and whether Geschichte was INVOLVED. I think Geschichte has satisfactorily addressed the first topic, but has failed to address the second topic and as Cabayi points out has chosen to invest energies elsewhere. That is a choice he can make but it's not a cost free choice, so I am an accept as well. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  In terms of the willingness to wait expressed recently by Amakuru and Enterprisey, I have defended the idea of waiting above. But by policy there is an obligation to for them participate here. If an admin, or some other named party, is just inactive I can can AGF and say that they're fairly prioritizing other things (work, family, health, etc). But it becomes harder for me to say that is the case when they're editing on other wikis (even if just minorily). Further, as WTT notes below the request for Geschichte to comment on INVOLVED waited for a few weeks at ANI, again during which they were active on another wiki. There's a balance to be had here and as WTT also notes, we're at least 24 hours away from opening a case and a response may still be enough to make that unnecessary. But if no response comes now that too is fine - Geschichte would be given a couple of weeks to respond during the Evidence phase of the case (and time beyond that even after a PD is posted). Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• I largely agree with Barkeep. Seems pretty different from recent cases and like it could have been handled effectively by the community. I'll wait to see what's to be said though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Fram: I appreciate the course of events and understand that it was frustrating especially given recent context. I think it's important to point out that the community is not powerless. What do we do with editors who edit war? We block them. What do we do with editors who do not respond to community concerns? We block them until they explain themselves. Why is this suddenly off the table as a community tool? Unlike the last two cases, it's not clear that we're even being asked to desysop, and that is really the only unique power we have that the community does not. If the desire is for a strong warning or restriction, the community can do that. Now that it's here, I'll consider it because this is a valid place to raise the concern, but I do think it's worth pointing out that the community could have used its tools as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
  • @Robert McClenon: An important distinction from me is that Geschichte did reply. Editors weren't satisfied with the reply and wanted more engagement, but that's meaningfully different from not replying at all. If the goal of this case is to "encourage" Geschicte to respond more, I think it's reasonable to give some time for that to work, especially since we haven't even met the 48-hour minimum before a case can be opened, and Geschichte has already signaled they'll engage. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• Also waiting for input from Geschichte. In addition, I'm curious about the background to the edit war; is there some past context to the dispute? This seems like a really lame thing to edit war over. Opabinia regalis (talk) 09:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Revisiting this, I'm really not convinced of the need for a case here. This appears to be an isolated incident of poor judgment. Despite the pixels spilled on general topics of admin accountability, no one has really attempted to a) explain why this particular, extremely minor dispute escalated the way it did, or b) demonstrate a pattern of questionable behavior on Geschichte's part. While this would not be the first time someone's hurt pride turned a repairable situation into a desysop case, I really don't think we need a six-week investigation into a two-hour edit war about - and I keep saying this - a ridiculously trivial issue. Geschichte, you may already have run out your time; bluntly, the move here is to swallow your ego and credibly explain on this page what you did wrong and how you'll avoid it going forward. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm willing to wait for Geschichte. As I see it there's a few issues here. 1) Was the block proper if done by another admin? 2) Was the block in violation of INVOLVED? 3) Did Geschichte meet the requirements of ADMINACCT?
  Well, as to the first question, a partial block was an option per 331dot, but they aren't always used, there was clearly edit warring, so I think it unlikely that anyone would have blinked an eye were it not for INVOLVED. That leads to 2) WP:INVOLVED specifically states that In straightforward cases (e.g., blatant vandalism), the community has historically endorsed the obvious action of any administrator – even if involved – on the basis that any reasonable administrator would have probably come to the same conclusion. The question becomes "was it straightforward enough"? Would any reasonable admin have blocked... without warning? Was it so urgent that it needed to be dealt with by Geschichte? And that leads us to 3) because the questions are still hanging. I appreciate that Geschichte responded in a reasonable period, with an explanation - but was it enough? I'd like to hear more statements, but I am minded to accept yet another admin case, depending on Geschichte's response. Worm^TT(talk) 10:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Fram the fact that the block is one sided is indeed a fair point, though I see Geschichte made 2 reverts, while Jax made 3. We can debate the hypotheticals, but I accept that there is potential for the block to be considered poor, even aside from the INVOLVED aspect. Worm^TT(talk) 11:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  There does appear to be a tendency of certain community members baying for blood when administrators appear at Arbcom. As far as I'm concerned, the current status quo is as follows:

  • Arbcom is the only place where administrators can be removed "for cause", this is by firm community consensus, although I disagree with said consensus, it it the state of play.
  • There are many reasons that Arbcom will remove the sysop userright, egregious misuse or a pattern of behaviour that falls short of expectations. Generally, we won't for a single incident that falls short of expectations, especially where the administrator shows contrition and we believe they are unlikely to carry on the behaviour.
  • The case process is stressful and unpleasant for all parties, especially subjects, and so we do not open cases lightly. As a corollary, cases that are opened more often than not lead to sanctions. This is not a requirement of a case, but it is something that happens.

  Based on these factors, and the fact that there is no urgency - we are not seeing the administrator carrying on using the the tool while we deliberate - it is quintessentially fair that we take reasonable steps to allow the subject to make a statement before considering whether we open a case. Let's not be making the assumption that there is nothing that can be said by the party that would stop a case from being opened. Let's not paint ourselves into the corner that we don't even need to think about things. Arbitration is glacially slow by design - we aim for "right" decided by cooler heads not "fast". Worm^TT(talk) 13:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

  I concur with @Cabayi below but more firmly. we should accept this case. Worm^TT(talk) 12:45, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  @Amakuru I'm a patient man, but there are limits. This case is 3 days open, yes, but we're 36 hours since Geschichte said he'd reply soon, and weeks since the issue was first raised. My accept vote doesn't start the case, but it starts the ball rolling on one. We'd still need at least net 4 and probably more (other conversations to be had) plus 24 hours, all of which gives Geschichte time to appear, and comment. I've changed my vote to open a case in the past and I would have no qualms about doing so again.

