Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment
- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.
| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clarification request: The Troubles | Motion | (orig. case) | 15 January 2019 |
| Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request | Motion | none | 19 January 2019 |
| Clarification request: Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope | Motion | none | 23 January 2019 |
| Amendment request: Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping | Motion | none | 9 February 2019 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
Requests for clarification and amendment
Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
- Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).
To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)
- Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
- Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
- Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement action issued by an administrator, such as a contentious topics restriction).
- Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
- If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use
{{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}}to do this. - Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.
This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.
Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.
Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.
Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:
Clarification request: The Troubles
| Archived to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Initiated by Thryduulf at 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC) List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
Statement by Thryduulf (re The Troubles)In The Troubles arbitration case the committee authorised a remedy that was effectively discretionary sanctions (this was before standardised discretionary sanctions as we know them today had evolved) and as part of that a general 1RR restriction was imposed. Later, the old remedy was replaced by discretionary sanctions, incorporating the 1RR restriction. However, because of the way these sanctions have evolved the scope of the DS topic area is stated differently in different places and this is causing confusion (see for example [[Talk:#DS notice]]). What I believe to be the full history of the scope(s) and where I found them is detailed at User:Thryduulf/Troubles scope but what I understand to be the differing scopes presently in force are (numbered for ease of reference only):
British Baronets were formerly part of some of the scopes, but that was unambiguously removed by a previous committee. I am asking the committee to:
Request 1 does lead to the need to determine what the scope should be. In my view, formed following some discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:Great Famine (Ireland) and looking at various articles and talk pages is that there are only two that need considering:
The Ulster Banner does not need to be separately mentioned - the Ulster Banner article is quiet and is not even tagged and while the Flag of Northern Ireland article would benefit from continued inclusion in the discretionary sanctions regime it is firmly within either scope suggested above. The Easter Rising topic area is unquestionably within the scope of suggestion B and is reasonably interpreted as also being within the scope of suggestion A as crucial background to it. Whether the Great Famine (Ireland) is within the scope of either A or B is less clear, nor is there clear consensus whether it should be - more input than I was able to attract prior to the request is needed here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@Black Kite, GoodDay, EdJohnston, and Scolaire: letting you know about the suggested motion below in case you have any more comments. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Suggested motion re The TroublesPer SilkTork's request, here is my suggestion for the salient points of a clarification motion. It needs some introductory text and may need some wordsmithing Note to the clerks: If this (or some similar motion) passes the scope of the DS authorisation will need to be updated at Template:Ds/topics and Template:ArbCom Troubles restriction as well as the case pages linked. Thryduulf (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Black Kite(B) would be better, in my opinion ... one could argue for the second section to specifically include the use of the term "British Isles", but that will probably be sufficient. If I remember correctly, the issues with the Ulster Banner weren't particularly on that article itself, but edit-warring to include the Banner instead of the Irish flag / Union Jack (depending on context) and vice-versa on BLPs and other articles that included flags and flagicons. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by GoodDayI would caution that 1RR may need to be kept in place, during the Brexit process which effects the British/Irish border & thus related articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC) I'm for anything, that'll prevent 'edit wars' around this topic. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by EdJohnstonPer a motion passed this year, the 1RR which is currently in place for Troubles articles is due to the decision by an administrator to impose it under discretionary sanctions. (Most likely it is due to this log entry by User:Timotheus Canens in the fall of 2011. The idea of a blanket Troubles 1RR didn't originate with him, it used to be a community sanction before that). So, if anybody thinks that the blanket 1RR should be adjusted they could (in theory) appeal it at AE. Personally, I can see the advantages of single-page 1RRs that could be applied by individual administrators. According to Canens, the scope of the case is "..reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.." In my view, this is an adequate description of the scope and I wouldn't advise the committee to get really specific as to which articles are in or out. Admins shouldn't take action unless the nature of the edits suggests that nationalism is at work in the minds of at least some of the editors. Modern nationalism can cause problems with articles that seem tangential, as when editors who are warned about WP:ARBMAC get into wars about Alexander the Great, since the word 'Macedonia' occurs there. Yet the ARBMAC decision did not mention our article on Alexander the Great, nor should it. Even so, the ARBMAC sanctions would reasonably apply to any nationally-motivated editing of that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC) Statement by ScolaireI have nothing extra to bring to the general discussion. It was always my belief that the scope of the sanctions should be B, and this seems to be the arbs' view as well. I would just note that, in the Famine article, there was this edit within the last week. The historiography of the famine is still very much a battleground between Irish nationalists and British nationalists. The article has had a Troubles restriction template on the talk page since 2009. I don't see any point in removing it now. Scolaire (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: Is "'Ireland' has the standard geographical and political meanings" a phrase that has commonly been used in the past? It's not clear to me what it's saying. Where are the standard meanings posted and who set the standards? And is there a political meaning that's different from the geographical meaning(s) – one that includes Boston, Massachusetts or Celtic Park, Glasgow, for instance? If there is no bureaucratic reason for having this, I would leave it out. If there is, I would rephrase it so it is unambiguous. Scolaire (talk) 11:56, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
@Thryduulf and Joe Roe: I have already pointed out the ambiguity in the word "country" in regard to Ireland. Building ambiguity into a "clarification" makes no sense. The word "state" is used exclusively in the Irish Manual of Style. It was also the word used in the 2009 Poll on Ireland article names authorised by Arbcom, and in any number of discussions on WT:IE and WT:IECOLL. If you're going to go ahead with 6b (which I still think is just wordiness for the sake of wordiness), please change "country" to "state". Scolaire (talk) 10:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Statement by {other-editor}Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information. The Troubles: Clerk notes
The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion
The Troubles: motion
|
Amendment request: Crouch, Swale clarification request
Initiated by Nyttend at 01:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Modified unban conditions
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
- Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
- The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Nyttend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- There's only one clause
- Please specify namespaces where page creation is or is not appropriate.
Statement by Nyttend
The original unban conditions were clear: C, S can create pages in userspace and any talk namespace, but nowhere else. Now, the conditions are confusing: he can create pages in userspace, any talk namespace, draftspace, and no articles. But what about other namespaces? Is it necessarily a ban violation to nominate an article for deletion, since that requires the creation of a page in project space, or is it all right as long as it's unrelated to geographic naming? What about creating categories and templates if they're unrelated to geographic naming? Please specify the namespaces where page creation is appropriate, or where it's inappropriate, or give us admins other guidance; I've looked through the discussion at [5] without finding any reference to the issue. I don't have an opinion on what namespaces are good places for him to create pages, and I'm not asking for any particular result: I just want this restriction to be clear. Any user who's come back from a siteban will necessarily have a good deal of scrutiny, and if he creates pages in these namespaces, we're likely to see disputes over whether or not they're ban violations; either he ought to be able to create pages in such namespaces without controversy, or he should know that he's definitely prohibited from such creations. Arbcom can prevent confusion/disputes/etc. by clarifying or outright amending their statement in this area.
