From Wikiafripedia, the free encyclopedia that you can monetize your contributions or browse at zero-rating.
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Weighing scales

A request for arbitration is the last step of dispute resolution for conduct disputes on Wikiafripedia. 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:

Requests for arbitration[edit source | edit]

Requests for clarification and amendment[edit source | edit]

Amendment request: Palestine-Israel articles 3[edit source | edit]

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

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

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

Information about amendment request
  • Remove ambiguity

Statement by Zero0000[edit source | edit]

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

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

Statement by JJE[edit source | edit]

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

Statement by {other-editor}[edit source | edit]

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Clerk notes[edit source | edit]

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

Palestine-Israel articles 3: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit source | edit]

  • While it does not seem like the current wording has been problematic yet and it is technically impossible for non-admins to delete articles, I am fine with the suggestion of adding 'created' to clarify to what by is referring. Mkdw talk 22:26, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I too have no problem with this change. I'm aware. though, that we're about to open ARBPIA4 to review all remedies - as this hasn't been misinterpreted in the past, I think it's something that would be best covered there. WormTT(talk) 09:12, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
    Zero0000 would you mind raising this at WAP:ARBPIA4 so that it doesn't get lost? IF so, I think we can close this and deal with all together. WormTT(talk) 18:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The change makes sense to me -- agreed that it's confusing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Should be an uncontroversial clarification, I'm okay with it. – Joe (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Concur that this matter is best addressed in WAP:ARBPIA4. AGK ■ 20:12, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: German war effort[edit source | edit]

Amendment request declined. Archived to Wikiafripedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort#Amendment request: German war effort (October 2019)bradv🍁 15:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

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

List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request
Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Information about amendment request
  • New remedy (please see statement)

Statement by K.e.coffman[edit source | edit]

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

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

  1. An unprovoked personal jab: it makes me question whether this is yet another example of something that K.e.coffman just doesn't like, typically because there are Nazis involved. [1]
  2. This is apparently in response to my comments [2] where I mentioned the word "trivia" once; another unprovoked jab: I just do not (...) accept K.e.coffman's perennial argument about what constitutes trivia in military history biographies. [3]
  3. Relitigating the arbcom case at a Featured article review: I've made observations on the editing behaviour of two editors based on long experience, which I can back up with many diffs, many of which I used in the ArbCom case, particularly with respect to K.e.coffman. [4]
  4. Accusations of a lack of competence and having an ideological motivation: They both [K.e.coffman & Assayer] have demonstrated over an extended period significant deficiencies in understanding what is a relevant piece of information for a military biography (...), and both constantly harp on about useful and interesting information that has been included in good faith in the interests of our readers. With these two editors, this only occurs in the cases of Nazis... [5]
  5. Doubling down on aspersions after they have been pointed out to Peacemaker67 by others: It is not a personal attack to point out a pattern of editing behaviour and a demonstrated lack of experience or knowledge in these matters. [6]

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

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

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

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

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

Statement by Peacemaker67[edit source | edit]

G'day everyone. This is an transparent attempt to re-litigate the German war effort case, in an attempt to achieve something KEC and his/her supporters were unable to achieve with the original case, that is some sort of sanction against me. It also digs up material that pre-dates the ArbCom case, and which was considered during the case, and for which I was not sanctioned, in an attempt to "fatten the brief". I can only assume this has been brought because KEC wishes to clear the field of editors that disagree with his/her POV and problematic editing approach. KEC comes to this request, as he/she did to the original case, with unclean hands, something that was pointed out by DeltaQuad in the findings of the case, due to his edit-warring, citation removal sprees and content removal sprees, the latter two of which continue unabated [10][11][12][13][14]. My views on KEC's editing approach were made clear in my evidence at the case, and I link it here for ease of reference. KEC's demonstrated editing behaviour has not changed since that time and I stick by my assessments of it, and do not apologise for restating it when it continues to be displayed. Long-term patterns of behaviour are telling in this regard, and one cannot indefinitely assume good faith when an editor fails to change their behaviour despite clear indications that there are problems with it. As I mentioned in my evidence during the case, I continue to avoid KEC wherever possible, because his/her "censorious editing behaviour, wikilawyering and repeated refusal to “drop the stick” [are] frankly quite odd, unpleasant and exhausting". The attempt to insinuate that I am in any way pro-Nazi because I believe all military biographies (including those on Nazis) should be balanced, neutral and contain appropriate levels of detail is given the lie by several FAs I have written on senior Nazis such as August Meyszner. I provided links to the rest in my evidence at the case, so I won't repeat them all here but the whole idea is risible.