  In other words, yes, I'm still willing to wait for his response, but a bit of pressure of a count down timer is also a reasonable requirement. Worm^TT(talk) 16:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

• Two editors, each with >14 years tenure & >120,000 edits, should be well aware that edit-warring doesn't need to exceed 3RR. 3RR is merely the bright-line indicator. I'd expect better of both of them. Waiting for the response... Cabayi (talk) 12:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Dennis Brown, I made no mention of you directly or indirectly. Cabayi (talk) 09:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

We're approaching 48 hours since Geschichte made a promise of a fuller response during which time he's edited on nowiki. The waiting time is nearing its end. Cabayi (talk) 12:11, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Meanwhile, elsewhere, we're all considering the fine details of m:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines to which one of the guiding notions is that WMF should support, nurture, & work collaboratively with local Arbcoms, not undermine them. How do we hold up our end of that understanding if Geschichte prioritises day-to-day editing on nowiki over his WP:ADMINACCT responsibilities on an ArbCom case here. Don't read me wrong, it's a choice he's free to make, but it's not a choice without implications.

TL;DR - Accept - Cabayi (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll agree with Primefac that "I see little more happening here than an admonishment for their actions" "as long as Geschichte simply states they were wrong in this one-off incident." (Lugnuts) 'Til Geschichte makes his promised response there's a building ADMINACCT issue at ArbCom to add to the lesser ADMINACCT at ANI and the INVOLVED. An outright decline seems premature (unless it's just to hold off a net 4 situation?). Cabayi (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

• Unimpressed with Geschichte's understanding of INVOLVED. Broadly agree with Fram's reading of the "ANI flu" part of the situation. Although the justification is poor, I don't see that it clearly violates ADMINACCT; I think there's sort of an implicit invocation of the INVOLVED clause that WTT quoted above, even if that invocation is at odds with community views. I'm taking a particular interest in the justification at the time I considered the removal of material from the template as being clearly disruptive. Anyway, waiting for a statement. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Still waiting. I figure we got time. Enterprisey (talk!) 16:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

  Accept. The AfD vote is brazen. Enterprisey (talk!) 15:36, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Decline. I believe the comments left by Lugnuts most accurately reflect my thoughts at this point in time; this appears to be a one-time incident of improper use of the tools, followed by some barely-justifiable "I just want this to go away" disappearing. While I know we (as a community) want to reach a point where adminship is "no big deal", I cannot reconcile that viewpoint with bringing a case before ArbCom for every admin that makes a dumb mistake without immediately apologising for it in the correct and precise manner. I am willing to be persuaded otherwise, but at the moment I see little more happening here than an admonishment for their actions. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
• I've been on a break the last two weeks, so I'm just getting up to speed on this request, but at first glance I'm inclined to agree with Primefac's statement above. To accept an admin conduct case, I expect to see either evidence of a pattern of misusing the tools combined with a lack of apparent willingness to correct the problem, or violations so egregious that we could reasonably consider a desysop based on even a single incident. While there obviously was some poor admin behavior here, I do not believe this meets either of those criteria. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  I have to admit I'm a bit amazed to find myself accepting an ADMINACCT case you're inclined to decline given your regular writing on this topic. You seem to be suggesting that we only accept cases where there is enough evidence for a sanction rather than finding out through a case if there's pattern of problems. This seems slightly at odds with what you wrote at ACE last year ([12] [13]). I struggled with the idea that you and Primefac laid out about Geschichte simply failing to apologize in the correct manner before settling on my framework that addressing major topics of concern - and I'm sure we both agree INVOLVED is an important piece of policy - is what ADMINACCT requires. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'm kind of surprised myself, I do believe examining admin conduct is one of the most important functions of the committee and that the bar should be fairly low for accepting such cases. What seems different to me here is that I'm not seeing even the accusation that there is a pattern of misuse. That being said, I'm still weighing the other aspect, accountability. It's my belief, both here and in in my daily life, that it is what we do after making a mistake that is the true test of a person's character. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

  So, I was kind of telling myself that I just wasn't up to speed on this yet, but really, there's not much material in need of review. this is exactly what was making me hesitant to accept but after looking it over again I see it a little differently. Geschichte, in their only comment that actually adresssed this issue in any real way [14] seems to be saying that the block was an error, but only in so much as they shouldn't have cited 3RR when making it, and that it did not give them advantage in the dispute because they decided on their own not to edit the template further. That's such a ridiculous explanation that ignores the actual objection to their actions that, were they actually engaging with this process, I'd probably ask if they'd care to look at the facts again and consider if that is really the reasoning they want to go with, but that's the other problem, I really do not feel the basic bar of WP:ADMINACCT was in any way met by the sinlge substantive remark they've made about this block, which was itself a blatant violation of WP:INVOLVED. I therefore vote to accept and if the subject does not return in a reasonable amount of time, to resolve it by motion. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:34, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• Accept. Accountability is important. --Izno (talk) 22:49, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
• Accept. Geschichte: I completely understand being busy and/or overwhelmed with Wikipedia. If there are any particular circumstances that make it difficult to respond, you should also feel free to email ArbCom directly with relevant information. Absent that, it would be helpful to have an estimate for when a more full response will be available. Without a more comprehensive statement, this request will have to proceed to a full case. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

  Not completely sure where I stand on the motions yet. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 13:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• Accept Levivich's analysis is exactly the sort of useful information I would hope to see in a full case. Like Kevin, I'm still considering the motions. --BDD (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Open and suspend case (1)

The "Geschichte" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Geschichte (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is temporarily desysopped for the duration of the case while the case is suspended, and will be resysopped for the duration of the case when the case is unsuspended.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be permanently desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Support

1. Support as proposed and comments in discussion section. Worm^TT(talk) 10:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Cabayi (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
3. I kind of liked the ammended version but this works for me also. A further discussion of incentives might be a good idea to have at some point when there is not a pending case request. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
4. I think this is a reasonable next step. I don't think accepting a case is tantamount to a desysop, and depending on the outcome of the case I would be open to returning tools if the circumstances warrant it. As it stands now, however, a case is warranted and a temporary desysop is practically more effective. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

1. As I mentioned both above and in the case request for Jonathunder, I find that a summary desysop gives Geschichte absolutely zero motivation to participate in a case to defend what amounts to a inappropriate reaction to a singular set of events. My first choice would be a motion to admonish, but as I am seemingly in the minority in that viewpoint I could find a suspended case without a temporary desysop acceptable. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