- Per his statement below, it would help if you also clarified whether he's allowed to move a page between draftspace and userspace. Nyttend (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Crouch, Swale
- @Nyttend: I don't have a problem with the restrictions including other pages (since that isn't something I really do much anyway), however it would be quite silly to say that I had violated my restrictions for creating an AFD discussion, since they were mainly aimed at page creation, starting an AFD is essentially initiating the opposite. Note that the discussions on geographical NC was lifted in July 2018 and the suspended restriction expired 2 days ago (I removed it). The page creation restriction was originally intended to be just an article creation restriction but it was pointed out that I has previously created quite a few redirects, categories and templates that were up for deletion. I don't think creating pages that are administrative such as POTD, SPI, AFD etc violate the spirit or the restrictions but do violate the letter. However since as noted its not something I'm interested in, I don't have a problem with having the restrictions include all other pages.
- Do the restrictions also cover me moving pages to and from the draft space from my user space (and moves within the draft space of drafts that I have created) since I might realize that a page I created in the draft space is incorrectly named or might need moving back to my userspace. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @GorillaWarfare: The request in the previous discussion was "page creation" which does essentially mean all pages, though until I have got the missing articles created, I have little reason to think much about other pages. While I don't have a problem with not being able to move within user and draft (since I just add {{subst:submit}} to the user subpage, it does seem a bit silly since I can just create it at the target location anyway. However I'm not pressed on asking for that exception since that would unnecessarily complicate things. Its also highly unlikely that I would need to move an article that I had created since I will have had plenty of time to think about where to create it and most have obvious titles anyway. As pointed out move discussions don't require creating new pages (other than if the article doesn't have a talk page) and my editing doesn't usually require creating project subpages since I'm not active generally in that area. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: "Other pages in his userspace that are not:" "(drafts of) content intended for the main namespace." "(drafts of) templates intended for use in the main namespace." What was meant by that? were you saying that I can't create drafts for articles and templates in my userspace anymore? You'r first bullet was "Draft articles in his userspace or in the draft namespace" being exempt. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- Also with changing redirects to DAB pages, shouldn't that be allowed since as pointed out at User talk:Crouch, Swale#Broxtowe its just providing arrows when more than 1 title would be at that title (or redirect there). Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: Per restriction 4 "except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace". The subsequent reviews wouldn't have revoked the "any namespace" part. However I'm not really pressed on being allowed to create project pages so I don't have a problem with the restriction continuing to include all pages (obviously I'd like to have the page creation restrictions removed as a whole but I presumably have to wait until July). However do we allow converting redirects into DAB pages, since that doesn't really fall under article creation. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:24, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: Yes I would assume that I shouldn't convert redirects to DAB pages which is why I was asking here, not that I have converted many DAB pages into redirects though. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Mkdw: So does that mean that I can create pages in any other namespace other than main? and what about DAB pages and redirects? Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:57, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: Yes I would mainly be interested in if DAB pages and redirects could be an exception (but I am not going to push for that so feel free to decline that if its a problem) if people think pages like AFD/SPI/POTD sub pages would be OK, then they could be lifted but I'm not that interested in that since that area isn't my main focus but it may occasionally be useful. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @SilkTork: To clarify does this mean that I can create any other kinds of pages (such as categories and templates) or is it only talk pages and "maintanance subpages". Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:13, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- They are both liable to get you into difficulties if you misuse them; however, if we are to see if you can conduct yourself appropriately and within reason, I think it is acceptable that you be allowed to create them as well. It would be sensible to notify me in advance of any such that you intend to create so we can discuss it. SilkTork (talk) 22:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re Crouch, Swale)
It seems that few (if any) people will have any problem with C, S creating the following types of page, so they could be explicitly whitelisted.
- Draft articles in his userspace or in the draft namespace
- Project space pages required by processes such as AfD or MfD.
- Other pages in his userspace that are not:
- (drafts of) content intended for the main namespace.
- (drafts of) templates intended for use in the main namespace.
- Redirects automatically created when moving pages as permitted by other restrictions.
- Talk pages, including talk page archives.
The second last bullet should be included, even if he is not permitted to move any pages currently, such that no amendment to this section is required should his restrictions be loosened before being completely removed. Thryduulf (talk) 00:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Crouch, Swale: The bullets re draft articles and your userspace are complementary: In draftspace you can create drafts of articles. In userspace you can create (a) drafts of articles and (b) pages that are not content / templates intended for the mainspace. Sorry for confusion. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2019 (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.
Crouch, Swale clarification request: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
- I've updated the case request so that it includes the wording of the restriction and I have modified the link so that it is now a diff. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 14:11, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale clarification request: Arbitrator views and discussion
- The wording of the motion applies only to articles. In the discussion we decided to look at only lifting one restriction, which was article creation. The discussion then focused on that aspect. Given that our focus, discussion, and wording was on article creation it wouldn't be appropriate to feel it included other forms of page creation. We may have been remiss in not considering that aspect and clarifying it; but for now for the benefit of that clarity, no other page creation is allowed unless and until the rest of the Committee decide to discuss the matter further and specifically lift restrictions on other page creation. As far as I'm concerned I'm quite comfortable in just allowing article creation until the next review in six months, but will look into the matter further if the other Committee members indicate they are willing to do so SilkTork (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- As regards page moving in space other than userspace. No, that's not allowed. I would suggest keeping articles within userspace until they are moved into mainspace as part of the AfC procedure. If the article name once in mainspace is seen to be incorrect, follow the move request procedure. SilkTork (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:Crouch, Swale, I assumed the intention behind "This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page" was meant to prevent you from turning a redirect or dab into an article or something else, such as a redirect into a dab; though there may be another interpretation. Unless there is further clarity on the issue, I would say that you would be safest in assuming that the only changes in your unban conditions are that you can submit a maximum of one article a week to AfC. If in doubt about something, don't do it or come here for clarification. SilkTork (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think I would be ok with moves from userspace to draftspace. Typical preference for AfC is for AfC submissions to be in draftspace rather than userspace, so I don't see a reason to prevent Crouch, Swale from making the AfC reviewers' lives a little easier. I don't see a reason to prohibit the creation of administrative sub-pages such as AfD/MfD noms, since those aren't really pages created for the sake of making pages, they're pages that get made as a byproduct of our other processes. I would not be ok with the creation of things intended to go into mainspace - navbox templates, geographic categories and so forth. I think that's a reasonable distinction. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, G13 also applies to userspace drafts that have been submitted to AfC, so moving submitted drafts back to userspace from draft would be pointless, especially since one can just make an edit to a draft to bump G13 for another 6 months. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Joe Roe, yeah, you're right. (I still think bapping it with one edit every six months is a far easier method though, especially if you're planning to keep working on it. But it's no big deal either way.) In any case, I'm still fine with CS moving stuff back and forth between draft/userspace. His issue was aggressively retitling stuff in mainspace that was the issue, not moving between namespaces, so I don't imagine it will be a cause of disruption. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:29, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Agreed with SilkTork that this only modifies the article creation portion of the previous remedy, which continues to prohibit Crouch, Swale from page creation more broadly. While I don't have a strong objection to C,S being allowed to create AfD pages and such, it's not something we discussed in the amendment request (nor do I believe C,S requested it) so we would have to explicitly amend the motion. I also would rather he not be allowed to move pages as PMC has suggested—as far as I'm aware, it's no more difficult for AfC reviewers to review drafts in the userspace than in the draftspace, so it shouldn't be an issue (and if it is, he should request another user move the page). GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:03, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Back so soon? Did you miss us? ;) I really don't care one way or the other about moving between userspace and draftspace; that's mainly a question of whether it's easier for AfC reviewers to deal with drafts than userspace pages. (Is it? I didn't think it mattered.) I also don't have strong feelings about AfD etc., but that isn't a topic that's been raised in past ARCAs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
- As worded, the restriction doesn't seem to prohibit creating XFDs or other process pages. Doing so falls outside the restriction scope ("to create new articles") and is therefore not subject to the constraints ("by creating them in [etc…]") put on CS' actions within that scope. If there was any other ambiguity, I simply am not seeing it. AGK ■ 17:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- User:AGK, Nyttend's clarification request is because Crouch, Swale's unban wording is: "prohibition on creating new pages, including creating articles on pages where one didn't previously exist (except within their own userspace and talk pages of existing pages in any namespace)." Which says "pages". Our motion says "articles". The clarification is on that point. Now, if we are to say our motion includes all pages, then we create a situation where Crouch, Swale is only allowed to create one XFD page a week after it has gone through AfC. Which is not part of the AfC process. So, as far as the clarification goes, I feel we are safe ground in saying that our motion does not include the creation of any pages other than articles. Now, do we want to adjust that? Unless Crouch, Swale specifically requests us to amend the motion to include creating certain other pages such as XFDs, or enough Committee members spontaneously indicate that they wish to amend the motion, then I feel we can leave that until the next review. User:Crouch, Swale, do you wish the Committee to look into lifting the restriction on creating certain pages? If so, which ones would you like us to consider? You are allowed to create talkpages of articles in mainspace. SilkTork (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- For what it's worth at this point, I took
Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review.