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

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

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

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

Statement by Drmies[edit source | edit]

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

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

Statement by Pudeo[edit source | edit]

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

None of the comments by Hawkeye7 or Peacemaker67 were actual personal attacks. While K.e.coffman's commentary is civil on the surface, it's hardly of the honest type. As DeltaQuad referenced in her proposed decision vote in #Conduct of K.e.coffman, K.e.coffman updates their userpage with post-dispute gloating and collects diffs of things their opponents have said in K.e.coffman/My allegedly problematic behaviour (which I nominated for MfD, no consensus §). As an example, they mock MisterBee1966 on the polemic userpage[15][16]; whereas MisterBee1966 had nominated K.e.coffman for Military History Newcomer of the Year in 2015. Talk about uncollegial behaviour. --Pudeo (talk) 18:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde (German war effort)[edit source | edit]

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

Statement by Figureofnine[edit source | edit]

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

Statement by Assayer[edit source | edit]

After a pause of about four months I provided an extensive review of the article on Albert Kesselring [17]. PM67 saw it fit to comment on a brief addendum, claiming that this was typical of my criticisms and would demonstrate my significant deficiencies in understanding what is a relevant piece of information for a military biography. If someone openly picks up some minor point,[18] misrepresents the underlying argument and infers that this was proof of general incompetence, I call that a straw man argument. I do not understand, why PM67 somewhat routinely casts aspersions like that, because in general I have found them amenable to new historical research on war crimes. But they should be called upon to stop that and to focus on content.

As to Pudeo’s insinuation: Not only did I comment on Albert Speer and Albert Kesselring well before any FA review was initiated. I also rewrote a portion of the Speer article back in 2017 to keep it at FA level.[19] Besides, the verifiability of the content I provide may speak for itself. I got the impression that it is not my “editing behavior” (PM67) which annoys some authors, but my approach, which has been perceived as being “hard line anti-Nazi de WAP” - as if an anti-Nazi approach was by any means a problem. The military history of Nazi Germany is indeed different from other military histories, because the German military became complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity to an extent hitherto unknown. To claim that this is a military history like any other promotes the myth of the “clean Wehrmacht” and is not in line with the findings of military historiography.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Assayer (talkcontribs) 02:18, 31. August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Icewhiz[edit source | edit]

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

Statement by SN54129[edit source | edit]

Re. This is an transparent attempt to re-litigate the German war effort case. There is a certain irony in the Lead coordinator for WAP:MILHIST accusing others of relitigating it...when neither he personally nor his colleagues (by extension, MILHIST as a body) ever accepted the committee's ruling over GWE. From the September 2018 MILHIST coordinator elections—that opened less than a month after the case closed—of the candidates
  • User:Arius1998 (said I have reservations with the specifics as exhibited in the findings of fact and the remedies)
  • User:Auntieruth (said I did not agree with the findings of fact)
  • User:Cinderella157 (said the decision generally lacks credibility, although to be fair had just been topic-banned)
  • User:Hawkeye7 (said I cannot agree with the findings of fact)
  • User:Kges1901 (said I disagreed with several of the FoFs and some of the remedies)
  • User:Peacemaker97 (said they had have reservations about a couple of the FoF)
  • User:Zawed (said Some of the findings and remedies didn't seem to match the evidence presented)