   I would rather incentivize admin to participate before we get to ArbCom - this case never needed have reached us. Then my choice would be for them to participate once it reaches ArbCom. I would define participation to include a request to suspend the case until they have time to participate fully, even one sent privately if there's personal information they would rather not share. I would be open to such requests, that's participating in my view. But to say I will try to reply more in-depth shortly. 6 days ago and then come back to participate in other parts of the project is, for me, its own violation of the administrator policy. So in terms of incentivizing participation from Geschichte at this point, saying "Your options are to participate now, and keep sysop, or lose sysop until the end of a case with-in the next 6 months" does incentivize Geschichte to participate and to do so now. That feels like the right incentive all around to me. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion

This case is fast headed towards being opened, and yes, I do think that everything could have been smoothed over with some meaningful input from Geschichte, but that hasn't happened, and it keeps not happening. We could have a case without Geschichte participating, but I don't see the benefit of that for the individual or the wider community. Absent a steer from Geschichte, I think we should temporarily desysop upfront, while a case is open - and suspend the case until such time that Geschichte is available to participate. Worm^TT(talk) 10:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Agreed that a case without the primary party is rather a waste of effort. Primefac (talk) 10:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned and Primefac: Amended the motion to provide that Geschichte will be desysopped for the duration of a suspended case but is resysopped if they request that the case be unsuspended. I think this was someone's preference at last motion (Wugapodes, perhaps?). I don't feel very strongly about it, but this motion has the advantage of (a) not prejudicing a final decision but (b) incentivizing a return – I know most arbs care about one or the ohter of these considerations. I know this motion is getting a bit labyrinth-y and we can tighten the language for the next ADMINACCT case if the committee decides this is the best form of the motion. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 11:56, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm happy with that suggestion. Worm^TT(talk) 12:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why we're using a different motion than the one we used for Jonathunder. If anything Geschichte has made more of a choice to not participate and the reward for that is to get sysop back if he asks for the case to be opened? As I noted below the incentive I would like to create for admin is to participate earlier rather than later. So I think I'm an oppose on this motion - preferring to open a full case with Geschichte retaining sysop as he's clearly around and could choose to participate. I might also be OK if we used the same language we used with Jonathunder by going the motion route. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that Kevin's change is an improvement, in that it incentivises the participation of the administrator and removes the appearance of prejudging the case. I thought so when it was suggested in previous cases but did not want to disrupt the voting at the time. I don't want the community's (and committee's) time wasted if Geschichte refuses to particpate. Worm^TT(talk) 15:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I think ideally this is the motion we would've used in prior cases but in those cases this idea was raised late and it wasn't worth it to propose one anew. No such considerations apply here. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on Barkeep49's comments, I've reverted the motion to it's original form. Again, there are wider conversations we need to have here, but for the sake of this case - I'd rather we stuck with what works. Cabayi are you ok with that change? Worm^TT(talk) 17:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't me (at least, I don't remember it), but I don't hate the idea. It seems more bureaucratic than it's worth, but it's a clever attempt to balance the incentives. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Motion: Open and suspend case (2)

The "Geschichte" request for arbitration is accepted. This case will be opened but suspended for a period of three months.

If Geschichte (talk · contribs) should return to active editing on the English Wikipedia during this time and request that this case be resumed, the Arbitration Committee shall unsuspend the case by motion and it will proceed through the normal arbitration process. Such a request may be made by email to arbcom-enwikimedia.org or at the clerks' noticeboard. Geschichte is instructed not to use his administrator tools in any way until the closure of the case; doing so will be grounds for immediate removal of his administrator userrights.

If such a request is not made within three months of this motion or if Geschichte resigns his administrative tools, this case shall be automatically closed, and Geschichte shall be desysopped. If tools are resigned or removed, in the circumstances described above, Geschichte may regain the administrative tools at any time only via a successful request for adminship.

Support

1. Per my comments in the first motion. Primefac (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
2. Support as equal first choice, with a slight preference that we adopt (1). Normally, I prefer this method, but given the length of time the issue has remained open, and Geschichte's editing on other wikis, I felt that the temporary desysop route was appropriate. One point though, Primefac, I've added a note that Geschichte should not use his administrator tools while the case is suspended, I hope you have no issue with that. Worm^TT(talk) 10:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

   That's fine. Seen and recognised. Primefac (talk)

Oppose

1. In this case I challenge the idea that Geschichte is not active on English Wikipedia. Beyond that, as a general thought I don't think this kind of motion serves either Geschichte or the community well. It doesn't serve Geschichte well because it just invites a situation where they accidentally use an administrator tool and now we have drama where there wouldn't be any. I don't think it serves the community well because it doesn't create the right expectations of participation. This case could have been - and perhaps still could be - have been headed off by earlier more complete involvement by Geschichte. That's when we should be incentivizing participation. So I don't disagree with Primefac that the first motion doesn't incentivize participation as much as this for the point we're at, but I would suggest we shouldn't be reaching this point anyway. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
2. There's been enough comment showing the case's probable outcome if Geschichte responds. Dragging this out for 3 months does nobody any favours. This version of the accept-and-suspend motion does little to prompt a more timely response. Cabayi (talk) 15:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
3. I haven't decided if I support the idea of suspending yet, but I don't care for this version of the process, I prefer the temporary desysop route for reasons already stated in the last such case. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
4. Per "haven't decided on motion or case but not this one", though as before I would prefer the now un-amended version of the above motion. Izno (talk) 20:14, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
5. Per Barkeep, "we shouldn't be reaching this point anyway." — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion

Geschichte: open case (indicative vote)

The clerks are directed to open the case.