- To mean, a prohibition on creating articles in the main space without first using the userspace or draft space and AFC process, and not that any new pages created would be restricted and would need to undergo the same process. Mkdw talk 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
- AfC reviewers usually move userspace submissions to draftspace before reviewing them, so I think the only way that restriction is consequential is if CS wants to move declined drafts back to userspace to protect them from G13.
- To try and move this towards a consensus, perhaps we should think about whether we want CS to be restricted from creating pages in other namespaces, rather than if he currently is. Personally I don't see any problem with it. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Premeditated Chaos: Only if it has an AfC submission template on it. In the past I've recommended that if users want to keep rejected drafts long term, they move them to userspace and remove all the templates. – Joe (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- I think that's a positive way of looking at it Joe, however it would require a new motion to amend the wording, and from my reading of Crouch, Swale's responses to my queries, he's not bothered. If User:Crouch, Swale wants to explicitly ask us to amend the motion to allow him to create certain pages which he identifies, then I would be open to looking into that. SilkTork (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale: motion
The restriction on page creation imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
- Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new pages outside of mainspace such as talkpages and AfD pages.
- Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
- The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.
- For this motion there are 9 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.
- Support
- I think this clears things up, and allows us to move forward. I see no useful purpose in continuing to disallow Crouch, Swale from creating other pages, as it was his article creation that was the concern. SilkTork (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- – Joe (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Mkdw talk 20:48, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Katietalk 02:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- AGK ■ 10:40, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- Oppose
- Abstain
Clarification request: Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope
Initiated by RGloucester at 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Eastern Europe
- Macedonia
List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:
- RGloucester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
Statement by RGloucester
This is a matter of housekeeping, and I hope that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee can assist me by providing some clarification. Recently, I filed a request for arbitration enforcement relating to the article "Origin of the Romanians". In making preparations to file that request, I came across the strange situation whereby I knew discretionary sanctions applied to the relevant article, but I was not sure which of the two related and existing discretionary regimes was most appropriate to use. I expect that's somewhat confusing, so let me explain a bit further.
There are discretionary sanctions regimes in place for articles related to Eastern Europe, and for the Balkans. Unfortunately, the definitions of both 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans' are ambiguous and potentially overlapping. This produced a strange result whereby the relevant editor had originally been notified of the Eastern Europe regime, but was later notified of the Balkans regime in relation to his edits of the same article. In any case, this ambiguity is really not desirable for discretionary sanctions. The definition of 'Eastern Europe' specifically has actually been a matter of substantial dispute on Wikipedia before. One can easily imagine a situation whereby one could 'wikilawyer' about the validity of a notification of the existence of one of the regimes, in an effort to avoid sanctions. I wonder if the the Arbitration Committee can do one of two things: either clearly define the scope of each regime, or merge the two. This way, administrators enforcing sanctions and editors seeking their enforcement will not have to grapple with the ambiguities inherent in the terms 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans', and will be able to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.
- @AGK: In response to your question, I endorse the analysis by Thryduulf. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Power~enwiki: Romania is considered part of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in most definitions of both terms. The use of "broadly construed" means that there is no doubt that Romanian-related topics are presently under sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- @EdJohnston: I respect your judgement. Here's the problem I foresee. In the specific case of Iovaniorgovan, he was notified of ARBEE sanctions almost as soon as he started editing here. When his participation in the debate at Origin of the Romanians became increasingly problematic, an administrator DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) notified him of the Balkans sanctions, seemingly unaware of the previous alert, or otherwise disagreeing with the scope of the alert applied, therefore delaying the enactment of sanctions on Iovaniorgovan, and causing other long-term editors to be swept up in his messes. In addition, we now have a strange situation where the page-level restriction that was applied at Origin of the Romanians was logged under the Balkans case log, but the topic bans on Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca are logged under ARBEE. It's simply a bureaucratic mess, and it should be cleaned up. No one should have to roll the dice to decide which of these regimes to apply in a given case, and logging should make coherent sense, not be scattered all over the place. These sorts of messes make it harder for editors understand DS, and indeed, harder for them to participate in DS areas, for fear of falling into a Kafka-esque trap. We owe it to our editors to have a rationalised system of enforcement. That's why I'm asking for clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- As a further example for Mr Johnston, here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone was editing a Romania-related article, like Origin of the Romanians, and received an ARBEE alert. They then go on to make substantial and problematic edits to articles about the Yugoslav Wars. Would that ARBEE alert still be valid, or would a new Balkans alert be required? These sorts of grey areas...are really not desirable in a DS regime. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I'd like to thank the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee for taking up this matter. In response to Future Perfect at Sunrise, whom I greatly respect as an administrator, I'd like to say that your approach is indeed the best one. However, because the nature of the DS scopes implemented by the cases does not align with the specific disputes that brought on the cases, such a methodology is difficult to implement in practice. In as much as the scope of the sanctions is not "conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind", but "anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed", &c., grey areas quickly become apparent. I presume that the intent behind the broader scope of the sanctions, relative to the locus of the disputes that brought about the cases, was that the disputes that occurred provided evidence to suggest further disputes in the broader topic area were likely, and that it would be best to implement broader sanctions as a preventative measure. Whether that was a correct course of action is not for me to decide, but I will say that, in particular, the existence of the ARBEE sanctions was of a great help in controlling the outbreaks of disruptive editing that occurred at the time of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014...despite the original case not having had anything to do with that topic. In any case, I would advise the Committee to be more careful in its crafting of DS scopes in future, making clear whether it intends to limit such scopes to the locus of the dispute that occurred, or apply sanctions to a broader topic area as a preventative measure. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: I understand what your motion is trying to do, but I think you need to clarify the logging procedure. Will the logs be unified, or kept separate? RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- @AGK: I find your proposed change more undesirable than even the present mess, in line with what was said by Mr Rob. As for why, it will do nothing to solve the problem about when to apply each regime, will do nothing to sort out the scattered logging procedures that I described above, and will in fact only make this whole business MORE confusing. The goal of a merger was to eliminate questions about which regime to apply in areas of geographical overlap, like Romania, as demonstrated by Thryduulf below, and also to centralise logging so as to avoid the situation of having multiple sanctions related to one particular article logged under different regimes. Your proposal will leave parallel bureaucracies in place, seemingly for no purpose, and leave behind a mess for others to sort through. The idea that updating templates, &c., is too much work is very sad. ArbCom established sanctions, and has a responsibility to the community to maintain those sanctions in a rational way. If you need my help cleaning up templates, I can offer it, as I have experience in that area. In any case, I support Mr Rob's motion as the most sensible approach. The other alternative I can forsee would be to clarify the scopes of the two cases to make them easier to differentiate, but the merger seems to have more support, and is easier to implement. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by power~enwiki
I recommend the committee make a motion of clarification here. The articles on Eastern Europe and Balkans are both unclear to whether Romania is part of the region. Neither of the disputes leading to discretionary sanctions particularly apply to Romania; the Balkans dispute primarily involved Bulgaria, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. The Eastern Europe dispute primarily involved Poland, Russia, and the Baltic States; the more recent crisis in the Ukraine has also fallen under those sanctions.