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

* I've been known to do so myself on occasion :)
PS, is there a word limit here? ——SerialNumber54129 11:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Szzuk[edit source | edit]

My opinion is this;

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

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

Statement by Dlthewave[edit source | edit]

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

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

Statement by Dank[edit source | edit]

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

@Worm: Sigh. - Dank (push to talk) 10:40, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mkdw: Thanks for that. - Dank (push to talk) 18:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Laser brain[edit source | edit]

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

Statement by Alex Shih[edit source | edit]

Although I understand arbitrators are preoccupied with some of the current affairs, I would like to think that common courtesy would be to at least acknowledge this amendment request in the very minimum instead of the radio silence for nearly one month now. The German war effort case was unfortunately one of these cases where cores issues were never resolved due to limitations of what the committee can do. There were never any gross breach of civility, but the committee can certainly opine on the difference between uncollegial behaviour and regular heated discussion in a contentious topic area. In my opinion, Peacemaker67 can certainly be less hostile toward K.e.coffman; it doesn't matter if every accusation is substantiated, there is no need to summarise your findings in a personalised way. And it's not helpful, as a general approach, to dismiss concerns simply because they are not consistent with the consensus of the MILHIST project.
However, this needs to happen concurrently with K.e.coffman also reflecting on their own approach, including posting the very request at Peacemaker67's talk page rather than soliciting community input from noticeboards, which is what the remedies have suggested prior to seeking amendments. Personally I don't think anything can be done here again; there weren't any lines crossed from neither sides, and since there weren't any interest from the committee to examine K.e.coffman's approach toward the topic area, as I have originally proposed ([20]), I cannot really see a way moving forward at the moment. Like Pudeo mentioned above, it is simply a clash of two fundamentally different approaches, and de-moralising for both sides. Alex Shih (talk) 13:33, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Worm That Turned: While I thank you for being the only member that responded after being pushed to do so, it has been a week and yet here we are with the continued silence. You may also want to remind your colleagues that ignoring ARCA entirely while editing elsewhere on Wikiafripedia is explicitly inconsistent with WAP:ARBPOL and not acceptable in any terms. If the strategy is to wait until everybody lose interest, that is not okay; problems will not go away simply by ignoring them. But for now, either have the decency to acknowledge the points raised in this request or just archive it straight away if none of the committee members are willing or could do so. Thanks, Alex Shih (talk) 06:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Piotrus[edit source | edit]

Do we have any active mediators who could help here? I know, rhetorical question, probably not. In which case, forgive me for touting my own horn, but as I suggested in a peer reviewed article on significance of conflict in our community (for free access, go to Sci-Hub), WMF should hire several full time psychologists to act as mediators and such. I know some, if mostly in passing, some of the parties here. They (you...) are all good people who want to help build an encyclopedia. But eroding good faith leads to vicious spiral into battlegrounds that ends up either with voluntary or forced retirement of some of the parties. This is not good, and mostly inactive ArbCom hardly helps. Seriously, it is time to push WMF to spent at least some of the funds on getting us the full time help we need. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:03, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}[edit source | edit]

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

German war effort: Clerk notes[edit source | edit]

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

German war effort: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit source | edit]