Support

Oppose

1. I oppose opening an actual case if the subject is not interested in participating. Worm^TT(talk) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Abstain

Discussion

• Some arbs have expressed a preference for an actual case over any of the motions, and this is a space to so indicate. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 16:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

  Do we really need a motion on it? If neither of the other two passes, the case gets opened. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Kurds and Kurdistan

Initiated by Supreme Deliciousness at 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Kurds and Kurdistan arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan § Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned

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

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

Information about amendment request

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kurds and Kurdistan § Supreme Deliciousness topic-banned

• Removal of topic ban

Statement by Supreme Deliciousness

It has now been over 1 year since the topic ban was implanted. I have read everything in the arbitration case and the Principles:[15] and I promise to follow the principles and rules. I am asking for the topic ban to me removed as it is not needed. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Barkeep49, its best to use modern academic sources as much as possible, and if older historical sources are used for some information, for example for a historical perspective, then that info should be presented as being from that specific historical source. Any edits in the topic area must be based on a reliable source, this also includes discussions at the talkpage. Furthermore I can tell you right now that I have 0% interest to participate in any kind of uncivil discussion with anyone at any talkpage. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

BDD, in the case of the A-I conflict then there is an overwhelming large majority worldview that the occupied territories Israel captured in 1967 are not part of Israel, this includes the UN, EU and other large international organizations. I believe it is npov to follow this large majority worldview and not present the occupied territories as part of Israel. Sources for this can be easily obtained but I don't believe its appropriate to ad sources for this large worldview every time I edit within the A-I conflict for obvious reasons. If someone disputes this, then I can show them high quality sources at the talkpage.

In the case of "Kurds and Kurdistan", because of what happened last year with the arb case and the behavior of some people, then I should be extra careful to avoid any issue, so I plan to always use a high quality academic source when I make edits within the topic area, or as I said above for historical info properly attribute it to the historical source. I believe in some instances a reliable well known news agency could also be used for some info but its a case by case basis. If any other editor objects to any edit I make then obviously it would have to be discussed at the talkpage in a calm and civil way with good sources until the issue is settled. If someone is uncivil then that person can be brought to Enforcement and be blocked/banned, so I don't believe there will be a problem now. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Kurds and Kurdistan: Clerk notes

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

Kurds and Kurdistan: Arbitrator views and discussion

• Supreme Deliciousness, can you explain how your editing will change if we accept your appeal to address the issues found in the case about your prior conduct? Barkeep49 (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  Based on their answer above, and my (albeit not thorough) look at their editing history since November I am tentatively prepared to accept this appeal, though perhaps with an explicit note that it may be reinstated. It could, under DS, be reinstated without such a note but would also make clear to admin that they are authorized to act should reinstatement in this topic area restart the kinds of behaviors that led to the TBAN in the first place. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Supreme Deliciousness, I see much of your recent editing has been in the topic area of the Palestine–Israel conflict, broadly construed. I take this as a good sign, that you're able to edit another area related to ethnic conflicts in Western Asia without any obvious trouble, like further blocks. Could you draw on this experience to explain how you would approach editing Kurds and Kurdistan again? How have you dealt with potential conflict with other editors? How have you identified high-quality sources? --BDD (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I am waiting for a reply to BDD, but at the moment I am leaning towards accepting. Primefac (talk) 11:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'd like to hear a response to BDD's questions also, but in addition, I'd like to know a bit more about what Supreme Deliciousness feels has changed? At the case, I was considering a full site ban, as I was aware that he had been restricted in 2009 for similar behaviour, back when Arbcom gave time limited restrictions, as well as multiple blocks in the wider topic area. A simple "it's been a year and I promise" isn't quite what I'm looking for. Worm^TT(talk) 13:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

Click here to add a new enforcement request
For appeals: create a new section and use the template {{Arbitration enforcement appeal}}
See also: Logged AE sanctions