I'm not certain that Romania falls under any Discretionary Sanctions at this time. An explicit list of countries affected (rather than a region name) may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Thryduulf (re: Eastern Europe/The Balkans)
Looking at our articles about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, there is indeed overlap between them. Taking a reasonably (but not excessively) broad interpretation some or all of the following countries are included (sometimes depending on context):
| Country | Eastern Europe | Balkans |
|---|---|---|
| Albania | Yes | Yes |
| Belarus | Yes | No |
| Bosnia and Herzegovina | Yes1 | Yes |
| Bulgaria | Yes | Yes2 |
| Croatia | Yes | Yes3 |
| Czechia | Yes4 | No |
| East Germany | Yes5 | No |
| Estonia | Yes6 | No |
| Greece | Yes1, 7 | Yes8 |
| Hungary | Yes4 | No |
| Kosovo | Yes1 | Yes |
| Latvia | Yes6 | No |
| Lithuania | Yes6 | No |
| Macedonia | Yes1 | Yes |
| Moldova | Yes | No9 |
| Montenegro | Yes1 | Yes |
| Poland | Yes | No |
| Romania | Yes | Yes3 |
| Russia | Yes10 | No |
| Serbia | Yes1 | Yes |
| Slovakia | Yes4 | No |
| Slovenia | Yes | Yes3 |
| Turkey | No | Yes2, 10 |
| Ukraine | Yes | No |
Notes:
- Geographically (sometimes) South Eastern Europe if this is distinguished
- Usually only in geographical contexts
- Only in (some) political contexts
- Geographically usually Central Europe when this is distinguished, Eastern Europe when it isn't
- Prior to reunification only
- Only in Soviet/Cold War contexts
- Only in religious contexts
- Only the mainland in geographic contexts; included in only a few political contexts (most notably Macedonia naming dispute)
- Very occasionally included in political contexts, but should not be for discretionary sanctions purposes
- Only the European part
Based on this, Eastern Europe (when South Eastern Europe is not distinguished separately) is a near complete superset of the Balkans, so merging these into a single authorisation of "Eastern Europe including the Balkans and the Macedonia naming dispute." would resolve all the issues the OP raises. No actual restrictions would be altered, only the case they are logged under would change. Possibly those who are formally aware of only one scope would need to be informed they are now formally aware of the newly combined scope, but not definitely and this would only be a one-time thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- I agree completely with RGloucester - either the scope of both restrictions should be clarified so there is no overlap, or the restrictions should be merged into one (and Rob's proposal is a sensible way to achieve this). AGK's proposal is the worst of both worlds as it increases the bureaucracy and makes the confusion worse: at present there is no ambiguity that sanctions related to Poland should be logged under the EE case, if this proposal were to pass then there would be as sanctions could be placed under either or both cases; all the while it would not resolve the existing ambiguity over issues related to e.g. Romania. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by EdJohnston
Agree with the views of User:AGK. There is little upside to modifying the existing sanctions, and a possible downside. Even the present request doesn't give a persuasive reason why a change is required. In the recent AE about Origin of the Romanians nobody made the argument that the topic wasn't covered under WP:ARBEE. Even if ARBEE and ARBMAC do overlap, it's hard to see that as a problem.
Many of the existing DS are about nationalism. In the ideal case, we would have some kind of universal sanction that could be applied to nationalist editing anywhere in the world. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Fut.Perf
Speaking as somebody who has helped enforcing both sets of sanctions numerous times, I think there's rarely be much of a problem in determining which rule to apply, even if they overlap. For me, the crux of the matter is really not a mechanistic application of what country counts as belonging to what continental region. Those are pretty arbitrary attributions, and to take just one example, you will rarely find Greece described as belonging to "Eastern Europe", even though obviously its geographical longitude is well within the range of other countries that are. What matters is really more the nature of the underlying political struggles motivating the disruption we find on Wikipedia. Speaking broadly, "Eastern Europe" sanctions have mostly been invoked dealing with ethnic/national conflicts that broke up – directly or indirectly – in the wake of WWII, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "Balkans" sanctions have been invoked dealing with conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind. I'd personally be opposed to merging the two sanction rules. It shouldn't really matter in practice, if it wasn't for the practice of some admin colleagues (unnecessary and not really advisable, in my view, but still common) to hand out sanctions whose scope is always automatically identical with the entire set of topics covered by the DS regime. For instance, instead of topic-banning somebody from Serbian-Croatian conflicts, which might be entirely sufficient in an individual case, they always automatically reach for a topic ban from all Balkan topics, because that's what the DS rule applies to. I'd find it regrettable if these colleagues were to take a merger of the two DS rules as indicating that in the future all such sanctions should be handed out straight for "all of Eastern and Southeastern Europe", which would almost certainly be overreaching in most cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by {other-editor}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should opine whether and how the Committee should clarify or amend the decision or provide additional information.
Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Eastern Europe and Balkans discretionary sanctions scope: Arbitrator views and discussion
- On an initial review, discretionary sanctions in Macedonia pertain to the Balkans region, which is the Southeastern Europe peninsula. Treating the Balkans as part of Eastern Europe seems to be a stretch. Are you sure that the two overlap? The article seems to be a bad test case: it relates to the distant origin of a people, which involves by its nature a broad range of geography. While awaiting comment, I'll say generally that I need to be convinced of good reason for changing any discretionary sanctions remedy. The changes can themselves cause short-term dispute and confusion, and defaulting to no change is a sensible practice. AGK ■ 17:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Special thanks indeed to Thryduulf for sharing a useful, methodical assessment of the area. To move us towards a conclusion (one way or the other), I will draft a motion shortly. AGK ■ 11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
- Re. logging and RGloucester: I have proposed amending each case separately, without a disruptive "merger". In practice enforcement requests are always made in the context of a single arbitration remedy – ignoring all others – and so having two with the same scope will have no effect. At the same time, it avoids the need to update a bunch of notices, insist that existing sanctions are still in effect, and change how daily enforcement is carried out. AGK ■ 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Per Thryduulf's assessment, merging the two DS areas into something like "Eastern and Southeastern Europe" sounds like it would make enforcement a bit easier. But that does highlight their extremely broad scope: the history, society, geography, etc. of half a continent. Both motions seem to have been based on the actions of a handful of editors and the Balkans case is now over a decade old. Perhaps it's time to consider rescinding or refining these. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
- Merging the two makes sense to me as it doesn't increase the scope of the two DS simply puts them together for convenience and clarity. And it would be helpful to include a list of the countries involved. I am comfortable leaving the DS in place as it does not restrict editing, but is there to be used in case of future problems, and there may well be future problems. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think merging the two as SilkTork said would make sense for clarity sake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Motions: Eastern Europe and Balkans scope
For this motion there are 10 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.