  • Just to note that I am aware of this request and thank the partipants for their patience. I hoped to comment last week, however I have been trying to catch up on many things that have been left behind over recent months. I will be commenting next week. There is no auto archiving facility on this page, it will not be archived without a request from Arbcom. WormTT(talk) 06:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
    Yes Alex, I'm aware that it's been nearly a week since I said "next week", however I've been tied up with other stuff. I've put a reminder on the list that there's been little comment at ARCA recently, and we could do with some eyes. I'm hoping to comment myself today. WormTT(talk) 08:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    Ok, some thoughts. Peacemaker67's comments, raised by K.e.coffman, are not likely to encourage collaboration between the two - however, I do see the comments as the sort of thing you get in at typical robust discussion at an FA review. I personally don't see them rising to the point of admonishment / interaction ban or other sanction at present, however if Peacemaker does carry on at that level persistently or indeed escalates his level of commentary, then I would likely change that opinion. I do also find Serial Number 54129's point about the MILHIST co-ordinators interesting, and would counsel the MILHIST group to bear in mind that it does risk becoming a walled garden when like minded people are managing everything - however, beyond that, there's nothing more to say. WormTT(talk) 09:05, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
    In addition, aside from the grumbling about Arbcom members not being around, I encourage participants to read Alex Shih's comments, which are quite insightful. WormTT(talk) 09:07, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The topic area is obviously a crowded place where the same people are invariably going to keep running into each other. Disagreements are bound to arise. In looking only at the August 2019 diffs provided in this ARCA, I am not seeing anything that would rise to the need for ArbCom to be involved yet. I would encourage the community to make best efforts to resolve issues respectfully while allowing a healthy amount of disagreement and criticism. I will say that all editors should absolutely refrain from commenting about the competency of editors who have clearly shown themselves to be proficient and capable contributors. Mkdw talk 18:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I apologize for not commenting here earlier; the unfoggy brain cells have been needed elsewhere. I read the comments above and the Kesselring FAR, and I agree with Mkdw and WTT that there's not anything for us to do here quite yet. KEC, your user page is problematic. Peacemaker, whether you like it or not, SN54129 has a point. Any small group with any kind of privilege – and that includes this committee – runs the risk of groupthink. Be careful that MILHIST doesn't become a place where that groupthink crowds out those who genuinely disagree. Katietalk 18:02, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Concur with my colleagues that we do not need to examine Peacemaker's conduct. I shall submit a further piece of guidance: K.e.coffman's participation in this matter does not impress. Going by their own timeline, K.e. has been politely and reasonedly criticised by Peacemaker on a handful of occasions – hardly unexpected. K.e. has never written back to Peacemaker, except when they wrote this December 2018 post addressing marginal issues about tone without rebutting the substantial concerns. K.e. now comes to this committee, asking us to examine Peacemaker's conduct. I suggest K.e.coffman try dealing with the points of Peacemaker or others at an early point; they may even find that discussion resolves matters. Nothing in this comment should discourage further applications for consideration under the general remedy, from K.e.coffman or others. AGK ■ 20:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: Editing of Biographies of Living Persons[edit source | edit]

Initiated by TonyBallioni at 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Editing of Biographies of Living Persons arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by TonyBallioni[edit source | edit]

Buffs is currently interpreting WAP:ECP to state that admins must either declare protection is for disruptive editing, or apply it under DS. He has taken to requesting logging of ECPs on BLPs at WAP:AELOG based on the ruling at WAP:NEWBLPBAN. I am requesting the committee clarify whether the practice of using the standard Twinkle drop down Violations of the biographies of living persons policy requires logging at WAP:AELOG if it is not intended as a discretionary sanction and it complies with the rest of the policy at WAP:ECP. The committee could also clarify whether all actions taken to enforce the BLP policy are under DS or whether the current practice of enforcing it as normal admin actions is fine. I'm sorry to bother you all with this, but since all of his user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP, I'd prefer the committee clarify this before it gets any further. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I’m not really sure how this is an end-run around ARBPIA4 (which I’ve ignored.) We have someone saying that using the Twinkle defaults for BLP protection requires logging, and when approached about it maintains that is the position. If Buffs is going to continue policing ECP (he can if he wants), there should be clarity on what is actually the standard outside of ARBPIA. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:43, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Buff's. The reason this is at ARCA is because you said While the ECP of Joe Girardi was short-lived, you still need to log your actions here per the ArbCom ruling on BLPs. Please do so. Buffs (talk) 21:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)} (diff)
You also told Risker If you are invoking protection of the article because it's BLP]], you need to log such actions here. Please do so. (diff)
You are saying that you are fine with this now that we are at ARCA, but the fact is that your most persistent activity of the last few weeks on Wikiafripedia has been policing the use of ECP. As I said, that's fine. What I have an issue with is you making up a requirement that all BLP protections must be logged, telling admins this, and when it is pointed out to you that you are wrong, you responding that you aren't. You have said on two occasions that ArbCom requires ECP of BLPs to be logged.
When I questioned you on it, you didn't back down and instead said Therefore, it you are citing WAP:BLP as your rationale for WAP:ECP, it seems to me that you're applying it due to DS, not DE. (diff).
As for your objections: when someone has made it their mission on Wikiafripedia to enforce policy on something, are incorrect on what the policy says, and invokes ArbCom as a reason for their position when ArbCom has said nothing of the sort, the place you go to ask for clarification is here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:30, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Buffs[edit source | edit]