CapnJackSp

First, thanks to Kautilya3 for bringing up some interesting points, in particular that it is fine to have a bias, as long as that bias isn't permeating your edits. We all have biases of one kind or another. In the end, I'm not inclined to sanction CapnJackSp, although I am going to warn them firmly about copyright infringement in particular, as well as behavior. This means you have a short piece of WP:ROPE and you will simply be blocked without warning for either. You ALL need to discuss more, in good faith, before editing. This report went off in so many directions, I'm not sure I can summarize it fully except to say there is a lot of misbehaving in the WP:ARBIPA area, and no one on this page is perfectly innocent. So aside from the warning, I'm closing with no hard action. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:55, 9 March 2022 (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 CapnJackSp User who is submitting this request for enforcement Tayi Arajakate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested CapnJackSp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced WP:ARBIPA Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 16:33, 3 March 2022 Removes the lines "The users of the app utilized the database of citizens categorized using multiple attributes and sent automated hate messages as replies on social media. The phrases in these automated messages were decided in a centralized document to harass prominent persons." from Tek Fog#Automated messaging with the edit summary "rm material covered in detail in the sections above", when the material isn't covered anywhere else in the article. 16:47, 4 March 2022 Removes the same lines with the edit summary, "Added information back that had been removed in my previous edit. Removed the rest of the redundant material. WP:ONUS, W:BRD should be followed by editors wishing to introduce material. Kindly ping me if making a talk section." The edit also introduces the word "centralised" in the section on "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment". Note that the word had never existed there unlike what they claim in the edit summary. 17:13, 4 March 2022 They insist that "the exact same stuff is covered in much more detail in the same section, in the sub sections above it" The sub-section at the time of their second removal contained the lines, "Tek Fog had an extensive centralised database of private citizens with information about their "occupation, religion, language, age, gender, political inclination and even physical attributes like skin tone and breast size." The Wire had received screenshots that showed these parameters. The Wire verified the existence of database by monitoring harassment messages that were sent with extreme granularity to "female journalists", who were among the targeted groups." Following this, Venkat TL tells them its not the same and Toddy1 restores the first part (on the link between the automated messages and the database) and removes the unverifiable "centralised" from the section on database of private citizens leaving explanations for both on the talk page (see Talk:Tek Fog § Removal of content from section on Automated messaging). 21:15, 4 March 2022 They demand explanation on how it isn't the same despite one being already provided and it being apparent. I leave a warning on their talk page (User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1 § March 2022) after seeing all this, where they deny any fault and continue to insist that the material was the same. I eventually restore the second part of it (on the central document of phrases being used for the messages). 16:11, 6 March 2022 They immediately revert and re-introduce the unverifiable "centralised database of citizens" while on their talk page, they make a retaliatory accusation (Special:Diff/1075546791) of "disruptive editing" and state that "The third editor [Toddy] seems to have removed it, which I have added back for your benefit". 17:50, 6 March 2022 Apparently I want to introduce something else altogether, according to them on the article's talk page. 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 on 03:25, 18 January 2022. Additional comments by editor filing complaint I'd think this is just trolling and WP:NOTHERE behaviour. Note that the account became active on 10 January, commented on the article's AfD pushing for deletion on the same day, and has since been persistent in trying to skim off content, introduce expressions of doubt and badger people on the talk page. The Tek Fog article isn't the only one, there is similar behavior on every article they have significant involvement in; for instance see the retaliatory accusation in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1092 § BLP violation by Venkat TL after receiving a copyvio warning in User talk:CapnJackSp/Archive 1 § February 2022. The date and time in the above diffs are in IST. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:30, 6 March 2022 (UTC) I was suggested to elaborate a bit more on my report (here) but I'll try to keep it as short as possible since this is starting to get a bit bloated. I'll point out the primary issue in the above series of edits and conversations. If one goes through it, you'll see CapnJackSp is trying to confuse the material related to the database with those related to automated messages. For instance, they repeatedly remove "a central document of phrases used for the automated messages" which is verifiable from the given citation, replace it by adding "centralised" to the "database of citizens who were targeted" which is unverifiable and then justify the former's removal by pointing at the latter. This is essentially dishonest trolling, or if you want wiki-lingo tendentious editing. In addition, to give some examples of their conduct beyond this on the page, I'll present a couple diffs. For their behavior on talk pages though, individual diffs aren't going to be very useful and one would have to go through the conversations they have participated in, at length. Special:Diff/1066320740 Introduction of expressions of doubt with a edit summary claiming that they had reached a consensus. The talk page at that point only contained a discussion on merging a section. Special:Diff/1067628839 More sneaky attempt at the same, no edit summary. It's coupled with re-arranging some sections and wiki-link removals while adding phrases like "claimed" and "said to have", pushing a couple sub-sections further down and removing some in-line citations. Tayi Arajakate Talk 06:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested Special:Diff/1075580590 Discussion concerning CapnJackSp 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 CapnJackSp An apology to the admins - This has gotten elongated to 600 words, and I feel I would be removing relevant material if I cropped out more. Kindly bear with me. This seems to me to be a content dispute being brought to DE, but I will nevertheless answer the points raised by Tayi below. (As a sort of "background" for points 1-3, this issue cropped up after Venkat TL made an edit to the article, Tek Fog. I saw that the material introduced had been repeated earlier in the article, and removed the sections that had been repeated. Venkat, without discussion, reverted my edit and his edit summary suggested that the onus lay with me for the material - I removed it and reminded him of the current standard procedures at Wikipedia.) (1) The points about the database and the automated messages being sent were covered in the section "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" and the first sentence of "Automated messaging". Here, I had also mistakenly removed the point about "centralised document", which I subsequently, in my later edits added back to the article (see point 2). (2)Here, I reverted Venkat's edit (which had reinstated the material, without any attempt at following BRD) while addingthe part about the centralised document to the section for the database. The same is reflected in my edit summary, which Tayi seems to have misunderstood. The "centralised document" is explained in the original report by The Wire to be a Google Sheet, and that it was only accessible through the database. The information has now been included in the article with much more clarity. (3) The section quoted covers two of the three points - The third being covered by the first sentence of "Automated messaging". No idea what the issue is here. (4-6) After this, editor Toddy1 pointed out that while the material had been individually covered, the Wikipedia article had not linked these two as the cited source had. Toddy and I settled on a version with minor changes after his edit, here. A day later, Tayi put a warning on my talk page at User_talk:CapnJackSp#March_2022. I responded politely, and again in more detail when asked. Following this, Tayi, without making any attempt to take up his issues with either Toddy, Venkat or me, reinstated the material. I reverted, pointing out that he needed to discuss before reinstating material removed with consensus. The comment on the talk page refers to the "centralised document" being a google sheet per The Wire - Here I am forced to speculate as Tayi did not engage on the talk page at all despite my ping. As both Tayi and Venkat have talked about my ANI report on Venkat, I think I need to clarify. The report was about Venkat repeatedly calling a murder victim a "terrorist" after being asked to stop doing so, a few days after he was reported on ADE [16] by Abhishek0831996 (where he was asked to tone down his rhetoric) and more recently on ANI by Kautilya3. It was pointed out to him (by Kyohi and Chess) there that my report was indeed correct and Venkat was wrong to use such language. The report can hardly be misunderstood to be as a "retaliation" when it happened two weeks after the warning, with Venkat and I having multiple constructive discussions in the meantime, ending with both of us reaching a consensus. Venkat's claim that I revolve around his articles, seems to be unfounded - Many spaces I edit are untouched by him, and I haven't edited in many areas he frequents. Our "intersection" lies around topics that are featured prominently in Indian media, where sometimes I edit an article first, and sometimes he does. If the admins do want any further clarification, I would be open to them. Cheers, Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 19:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC) I did not want to elongate this even further, but the diffs by Tayi need to be clarified here. Diff 1 is my edit after the editor with whom I has an edit conflict told me to "go ahead and edit it", when they had previously not allowed me to edit it. The changes reverted by tayi, were reinstated with minor changes, and extended to the rest of the lead by editors more experienced than me [17]. The edit summary could have been more clear, I accept that much. It was fairly early in my editing, and I have gotten much better since. Diff 2 is not the same as Tayi claims - It was merging an awkward section to another to reach a more readable form. This was done after the discussion on the talk page - See Talk:Tek_Fog#Merging_the_section_"Military_grade_psychological_operations_weapon"_to_Reactions.Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown: Regarding the diffs of supposed closed paraphrasing provided by Venkat TL, which are more than 1 month ago, came after the warning he made to me on 10 February. I am not sure why he is bringing up these old and outdated violations to derail the report which concerns nothing more than content dispute as accurately described by Kautilya3. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2022 (UTC) I was originally not going to reply to Venkat's allegations as my answer was getting too long, but since he left me a ping on Talk:The Next Civil War: Dispatches from the American Future, I have replied to him there. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 20:25, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Venkat has in his edits introduced even more off topic material against admin advice, thus forcing me to respond. I had refrained from responding to his edits due to size constraint and excessive off topic bloating of this report, but I would like to ask admins for a size extension here since it seems he is trying to force as many trivial points in to try and make his statement sound more credible. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 10:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Venkat TL Apologies as entire Statement approx 600 words. (excluding quotes) I am an involved user as CapnJackSp has multiple disputes with me and has targeted me on admin boards.[18] I agree with the observation by the admin User:Black Kite on ANI case that this user is WP:NOTHERE to build. But the case for Boomerang action on CapnJackSp did not get enough traction there. I have tried my best to assume good faith with CapnJackSp but now I have become tired by the incessant sealioning and tendentious editing by this user. Some of which are borderline trolling. Tendentious editing of whitewashing and censoring reliably sourced information. CapnJackSp's edits on Wikipedia mostly revolve around the articles that I have created/edited, associated talk pages, and admin boards where he comments only to target me. I can add individual diffs, but they are all available on this Xtools page. Based on the talk page interactions, I cannot decide if this is competency related issue or deliberate refusal to follow the policies like Copyright violations, close paraphrasing and edit warring. He argues ad nauseam and is a total time sink for the wikipedia contributors. I will welcome some action. --Venkat TL (talk) 16:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC) @Dennis Brown CapnJackSp edits with a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government. (Diff C1 = Diff number 1 of edit by CapnJackSp) Violation of WP:SYNTH and WP:Original research, Source misrepresentation Diff C1 made up stuff not supported in the article. Please provide quote from source if you disagree. Diff C2The author does not say anything about the ideology, yet CapnJackSp adds stuff he made up. Diff C3 misrepresents current decade as "next decade" WP:COPYVIO and WP:Close paraphrasing Diff C4 Source Quote= "Wherever there is a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that." Line added by Capjackspr (without quote) Aaditya Thackeray, state minister of Maharashtra, told journalists that if there was a uniform at schools, there should not be a place for any other dress other than that, Diff C5 Source Quote= Two people have been arrested in Kundapur in Karnataka's Udupi district for allegedly carrying lethal weapons during a protest at a government college over students' right to wear a hijab in classrooms... According to police officers, out of five men carrying weapons, three managed to flee from the spot. Line added by Capjackspr = Two men were arrested when they were found carrying lethal weapons during a protest about this issue. Three others managed to flee. Apart from WP:CLOP, CapnJackSp Inappropriately dropped 'allegedly' to confirm the alleged crime in Wikipedia voice. Attribution was also dropped. Diff C6 Source Quote= Ten Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province, Line added by Capjackspr = 10 Pakistani soldiers were killed when terrorists attacked a security forces’ checkpost in Kech district of the restive southwestern Balochistan province. Source Quote= " The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India." Diff C7.1 Line added by Capjackspr = The hijab row follows a string of online attacks against Muslim women in India Diff C7.2 This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India. Diff C7.3 This hijab row followed a string of online attacks targeted towards Muslim women in India. CapnJackSp did not just violate copyright here but also edit warred three times to restore the same copyright violation. It was explained to him at 3 places 1 2 3 Moreover Kautilya3 then used diffs of my reverts of removal of copyright violation ( WP:NOT3RR) to file a false Edit warring case against me for sniping me) Violating internal copyright without providing attribution. Diff C8 The content added, was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights. Diff C9 The content added was copied by CapnJackSp as it is from India–United States relations without giving attribution as required by copyrights. User:Kautilya3 failed to mention below that he is not an uninvolved bystander, he is deeply involved in these disputes. Kautilya3 is acting alongside problematic user CapnJackSp. Kautilya3 has attempted to target and snipe me at Admin board. (false edit warring and false ARE case). So, I am not at all surprised that Kautilya3 is attempting to sweep this case under the carpet. Venkat TL (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Kautilya3, I apologize. I stand corrected about the ARE case diff. I have struck it down. I had in mind this ARE case started by Kautilya, which was about Hemantha and not me, yet CapnJackSp had used that ARE case to target me. I have noted CapnJackSp's bias that I have assessed based on reviewing CapnJackSp's Wikipedia edits, and provided diffs. I believe this is WP:Tendentious editing and the admins should take note of this behavior as it violates neutrality of Wikipedia. Venkat TL (talk) 14:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC) CapnJackSp has answered about Diffs C1-3 on Article talk page due to word limit here. I invite the admins to look at it . His answers will give you a good idea of what we are dealing with here. You have to see it to believe it. Now I believe more strongly that WP:CIR applies. C1 = CapnJackSp did not answer the question and added yet another massive copyright violation Diff C10. C2 = Claims that he is not responsible for the source misrepresentation he had added, C3 = CapnJackSp doubles down and says "This decade = next decade." Venkat TL (talk) 08:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC) Black Kite had said on ANi "Looking at their contribs, they are practically all either in contentious areas or contentious themselves. There are ten notices on their userpage about concerns with their editing, and they've only been contributing since 10 January." Another editor STSC had suspected this user to be a sock. Though CapnJackSp denied. Venkat TL (talk) 15:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by TrangaBellam This is subtle trolling, at best. Suggest a TBan. TrangaBellam (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by Kautilya3 This seems like a storm in a teacup. CapnJackSp's first deletion was technically correct. The sentence he deleted was already covered in the earlier section titled "Database of private citizens for targeted harassment" (as the section title itself makes clear). But his later claim that somebody else should follow "BRD" while he was reinstating his deletion is not correct. (If your edit was already reverted then you are in the "D" stage.) Likewise, when Venkat TL demands on the talk page, "please explain your undue removal of valid sourced content here", (i) "undue" is not something that applies to removals, and (ii) the sourcing of the content was not stated as an issue. (Never mind that that paragraph never cited a source to start with!) There are newish users on both sides, who have only hazy understanding of procedures and are not being very cooperative with each other. I would recommend closing with warning to both sides to collaborate more sincerely. I also think that page is in a mess and quite disorganised and incomprehensible. The content should be junked and rewritten fro scratch. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Venkat TL is trying to enlarge the case by bringing in a big laundry list of edits (C1, C2, C3) which have nothing to do with the present case. But the main thrust of his argument is the allegation of "a bias (POV) that is anti-liberal and anti-Muslim and pro-far-right, pro-Hindutva, pro-BJP government". If he start with that kind ideological profiling of editors, what kind of collaboration can we expect from him? And, what if CapnJackSp has pro-BJP leanings? There is nothing in Wikipedia policies that says pro-BJP people cannot edit Wikipedia. As far as I can see, CapnJackSp is quite aware of his own biases and is cautious in pushing for them. See this comment for a recent example. That is more than I can say about Venkat TL. Even though I probably agree with him 90% of the time, he needs to attack me for the remaining 10% disagreement. (By the way, the lead of the Tek Fog article was almost entirely rewritten by me, by bringing in better WP:SECONDARY sources. Is there anything there that Venkat TL found disagreeable?) He claims that I brought "two falses cases" against him. For the first, a straightorward 3RR violation, we have only his own claim that it was "false". And for the second, the so-called "false ARE", I neither brought it here nor participated in it! So, it seems that Venkat TL is imagining enemies everywhere and waging ideological battles with them demanding 100% agreement with his own views. Not a good recipe for being a decent Wikipedian. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning CapnJackSp This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. Looking at one or two comments, I don't see much, but if you put the puzzle together, starting with CapnJackSp being the only person to vote Delete at an AFD that closed as a Snow Keep, then the types of arguments being bandied about on the article talk page, it looks like a death by 1000 paper cuts. Bogging down the discussion. That's the vibe I'm getting anyway. Passive-aggressive obstructionism. One last thing, I noticed in his deleted contribs four AFDs that he started (plus the other he voted in), which isn't related but highly unusual for someone that literally just started a couple of weeks ago. Curious. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC) Venkat TL, you mentioned copyright violations; do you have any diffs or links that could shed some light on this particular issue? It isn't in the initial report, but that is a bigger issue if it is a continuing problem. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC) You guys are meandering here, out of scope, and using way over your limit of words (do not delete, just don't add unless there is a VERY good reason). I'm not sure what to make of all this mess. Yet. Much of this looks like poor editing, not specific to India/Pakistan topics. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Clean Copy