(1) Proposed:
At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans.
- Support
- Abstain
- Comments
- Appeals or sanctions under the EE case should continue to be logged as Eastern Europe. The scope of other cases or authorised discretionary sanctions has no effect. AGK ■ 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
(2) Proposed:
- Abstain
- Comments
- And here, appeals or sanctions under the EE case should continue to be logged as Macedonia. The scope of other cases or authorised discretionary sanctions has no effect. AGK ■ 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
(3) Proposed:
At Amendment II in Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe is replaced as text by Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Remedy 3 in Macedonia is superseded by this amendment.
- Oppose
- Abstain
- Comments
- Proposing as an alternative to 1/2 without comment on whether we should do this at all, to avoid the odd situation of authorizing the exact same discretionary sanctions in two different cases. That just seems like a mess waiting to be cleaned up when some future Committee changes the sanctions in one place but forgets about the other. I hope to be able to look at this situation and actually support or oppose in the near future rather than maintaining my current inactivity on the matter. ~ Rob13Talk 04:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
- I've placed my votes after a review of the situation. This seems to be an improvement to me, reducing the overlap while not "losing" anything. Whether the DS should be removed entirely seems to be a separate question, and one best answered after we know how these DS operate when enacted in a less confusing manner. As a point of clarification on awareness, note that editors who were "aware" of the Balkans discretionary sanctions will need to be made aware of the Eastern Europe and Balkans sanctions before they can be subject to DS. This is a small hiccup, but it actually is rather sensible, since Eastern Europe and the Balkans is a superset of the Balkans. I consider it a happy accident that this merger would likely result in editors being made aware of the sanctions active in the broader topic area they're editing. ~ Rob13Talk 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Amendment request: Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping
Initiated by Imalbornoz at 00:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Case or decision affected
- Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping (specifically, regarding the Gibraltar case)
- Clauses to which an amendment is requested
- 6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded
- List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
- Imalbornoz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
- Wee Curry Monster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Kahastok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Information about amendment request
- 6. Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is rescinded
- Remedy 10 of the Gibraltar case is reinstated;
Statement by Imalbornoz
Point #8 of the decision: “In the event that disruptive editing resumes in any of these topic-areas, a request to consider reinstating discretionary sanctions in that topic-area may be made on the clarifications and amendments page.”
Since November 2018 there has been disruptive editing from the users involved in the Gibraltar case:
- Systematic tendentious editing from User:Wee Curry Monster [content reverted per WP:OUTING].
- User:Kahastok ([content reverted per WP:OUTING], and who is mentioned in WCM’s user page as his “mentor”) has also edited tendentiously in several occasions and supported WCM’s edits.
- I have edit warred (within 3RR) and lost assumption of good faith.
- We have discussed for >2 months, covering the Gibraltar talk page with walls of text and probably scaring away uninvolved editors.
The focus of discussion: During Gibraltar’s capture in 1704 there were very notorious (at the time) events of rapes, plundering and defilement of Catholic churches;[6] after the surrender the population was only allowed to stay if they changed their allegiance to the invaders’ faction; 98% of the 4,000 Spanish population fled, most of them forever, and settled up mainly in the rest of the Gibraltar municipality, which would later become “Campo de Gibraltar”; they took with them the city council files, historical symbols, etc. and kept the legacy of Spanish Gibraltar.[7] These are facts mentioned by all relevant sources. They have been used by Spanish nationalists to support their irredentist claims (in the UN’s committee for decolonization, for example), and aren’t comfortable for British nationalists (none of which should affect Wikipedia). WCM, with Kahasok’s help, has been removing these facts from Gibraltar articles.
Antecedents (notice repetitive behavior):
- There was a 2 years discussion about the exodus of Gibraltarians, resulting in sanctions.
- WCM’s tendentious behavior (summary:[8]; examples:[9][10][11][12][13][14]) caused the original Gibraltar case, and received a 3 month ban.
- After the 3 months, under the DS, he was also subject to a 0RR restriction.
- Later on, also within the DS, WCM, together with Kahastok, myself and Richard Keatinge were placed under restrictions for almost a year and a half, until WCM appealed and restrictions were lifted on a trial basis.
- During the 1.5 years of the restrictions, less involved editors copyedited the Gibraltar related articles and their edits have remained essentially untouched as the consensus text for 8 years until last November.
- Eventually, the DS were lifted by the decision mentioned above. For years, myself and Richard Keatinge remained mostly away from Gibraltar related articles, and WCM and Kahastok didn’t essentially change the content that had been developed by other editors.
Since November 2018, Wee Curry Monster, with the help of Kahastok, and some “good guys” in WCM’s list,[15] has been editing tendentiously across several articles the specific issues involved in the Gibraltar case, removing facts that are supported by all secondary sources, using arbitrary excuses (first ignoring previous consensus, then arguing inaccuracy, then copyvio, “excessive quotes”, opposite consensus…) and rejecting dispute resolution.
Examples of tendentious editing:
- WCM and Kahastok removing the information about the capture and exodus in the Gibraltar article:
- WCM reverting a proposed edit, but also removing information about the destination of the exodus (Campo de Gibraltar) that was included in the consensus text.[16]
- Kahastok and WCM pretending it wasn’t the consensus, so BRD didn’t protect it, and removing the information about the exodus; notice WCM’s comment: “rv seems you still don't get WP:BRD - irrelevant information removed” and Kahastok’s “Undid revision 873516065 by Imalbornoz (talk) per WP:BRD. Please discuss on talk”[17][18][19] until they finally accepted to discuss.
- Pretending their edit was the consensus.[20][21][22]
- WCM, now with the excuse that the sentence was inaccurate. [23][24] The sources say 98% of the population (all 4,000 except 70) left, and most of them to “Campo de Gibraltar”], and the sentence said “the population left and settled in Campo de Gibraltar”.
- WCM again, this time arguing that the consensus text was a copyvio[25][26].
- WCM now tagging for “excessive quotes” and copyvio[27][28]
- Kahastok removing mention of the destination and “exodus”[29]. Notice how he mentions “non-unanimous consensus”
- WCM deletes all mention of the population leaving(!) because “there is no consensus”[30] He prefers that the article doesn't mention that virtually all the population of the city changed in 1704(!!!!!), something any source considers VERY relevant
- They talk about “non-unanimous consensus”, while there were 3 editors who mentioned reasons to include some information they were removing[31][32][33] vs WCM, Kahastok, Apcbg (in WCM’s list of “the good guys”[34]), ThomasW and IdreamofJeannie
- WCM removing the information from “Disputed status of Gibraltar” article[35] (notice the comment: “ce for grammar and trim”), “Gibraltarians”[36][37][38] (with the excuse that the episode was cited in a different page of the source) [39] (because of “extensive quotes”: “reluctantly revert as editor is unnecessarily adding large chunks of text that risks a copyright violation”)
- WCM removing information in “Campo de Gibraltar” article[40] (tagged as a “minor” edit)
- A clear example in “Capture of Gibraltar”[41][42][43][44][45]:
- WCM adds many details
- Removes mention of the atrocities during the capture
- Includes something not relevant in most sources like “Rooke complained in a letter home that the Spaniards were so exasperated against the Alliance that ‘they use the prisoners they take as barbarously as the Moors‘”(!)