Well, that's a terribly biased and misleading interpretation of events.

First of all, to state that "all of [my] user talk contributions going back 2 weeks amount to a super-literal policing of the use of ECP" is beyond a stretch of the truth. In the only two specific instances he mentioned to me on my user page, the first had no rationale listed whatsoever. I asked for clarification and reminded him that, if it was under DS, to file it in the appropriate logs (even going so far as to provide a link to make it easier should that be the rationale). He stated that he probably overstepped where the protection needed to be. In the other, I asked for clarification and the Admin apparently felt it WAS under WAP:DS and filed it under the logs as he should do so. In both instances, I felt such actions were appropriate and it was handled as it should have been.

Second, yes, I've asked for others to be more clear and, if necessary, to log such actions in accordance with ArbCom directives. In most instances, an admin says " have a point there" and it's either clarified, clarified and logged, or any of a number of other actions which amount to  Done. To demonize all such conversations as super-literal policing of the use of ECP is beyond what anyone could objectively say is an accurate summary of events and is quite uncivil, IMNSHO.

Third, it seems quite obvious that the requirements for DS and ArbCom decisions are not being properly logged. You need to look no further than the first page of over 1800 ECP'd pages to see that there are dozens of pages under ArbCom rulings that are not logged anywhere. When notified, most admins go "Gee, you have a point there. I'll fix that!" Some have dug their heels in and said "No, I'm not going to do that". I haven't pursued such actions beyond a one-on-one conversation because of ongoing ArbCom discussion and clarification that's already underway. Bringing this here seems to be an attempt to end-run around that discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, this falls under both ArbCom rulings (not just BLP) AND community consensus at WAP:ECP. Please keep that in mind in your deliberations/conversations. Buffs (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • KrakatoaKatie I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy
    Third paragraph of WAP:ECP
    So, somewhere between Buffs, that third paragraph deals with the history of ECP, not the current state.
    @Worm That Turned: The point is that ECP is indeed applied for DS reasons. If you're saying the third paragraph no longer applies and admins can just do whatever they want, why bother having a policy at all?
  • I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are
    Then I respectfully submit you aren't looking hard enough:
  • If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it...
    Agree 100%
  • it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS.
    Which is why I have a problem with the way this was initially brought to AFCA. I never said it was. This is no more than a straw man argument. There are hundreds of pages on the list of ECP protected pages which are BLPs that have nothing to do with ArbCom/DS. I don't have a problem with any of them. It's very clear from the edit summaries that WAP:DE is a significant problem.
  • If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me.
    Likewise. I never said otherwise. Buffs (talk) 01:55, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem.
    I'm sorry. I guess I thought we were on a site where the policies actually mattered. I guess us mere peons have to follow the rules to the letter and intent doesn't matter while admins get all sorts of leeway? Last I checked, WAP:AC/DS still applies. Specifically: "While discretionary sanctions give administrators necessary latitude, they must not...repeatedly fail to properly explain their enforcement actions". Saying that no one can even ask removes that layer of accountability to the community as a whole. Buffs (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ...some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all...
    So why not block the users? You're just pointing out the flaw in your argument here. Buffs (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Johnuniq[edit source | edit]

My understanding is that ECP (30/500 protection) can be applied by an admin in either of these cases:

  1. In certain topics specified by Arbcom.
  2. In any topic if certain conditions (other methods are ineffective) are met.