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 Clean Copy

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Tgeorgescu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 14:05, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Clean Copy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

WP:ARBPS

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

16:50, 6 March 2022 — breach of topic ban, mentioned the S-word

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

14:44, 3 February 2022 — topic banned

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

Not applicable.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

@Dennis Brown: Not only he violated his topic ban once, he violated it twice, as shibbolethink stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

[19]

Discussion concerning Clean Copy

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 Shibbolethink

Further example of Clean Copy breaching his TBAN: 06:11, 17 February 2022. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning Clean Copy

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

• Textbook example of violating a topic ban, zero question in my mind. Going to park and let another admin decide on the appropriate sanction. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think 48 hours is very reasonable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:04, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Looks like they've come back, but I will let another admin apply the sanction. Don't like to see my name on so many of these.... Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:44, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

• A 48 hour block seems warranted, this was as obvious as it gets. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 17:10, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• I agree, textbook. I'm good with 48 hours. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
• 48 hours is OK, I suppose, but Clean Copy has only edited once in March and may not notice. Cullen328 (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tombah

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 Tombah

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Selfstudier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 12:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

Tombah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4

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

Revision as of 21:52, 13 March 2022 Added "excluding the United States"

Revision as of 00:07, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Onceinawhile.

Revision as of 08:40, 14 March 2022 Readded.

Revision as of 09:48, 14 March 2022 Reverted by Selfstudier.

Revision as of 10:10, 14 March 2022 Readded.

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. [20] Indef for not responding on talk page to concerns about copyvio and ARBPIA violations, appeal to blocking editor accepted.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above.

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Subsequent to the appeal above, in February 2022, discussed with this editor the need to faithfully represent sources.

Warnedby the previously blocking admin about disruptive editing at Talk:Al-Khader and assuming bad faith in March 2022.

Warned editor about making false statement.

I have asked the editor to self revert several times, which they have refused to do, instead making accusations that I am being abusive and making personal attacks in requesting same.

This could/should have been resolved by way of self reversion at the first opportunity. The response in general seems not to address the issues, which go beyond the relatively straightforward 1R matter. Selfstudier (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Notification

Discussion concerning Tombah

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 Tombah

I have joined Wikipedia a few months ago, aiming to expand and democratize knowledge regarding the history and archeology of Israelite period and Second Temple period. However, since I have joined I am repeatedly exposed to a clear anti-Israel bias in many articles on these subjects, and in some places, even anti-semitic. I try to assume good faith, I really do - but it's getting harder seeing how deep the problem is. In some instances, these edits border re-writing history - with the purpose to erase Israelite/Jewish/Israeli history. Here are few examples:

• In the article Decapolis, a group of Hellenistic cities from the Roman period, it was mentioned that most of Palestine was inhabited by Canaanites, Nabateans and Arameans at that time, while in historical research, the Canaanites have disappeared from history centuries earlier, during the Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age. I later found the original study, which actually lists these nations as Jews, Nabataeans and Arameans. It is pretty clear what happened here.
• According to the Al-Khader article, ancient water systems built by Judean rulers during the Roman period were terminated under the Al-Aqsa Mosque, a mosque which was built only hundreds of years later. According to the same article, they were named for Suleiman the Magnificent, where in fact they are traditionally named after King Solomon. When I corrected this to reference the correct site which occupied the Temple Mount during that period - the Second Temple - my edit was quickly reverted, with some editor claiming that "Solomon's Pools" should not be described in this article, in a move that essentially seems like Temple denial.
• In the article for Sebastia, a West Bank town which was originally founded as the capital of the Kingdom of Israel in the 8th century BC, editors repeatedly remove the ancient Israelite connection providing no explanation, sometimes preferring to base the lead on places such as ‘Lonely Planet’ instead of proper academic sources.
• Seeing that bias is so rooted, the fact that Israeli settlements are described in the article’s lead with "colonies" as a synonym, a term used almost exclusively by Palestinians (as explicitly mentioned in one of the sources) - comes as no surprise. There surely no problem in showing various point of views, but referring to "Israeli colonies" as a mainstream title is of course POV. In the article's talk page, @Nableezy claimed that "the term 'Israeli colonies' is used in countless sources to describe the, well, colonies Israel has established outside its sovereign territory," an explanation that seems like Wikipedia:No original research; Later, @Selfstudier, the issuer of this arbitration request, based his opinion on the French language: "Colony is a synonym and they have no official name so not ridiculous, the French even use colonie for settlement."