- Adds very extensive quotes; whereas he removed information in #3 because of “extensive quotes.” Conversation(?) about this inconsistency:[46][47]
- Rejecting discussion and assuming bad faith[48][49]
- Rejecting, over and over, a RfC like the one was proposed in the discretionary sanctions[50][51][52][53][54] and telling me to “drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass.”
They aren’t repeating the extreme verbal abuse that got WCM banned, nor do they ignore 3RR. They just keep pushing their POV:
- Ignoring BRD and opposing editors’ opinions and pretending their text is the “consensus.”
- Using multiple excuses for their edits that “sound” right to uninvolved editors but are inconsistent (only consistent with their own purpose of removing certain episodes).
- Avoiding RfC, which in combination with long discussions that “scare away” uninvolved editors, keeps external opinion out.
Answer to Rockysantos
@Rockysantos, although there was no census in Spain before Floridablanca's in 1787, the consensus in secondary sources (Maurice Harvey, George Hills, Stephen Constantine, Isidro Sepúlveda, Peter Gold...) is that at the time of the capture there were around 4,000 inhabitants (1,200 households) and only 70 individuals stayed, and in any case all sources agree that most of the population left and only a few individuals remained. You can take a look here. - Imalbornoz (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Answer to Drmies, Wee Curry Monster and Kahastok
I was not aware of the problem about outing. I knew WCM had changed his user name but I didn't know it was off-limits to mention this when referring to past actions (in fact, I thought it was necessary to allow other editors to understand old diffs). The same with Kahastok. Please accept my apologies.
Regarding WCM's talk page, I have used it as little as possible and always with a very civil and constructive approach. Please, Arbcom, check my comments in WCM's talk page here, here and here. I have looked for alternatives to contact WCM and solve things out, such as the only e-mail I have sent him and which is not offensive at all (if you want we can post it here or send it to the Arbcom). Sometimes it's necessary to discuss things outside of the articles' talk pages.
I have always encouraged WCM to write in my talk page, in spite of his very extreme verbal abuse, personal attacks and vandalism on my talk page in the past. I have really tried to understand him and reach out to him, but I think some kind of battleground mentality has got in the way. That's why I think an arbcom guided RfC would be a good way to move forward. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:15, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- WCM and Kahastok call my diffs “selective” and “misleading”. I would be very naîf if I thought that a “selection” of diffs could mislead the Arbcom: one of the good things about wikis is that we all leave a trace, and anyone can check whether what I explained is true or not.
- I find it pretty ironic that WCM and Kahastok say I have a “battleground” mentality, taking into account that they are the ones rejecting dispute resolution, together with WCM’s history of bans and sanctions, the very aggressive comments he has made to me and other editors in the past, the fact that he keeps a list of “good guys” (that he periodically updates depending on whether someone has annoyed him or not). - Imalbornoz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Answer to MarshalN20
@MarshalN20, of course I have not accused British editors of being POV pushers. As a matter of fact, during past disputes Richard Keatinge, The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick were very neutral and supported the inclusion of the facts that WCM and Kahastok have removed. I am a very great admirer of British culture (that's one of the reasons I made the effort to learn English). If you forget about the persons and focus on the edits, you will see they are removing information which they said was "Spanish propaganda", but which is factual and supported by all sources. They have done that 8 years ago and now, with inconsistent (even contradictory) arguments, ignoring other editors' comments and rejecting dispute resolution. On the other hand, they are including information that is much less prominent in reliable sources. I have been very patient with WCM (even when he made very aggressive personal attacks in the past I did not ask for Arbcom and allowed him to reconsider his attitude). But after 8 years my conclusion is that, in this specific case, I don't know whether out of a nationalist POV or personal animosity towards me, he has been a POV pusher. - Imalbornoz (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Answer to Bryan Henderson
I totally agree with Bryan Henderson. In fact, that's precisely my point:
- The flood of discussion between WCM, Kahastok and myself keeps other less involved editors out (except maybe some editors who have some affinity with either one of them - in the case of WCM and Kahastok the ones who edit with them in Falkland Islands, British empire, Imperial vs metric systems... articles; nobody in my case given that I don't edit very frequently).
- Unfortunately, meanwhile, WCM and Kahastok have been removing information with, in my opinion, a POV approach (please take a look at the articles and see where information has been removed or reduced to a minimum regarding this episode).
Maybe WCM and Kahastok are right. Maybe I am. Maybe I am biased, or maybe they are. In any case, we won't know what other editors think if we keep acting this way.
My analysis for myself is: I can
- (a) leave it be and let WCM and Kahastok do what they want with the articles (which in my honest opinion is POV)
- (b) keep discussing and hope that some editor will pay enough attention to participate (which was successful in the past but is very tiring in the long term)
- or (c) ask for Arbcom intervention to bring some rationality into the discussion.
The fact is that the period of best advance in Gibraltar related articles was when the three of us were away from them (during the last enforcement of the DS).
That's why I am asking to reinstate the discretionary sanctions to stop us from disrupting the discussion and start some approach to include less involved editors. Maybe with the RfC that was recommended in the last enforcement? - Imalbornoz (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Summary
- I think my answer to Bryan Henderson above pretty much summarizes the situation regarding how uninvolved editors are discouraged from participating in the discussion by our (WCM, Kahastok and my own) flood of comments.
- Regarding WCM and Kahastok’s edits, you don’t have to trust my “selective” (like they call them) diffs. It’s pretty easy to see that there was (for 8 years) a description of the exodus of Gibraltarian population in 1704 (an episode mentioned in all relevant sources and considered by the vast majority as pivotal in Gibraltar’s history) and during the last two months WCM and Kahastok have managed to remove it using different excuses (some of them contradictory). The same has happened in several Gibraltar related articles.
- WCM and Kahastok’s repeated rejection to go through dispute resolution and, more specifically, RfC is also a very clear fact.
- Regarding WCM’s, Kahastok’s and my own actions, I would be grateful to receive feedback from the Arbcom about our tendenciousness and whether or not we should be sanctioned.
Finally, I honestly think that Gibraltar related articles need some fresh air with the input of new editors. I think the articles will be very biased if we let WCM and Kahastok “own” them with the things I’ve seen this last couple of months. The best way to move forward, I think, is to reinstate the discretionary sanctions. I think it would also be a good idea to start a series of “controlled” RfCs (meaning someone should stop us from overflowing other editors with our comments) regarding several issues in the articles (the first of which would be the exodus episode). The other option is that (as Kahastok has repeatedly proposed) I “drop the stick and back away from the horse carcass.” ;o)
Thank you very much for your attention. – Imalbornoz (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Wee Curry Monster
I have sought advice from my mentor Nick-D on how to deal with this editor. I have followed his advice scrupulously and avoided any repeat of any behaviour that is sanctionable. This filing seems to be an abuse of the system for this editor to get his own way in a content dispute. He has adopted his usual tactics of flinging enough mud around and hoping it will stick.