In the first case, another admin must not change the protection as it is a discretionary sanction, and the action should be logged. The second case is a normal admin action which can be changed by another admin, and there is no log but pages are automatically listed at WAP:AN. See the ECP RfC. Applying ECP is like any admin action—it might be reasonable to ask an admin why they had taken the action. However, it should be assumed that the first case applies if and only if mentioned in the edit summary. Admins have to take a lot of actions and requiring a discussion should be rare. In the second case, if there is reason to think that page protection should be reduced, ask the admin to do that or make a request at WAP:RFPP. Johnuniq (talk) 23:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Admins were notified regarding ECP on 23 September 2016: example. Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad[edit source | edit]

Like the others who have posted, I suggest that Buffs drop this matter. The extra "paperwork" he is seeking is a solution in search of a problem. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG[edit source | edit]

Wikiafripedia is not a bureaucracy. Buffs appears to want to make it one. No thanks. Guy (help!) 10:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by El_C[edit source | edit]

With respect to my own protection cited here, the Kurdish set of articles had been a haven for socking-based disruption from confirmed accounts for months before I finally had to apply ECP to a set of related articles, to the relief of regular contributors. Anyway, some of these confirmed users would go on to disrupt articles that were not protected at all, so the formality of semiprotecting those articles first just so they could be immediately ECP'd seemed redundant to me. El_C 16:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Xaosflux[edit source | edit]

There seems to be some overlap with the items being discussed at Wikiafripedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4/Workshop, to follow up on my comments there: uses of page protection that are not explicitly related to active arbitration should be dealt with in standard community venues. If the use of protection outside of remedies has truly risen through dispute resolution without a solution emerging it should be dealt with as its own case and not shoehorned on to an old case that primarily dealt with behavior over a different issue. — xaosflux Talk 18:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}[edit source | edit]

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.

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Clerk notes[edit source | edit]

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

Editing of Biographies of Living Persons: Arbitrator views and discussion[edit source | edit]

  • I wrote the RFC to expand ECP. Option C, which became the bones of the current policy, states that ECP may be used to combat any form of disruption (such as vandalism, edit wars, etc.) on any topic, given that semi-protection has proven to be ineffective. Notification is to be posted in a subsection of AN for review, unless the topic is already authorized for 30/500 protection by the Arbitration Committee. A bot currently handles that AN notification. I don't know where Buffs gets the idea that discretionary sanctions has anything to do with the ECP policy, and I don't see the problem with the rationales as they are. If ECP is applied as a discretionary sanction, the admin should say so and log it, but it's not always the case that ECP is applied as a DS. (I don't think I've ever done it as a DS, but I could be wrong.) If it isn't, a standard rationale of 'persistent sockpuppetry' or 'persistent vandalism' or 'violations of the BLP policy' (and so forth) is sufficient for me. Katietalk 00:56, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I broadly agree with Katie above. ECP's usage has expanded far beyond DS over the years, and that RfC was the start. Buffs, that third paragraph deals with the history of ECP, not the current state. I accept that there are a number of rationales which are subpar, however that's not a question for ARCA. It's a question for the admins who placed ECP those rationale - we also have RFPP and AN if it cannot be resolved with the admin in question. For a review of ECP on a wider scale, can I suggest an RfC? At any rate, I'm not seeing the problem that needs to be clarified from an Arbcom perspective. WormTT(talk) 08:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Motions[edit source | edit]

Requests for enforcement

SashiRolls[edit source | edit]

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 SashiRolls[edit source | edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Kingofaces43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
SashiRolls (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

AE article ban at glyphosate and original AE case for reference

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed.[101]

Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 06:39, October 27, 2019 Violates WAP:ABAN at glyphosate and other articles where Tryptofish has edited first.[102][103]
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. June 4, 2019 Blocked for personal attacks in another topic after leaving GMO topic.
  2. Aug 10, 2019 Blocked for edit warring and harassment again.
  3. June 2017 1-year indefinite block.
  4. Dec 2016 6-month block for disruptive editing and wiki-hounding.
  5. Dec 2016 Banned from AE cases where they are not a party.
  6. Sept 2016 Topic-banned under GMO/pesticide & politics DS from Jill Stein for six months
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WAP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

SashiRolls is popping into GMO and pesticide related topics again, which I had hoped the last AE had tamped down. I won't belabor the previous AE that established extremely disruptive demeanor by SashiRolls in this subject, but short of a full-topic ban, their battleground and hounding behavior led to them being article-banned from all articles in the subject Tryptofish had edited first (Jill Stein being the only current major GMO/pesticide-related article the ban doesn't apply to my recollection). That's also part of a now one-way interaction ban with Tryptofish.[104] There's a long record of disruption, harassment, etc. looking at their block log and other AE-based sanctions. Glyphosate was the center of SashiRolls' trouble May, so there's no realistic way to claim this was a "I forgot" moment, and El C gave them guidance in my sanction link on avoiding an article like this.

This is also fairly moot considering the article ban, but a lesser but still disruptive trend is their gaming of 1RR in the subject. The diff above shows their mentality of trying to violate WAP:ONUS policy to avoid gaining consensus for disputed material and reinsert it instead when you read their edit summary. Arbs at the original GMO case were clear reinsertions like SashiRolls performed are gaming 1RR.[105]. Edit warring is part of SashiRolls' previous sanctions too.

I'd normally just undo a single ban violation like this and move on, but given the last AE and the aspersions, harassment, etc. that went on then, I definitely don't want have to be interacting with Sashi again in this subject, so I'm just asking the sanction not be ignored like this. El_C, Awilley, and TonyBallioni are familiar with the behavior problems through previous enforcement actions, and there were plenty of WAP:ROPE (or lack thereof) comments last time this came up in the GMO/pesticide topic. Especially given El C's post-ban warning about battleground behavior in this subject for comments like "compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on"[106], this is an editor who should be staying far away from the topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

  • With El C's proposal for glyphosate, broadly construed, that would at least cover all the areas I linked above in the interaction analyzer where there were more topic-based issues than just interactions w/Tryptofish including Roundup (herbicide), Seralini affair (centered around a glyphosate experiment), and sections of articles relating to glyphosate at say Monsanto legal cases. We have an identical ban on the books for David Tornheim as an example even though we should be past this point in terms of WAP:ROPE and previous sanctions, but it's something as long as there's stiff warning about testing boundaries. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Responses to admins