The same article, Israeli Settlements, also stated that "the international community has rejected any change of status in both territories and continues to consider each occupied territory." While in fact, the US has recognized Israeli sovereignty in the Golan Heights. I edited the article to point that out. This was quickly reverted by Selfstudier, who deemed it as a "false statement", removing the US reference along other material I added to the article. Some hours later, I re-added the US reference, and provided more citations for that reference. My previous edit incorrectly mentioned Jerusalem along the Golan Heights as one of the territories the US recognized as part of Israel, so I left that out, and kept only the Golan Heights reference, which is indeed correct. Upon learning this was a violation of the 1R rule, I manually reverted my edit.

Since I'm relatively new to Wikipedia, I'm still gradually learning the rules. I don't claim for expertise, but as someone with experience in UX design, I can confirm Wikipedia is a platform with a very steep learning curve. Honestly, up until today, I didn't fully realize how the revert rule works, especially regarding edits (as distinct from re-reverts). Unfortunately, it seems that tolerance for mistakes made by new editors who try to challenge the biases is non-existent, even for someone who asks for mentorship. I'm afraid there is a small group of editors here who are systematically trying to discredit other editors whose editing might oppose their point of view. I believe that a quick visit to my talk page showcases that quite vividly. Even if the final decision is indeed to block this account, I hope from the bottom of my heart that Wikipedia will investigate this matter in greater detail and create more sophisticated solutions mechanisms to protect its neutrality and reliability from editors trying to game the system, especially in articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

@Nableezy, this is not an issue of ethnicity. When speaking on the Arab-Israeli conflict, a term which is used predominantly by one of the sides - in this case, the Palestinians - should be seen as it is - one-sided. I haven't seen a single document written by the United Nations, for example, calling the settlements "colonies". Drawing inspiration from pre-1948 namings, the French language, or historical comparisons is irrelevant for that case. I have no problem with mentioning "Israeli colonies" as part of the Palestinian POV that can be surely described in the article and even have its own section. You are welcome to create an article and call it "Israel and the Colonialism analogy". But using the term "colonies" as a synonym in the article's lead not only confuses users, but turns this whole platform into a propaganda site. In any case, this is far from being a precedent. Until very recently, the article "Tel Rumeida" mentioned that one of the synonyms, "Tel Hebron", is used by Jewish scholars exclusively.

Statement by Shrike

Was a request to self revert was made? --Shrike (talk) 14:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The user have self-rv Shrike (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nableezy, There is nothing outrageous here I was told numerous times that there is a heated enjoinment and users that have made far more serious accusation were not sanctioned. Shrike (talk) 14:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Seems to me like content dispute. The user have valid concerns that some of our articles are biased, that's are usual practice Shrike (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

Yes, a self-revert request was made (here), and ignored in favor of claiming phantom personal attacks when being told they are in violation of the 1RR. Been consistent edit-warring and accusations of bad faith against others (see for example edit summary here, and this outrageous accusation.) nableezy - 14:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, saying "What do you have against ancient Jewish history?" is in fact outrageous. nableezy - 14:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Saying that sources call the settlements colonies so we should include it as an alternate name is the very opposite of original research. Whereas dismissing sources because of the ethnicity of the authors, well that seems like something more serious. Imagine somebody saying we cannot include some material because the authors that support it are Jewish. Somebody saying something like should be booted out faster than they can press save page. But saying the sources are all written by Arabs, well nobody bats an eyelash at that display of, ummm well what would you call it if somebody dismissed sources because they were written by Jews? nableezy - 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, the source says Tel Hebron is used by Israeli settlers exclusively, and you removed that, presenting a fringe sized group within an involved party as an anodyne alternative name. Here you have no such sourcing saying anything about a term being used by a minority group, but you excise it entirely. There the sourcing says explicitly it is used by a fringe sized group and you promote it without qualification. And have the gall to imply others are racist with your "what do you have against ancient Jewish history" quip. nableezy - 16:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Firefangledfeathers

Tombah is also WP:AWARE due to a December 2021] DS/alert notice. Adding this in case others were as unsure as I was if Doug Weller's block was an Arb enforcement action or just a regular admin action. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning Tombah

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.

JustinSmith

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 JustinSmith

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Alexbrn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 16:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

JustinSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/COVID-19

• Suggest indefinite TBAN from COVID-19, broadly construed.

Violation

John Campbell (YouTuber) is an article about a retired nurse who has made a number of controversial COVID-19 videos, sometimes containing misinformation as documented by RS, and the Wikipedia article accordingly.

JustinSmith arrived at the article and immediately started bombing the lede with a factoid about how Campbell is apparently vaccinated. Despite pushback from multiple editors and on the Talk page this has now become full-on edit warring, per the diffs below:

1. [21]
2. [22]
3. [23]
4. [24]
5. [25]

Warned about DS and the risk of sanctions, JustinSmith said "... Banning me, after 16 years editing Wikipedia, might be doing me a favour anyway, it takes up so much time. I will only accept an edit that acknowledges that Campbell cannot be "anti vax" because he is triple vaccinated".[26]

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)

• [27]

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The editor seems productive in unrelated areas, hence a TBAN seems appropriate.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

• [28]

Discussion concerning JustinSmith

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 (slatersteven)

Was going to launch this myself comments like this [[29]] and this [[30]] worry me, after 16 years they seem to think OR and RS are "obscure policies" [[31]] is also troubling. It is clear that (on this issue at least) they have a serious POV problem which means they have a battleground mentality. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning JustinSmith

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.