On my user page, I list a number of editors I admire. These are editors I admire for the quality of their edits not because of personal association. I have for example held opposing positions to that of MarshalN20 and Apcbg and I am sure Drmies would acknowledge we frequently disagree on matters. I consider it a gross and egregious presumption of bad faith that he would malign editors such as these in an attempt to smear me. (To answer your question Drmies, you've been on the list since I created it in March 2015, except for a brief period when we annoyed each other).
It is apparent that Imalbornoz has been following me to different articles, in many cases articles he has never edited before. In each case, he has simply reverted my changes, with the comment I have to seek a consensus with him before I am allowed to make any changes. Examples: [55], [56], [57], [58].
Sometime ago, I requested Imalbornoz did not post to my talk page [59]. I did so because I found that his postings on my talk page were not productive and mainly accusing me and other editors of misconduct. He has repeatedly ignored that request. Examples [60], [61], [62], [63]. Further, on 15th December I had cause to remind this editor not to contact me by email [64] as he had sent me rather an offensive email that I immediately deleted.
I have also noted that he has badgered any editor who has commented. Examples: [65], [66], [67].
He also badgered editors where I have sought policy guidance, trying to get them to change their advice. Examples: [68], [69].
The talk page history is informative, [70] this editor has completely dominated the discussion, deterring outside comment with walls of text. Compare this with my own minimal replies to this editor [71]. His behaviour is characteristic of WP:BLUDGEON.
I previously edited using my own name. Due to off-wiki harassment, I changed my username and have avoided using my own name since. Admins are fully aware of this and any past sanction is registered against my current username. Imalbornoz is fully aware of this, knew there was no need to refer to it and yet has chosen to WP:OUT me once again. I have requested my previous username is redacted.
I have more to comment but that would probably be more appropriate for an SPI report I am considering filing. WCMemail 18:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Answer to question from Rockysantos
To answer Rockysantos's question. I am not aware of there being any census data, the figures quoted are estimates based on eye witness testimony and vary between 4-6000. WCMemail 18:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Misleading use of Diffs
Can I ask that anyone considering the OP use of diffs be aware that they are very selective and are designed to mislead. e.g. in Capture of Gibraltar he claims I've removed mention of what he terms "atrocities". This diff [72] shows this to be untrue; this is my edit with extensive quotations and sources concerning precisely this topic. I also ask you to consider his use of none neutral language. All I did was move mention to a more logical chronological order, expanding it to represent the range of views in the literature. Yet he's presenting a diff as if it were permanently removed. WCMemail 19:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Another example [73] he claims I'm removing my edit because I want to remove all mention of the events of 1704. In Talk:Gibraltar I repeatedly state I don't want to and it was removed after his insistence that there is no consensus for it [74]. WCMemail 19:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Bryan Henderson
I thank Giraffedata for his comments and would like to add a small response. I have deliberately tried to keep my comments to a minimum to allow other editors to comment. I have also tried to focus solely on content. However, I find it difficult to avoid responding when you have an editor repeatedly demanding you reply on unrelated matters [75], [76], [77]. It's also difficult to avoid responding when an editor is making untrue statements about your editing history e.g. naming me as an editor responsible for an edit [78] when I'd already pointed out I was not [79].
If you feel I've deterred you from commenting I would like to apologise and assure you that was not my intention. WCMemail 17:35, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Comments by Richard Keatinge
I think it's helpful to remind arbcom of Richard's comment that he only reverted my edits previously [80] for a giggle.
I am requesting that both Richard Keatinge and Imalbornoz are admonished for comments about the motives of other editors. I am tired of the accusation by both editors that Kahastok and I are suppressing information, which they have been repeating for nearly a decade. This repeated demonstration of bad faith cannot be allowed to continue, if this is not addressed they will be emboldened to continue being uncivil and generating a poisonous atmosphere.
One only has to look at my own editing history to instantly see this is untrue. Examples User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar NPOVN, User:Wee Curry Monster/Gibraltar Sandpit, History of Gibraltar#War of the Spanish Succession (1701–14), Capture of Gibraltar#Aftermath e.g. [81].
This was a recurring statement leading up to and following the arbcom case [82],[83],[84] despite rebuttals from literature [85] and [86]. As was accusations that editors were suppressing information [87].
| “ |
|
” |
Although sourced as the opinion of Garret(1939), a cursory examination of the literature shows it to be untrue. The events are described accurately in Hills (1974), Bradford (1971), Francis (1975), Jackson (1990), Andrews (1958) and Garratt (1939). In 1845, Ayala a Spanish work is translated verbatim into English by T.James (1845) note also Sayer (1862), Martin (1887), Drinkwater (1824). Admiral Byng and Reverend Pocock wrote detailed eye witness accounts from a personal perspective. All of which document the events to 1704. Aside from anything else the 70 yr old opinion of an author (Garratt) has no bearing on a content discussion and most certainly should never be used to impugn other editors. It was repeatedly and it still is.
The point that I and others have tried to make, which both Richard and Imalbornoz refuse to acknowledge, is that it is not necessary or desirable to mention extensive details in each and every article obliquely related to Gibraltar. This is the locus of the problem, they have sought to force edits into several articles where this level of detail is inappropriate per WP:WEIGHT. WCMemail 19:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Kahastok
This request is a case of an editor who - having failed to get consensus by continually badgering people on a talk page for months on end - is now trying to use Arbcom to do an end run around the consensus building process instead of just dropping the stick.
Initial notes:
- The list of involved editors is not complete. There weren't just three of us in the discussion. Editors involved in the discussion that have not been made aware of this motion include at least:
- The last edit to the discussion was on 26 January, two weeks ago. Any dispute here is stale.
- The only times Arbcom intervention has been sought in this area in the last ten years were when Imalbornoz was around - and it has been sought every time Imalbornoz has been around. The same cannot be said of any other editor.
The content dispute is that Imalbornoz believes that Wikipedia's articles on Gibraltar should give a great deal of weight to the circumstances of the foundation of the Spanish town of San Roque in 1706. His focus on this narrow point is extreme to the point that he resembles an WP:SPA: probably 95% of his edits in the last two months, and probably 70-80% of his edits all time, are on this specific point.
In terms of the specific situation we're in, this is reasoanbly straightforward. I quote the second paragraph of WP:NOTUNANIMITY:
Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process. If someone knows that the group cannot move forward without their consent, they may harden their position in order to get their way. This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia as a form of gaming the system, as well as tendentious editing. There is even a three revert rule to limit efforts to stonewall the editing process.
Imalbornoz appears to believe that his consent is necessary for any consensus to be reached. As such, he has been filibustering the process, badgering editors[1] and insisting that there can be no "real consensus"[2] without him. WCM and I - and others - spent weeks trying to include Imalbornoz in a consensus, but this proved impossible. Note frustration with Imalbornoz's methods here and here for example - and that neither of those comments came from me or WCM.
For me, it is reasonably obvious from a reading of the talk page that there is consensus for this text - once you take account of the stated positions of all involved editors (not just the three named editors here), and of the fact that Imalbornoz is a single editor and not entitled to a veto.
If I thought further dispute resolution would get a consensus that included Imalbornoz, I would agree to it. But Imalbornoz's behaviour - the filibustering, the badgering, the endless repetition of rejected proposals with no attempt made to resolve the objections raised to them, the repeated misrepresentation of others' positions (as noted in footnotes above, plus particularly the quote at the bottom of this wall of text that was taken entirely out of context) - demonstrates to me that this is highly unlikely. And having had this start before Christmas, I think very few of us want to still be having the same discussion next Christmas as well.
If any action is needed at this point to avoid a repeat of the previous car crash, it is to prevent Imalbornoz from raising this point again. Everyone else can work together constructively. All other editors can leave this point and deal with other things - have in fact left this point and spent the last two weeks dealing with other things. Any problems still needing resolution are the result solely of Imalbornoz's refusal to allow this discussion to end. Kahastok talk 12:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
- Following WCM's lead and going through some of the diffs in Imalbornoz's text, turns out I shouldn't have bothered looking up examples of his misrepresenting others' edits in the discussion because he's done it over and over in his statement on this very page. The timeline is confused, the text in several cases false, the choice of diffs misleading. I only find it disappointing that I am not surprised - Imalbornoz's standard WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality in full flow there.
- In terms of the outcome of this, to be clear: I see no particular need to add discretionary sanctions in the general case, I feel that would be excessive based on a single discussion. But at the same time, in the general case, if an editor is not willing to drop the stick on his own, it's reasonable to ask that he be required to drop the stick by the community for the good of the encyclopedia. This discussion cannot continue for ever. But I think I can say with confidence that nobody bar Imalbornoz wants it to.
- And I am reminded of how this discussion began. When Imalbornoz first came back, he started a different dispute. The discussion on this point is here, and the eventual consensus on that point was actually in the article within an hour of the first revert on 2 December. Imalbornoz accepted the text here on 3 December.
- But note that in that diff he still demanded we have the discussion, and he tried to spark that discussion three more times in the following week [88] [89] [90]. He knew that the issue had the potential to escalate, and that the discussion would not result in change to the article - but he was still keen to have that discussion. And when he gave up trying to have an argument on "self-governing", he immediately started trying have an argument over San Roque.
- Point being, at best it appears we have an editor who may have difficulty with stick-dropping more generally, and perhaps there is some action that admins or other uninvolved editors can take that might help with this. Raised here in the interest of not repeating everything at a different board. Kahastok talk 09:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Thomas.W
This is a classic example of a content dispute between a single-purpose account, Imalbornoz, and just about everyone else who has been active on the article, where Imalbornoz stubbornly refuses to accept that other editors don't share their views, and just continues to push their POV, repeating the same arguments over and over again, ad nauseam. Having crossed the border to tendentious editing a long time ago. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Rockysantos
It's generally agreed some people had left Gibraltar when the British took over, however is there any census we can look at to prove this? The government of Gibraltar has on its website broken down the population in it's earliest census from 1753:-
The results then were: British 434; Genoese 597; Jews 575; Spaniards 185, and Portuguese 25.
Is there one from before this that shows the population and how it was before the British took over? This would show if the word exodus is justified.
https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/new/gibraltar-census-history --Rockysantos (talk) 11:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Above was my statement back in December, which was never really clearly answered.
Is there a census from before the aledged exodus? If so where is it and what are the figures, once that is established can it be proven that the population on mass left Gibraltar for San Roque? Is there a census that shows that Gibraltar had a population of say 5000 then 0 and San Roques census then rose by 5000?--Rockysantos (talk) 13:20, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Drmies
I'm very pleased to see that I'm on WCM's "good guys" list. I don't know how old or new it is, but I do know WCM hasn't always felt about me that way, haha. Anyway, I'm not here because of WCM but rather the editor filing the request: let there be no more outing. This isn't the place to discuss what outing is, what its parameters etc. are--just accept it, no more outing. Drmies (talk) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by MarshalN20
Having worked with WCM and several Argentine editors to resolve contentious issues in the Falkland Islands article (in 2014), which is now a featured article, I can attest to WCM's value as an experienced editor and community member. Controversial topics can be adequately covered in Wikipedia, and WCM has proven expertise in achieving it. Kahastok accurately indicates that the crux of the content problem concerns the "Campo de Gibraltar" population. Imalbornoz accuses WCM and British editors for "POV pushing," when in reality what is happening is a difference of opinion. My understanding of "POV pushing" is that it promotes fringe perspectives. What is the literature or historiography on the topic? Reading the content article's talk page, this is unclear. Therefore, the claim of "POV pushing" is also unclear.
In fact, given the lack of clarity, it seems abusive (behavior-wise) for Imalbornoz to accuse the British editors as being "POV pushers". It's an uncivil defamation of character, which unfortunately often goes without remedy in administration/arbitration boards. Even more concerning (also behavior-wise) is Imalbornoz's outing of the other editors. In my book, these are both clear battleground mentality actions that reveal a lot more about Imalbornoz's behavior than that of the other editors.--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 19:26, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Bryan Henderson
I follow the Gibraltar article and participated a little in the discussion others have discussed here, which started in December and featured mainly the editors whose discretionary sanction status is the subject of this amendment request.
I would have participated more, but I could not keep my head above the flood of argument between User:Imalbornoz on one side and User:Wee Curry Monster and User:Kahastok on the other. There is clearly something going on between these editors, as this continued for six weeks, meandering from here to there with no apparent hope of editors on one side changing minds on the other and what looks like heavy biases that prevent one side from even considering the other side's argument. Perhaps because of history they have with each other. Furthermore, about half of the discussion is meta-discussion ("You're not arguing properly").
But I don't see that that has any bearing on the amendment request, which is to reinstate discretionary sanction status. I don't see that any of these editors have done anything or is likely to do anything in the future that would result in a discretionary sanction.
Bryan Henderson (giraffedata) (talk) 22:34, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Statement by Richard Keatinge
I endorse Imalbornoz's point on the underlying content dispute; there is a longstanding campaign to keep out of Gibraltar-related articles details of the serious violence committed against civilians by the mainly-English forces that captured the town in 1704. This violent episode is a significant part of the ongoing Spanish feelings for the place. Histories in English have tended to downplay or even omit it, doing I feel a disservice to any reader who wants a holistic understanding. A coterie of editors (who have done good work elsewhere) have demonstrated remarkable devotion and ingenuity in the cause of omitting or downplaying it on Wikipedia. The discussion has been colossal, repetitive (often diverging into rather dubious procedural points), and wasteful of goodwill. I feel that this does a disservice to Wikipedia. We have also seen editors from other points of view, but in the face of vast argumentation they have generally decided to leave this ghastly dispute. I have profound empathy for their decision. Rather than engage in it again, I would prefer to operate on my own piles without anaesthetic.
Imalbornoz makes a specific request, that admins should again be empowered to issue discretionary sanctions on editors on this subject. (This power was a part of the resolution that did, for a while, cool down the whole dispute.) This might well help a suitable (interested and robust) admin to prevent the content dispute from wasting further immense amounts of time and goodwill. I therefore support the idea, or any other that will bring an appropriate degree of constructiveness and courtesy to the issue. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:59, 10 February 2019 (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.
Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping: Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Motion: discretionary sanctions housekeeping: Arbitrator views and discussion
- Having a preliminary look, I agree that the edits are concerning. Awaiting statements from the other users involved. AGK ■ 10:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)