  • El C, I understand the trickiness of the sanction if this had been a periphery article where one would have to search the history as you say, and would be open to leeway in such a case. However, this is the exact article/topic where the previous disputes with Tryptofish happened in May. In terms of "obviousness" for the sanction, this one would be the highest-ranked.
A full topic-ban considering the behavior not only directed at Tryptofish would simplify things though. The current article ban wording technically should keep Sashi out of the main controversial areas anyways, but outside of glyphosate and the main GMO articles, that might be hard for Sashi, admins, etc. to track. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • To be clear DGG, we already established Sashirolls had battleground/advocacy problems in glyphosate-related subjects outside the Tryptofish interaction per the last AE, El C's additional warnings, and Sashirolls' responses here. We're needing some sort of topic restriction as El C said they should have done on second thought of similar coverage to prevent disruption if the current article ban language isn't used anymore (e.g., at a minimum, glyphosate broadly construed) . Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Vanamonde93, I'd normally bring this to a talk page since I'm at the word limit, but this does need to be addressed since you accused me at this AE. I am going to have to ask that you strike the claim I "continue to misrepresent" the Jill Stein AE as those comments were not helpful at the last AE, and you were already made aware you were misunderstanding that AE by the very person who filed it when you made those claims about me. You at least shouldn't be doubling down on that, which has only continued to misrepresent me and inflame the situation further based on Sashirolls' comments here.
I was explicit that AE was opened under both politics and GMO DS due in major part to their behavior at Jill_Stein#GMOs_and_pesticides before and also at this very AE. Of course I'm going to point out there have been previous sanctions/topic bans related to GMO/pesticide topics. In admin discussion, Laserbrain was clear how exactly the behavior partitioned out under GMO or politics DS shouldn't be used as a red herring to distract from [Sashirolls'] poor behavior, as was NuclearWarfare. We also talked at SashiRolls' last AE that an admin could have flipped a coin on which single DS to formally log the sanction under, but the fact is behavior issues occurred and sanctions were considered with respect to both. As I said before, your comments to me are going in the weeds well past WAP:NOTBUREAU territory, so please reflect on the previous guidance you were given about that case and what I've actually said so we don't sidetrack this AE. I can collapse this comment later if need be, but I did need to point this out since it was directed at me. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning SashiRolls[edit source | edit]

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 SashiRolls[edit source | edit]

All Hallow's Eve collapse

I have made a grand total of one (1) edit to glyphosate or any other article related to Monsanto since being given a no-fault 2-way IBAN with Tryptofish. I did not get involved with Tryptofish in any way and did nothing which could remotely be considered wrong. I reverted an edit once and only once for which there was no established consensus. This is quite clearly bullying by a page controller.🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Also please note that I have never been banned on the basis of GMO for anything. This was explained to KoF by @Vanamonde93: the last time KoF brought me to AE in order to remove an inconveniently conscientious editor from the subject area:

Kingofaces43, why are you claiming that SashiRolls has been sanctioned under the GMO DS before, when that's patently untrue?

(source)🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Here they are again, continuing to make the false claim, hoping everyone will have forgotten.
The result of the AE case was a no-fault 2-way IBAN with Tryptofish. Again, I did not interact with this person. I reverted removal of information reliably sourced to the New York Times once. This should boomerang. I recommend an AE-ban for KoF as a result of their repeating accusations that have been previously identified at AE as being "patently untrue" in an effort to smear my reputation. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 18:07, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
I have removed the edit (§) now that I have been (for the first time) informed that someone thinks I do not have the right to make it. (the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except those who read the sources) 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:02, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Also, with regard to this baiting behaviour at RfA 1 (ignored, then repeated: 2). I believe the 2-way IBAN should be reinstated as per Tryptofish's own statement:

Recognizing that the 2-way IBAN was no-fault, and that there were good reasons to deal with the dispute promptly, I'm really not unhappy with the restriction, and indeed, I'm very happy to be separated from the other editor and I want to remain separated from them. In that sense, it's no big deal. But I also realize that, like it or not, some other editors are likely to misjudge me by it, and I would prefer not to have it continue hanging over my head. And I think it's clear that I can be trusted. I plan to continue to voluntarily avoid the other editor. I don't want contact with them, and I have zero interest in editing the content areas where they edit, and avoiding them is just the right thing to do. I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction, it will be reinstated. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Up until now, I have not commented on this baiting behaviour (making false claims to which I am prevented from responding), but I assume since the 2-way IBAN is being used against me here I have the right to speak about it. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:19, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Will just add Tryptofish's first baiting comment, appropriately enough at Wikiafripedia Talk:Harassment (10 June 2019: less than 5 days after getting wiki-friends to help him wriggle out of his well-deserved "no fault" IBAN). The claims are, obviously, false. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
I also am, of course, aware that El C described the 2-way IBAN as being assorted with multiple ABANs, however did not log it as such (since this would have been a draconian sanction unwarranted for no wrong-doing, which I could have successfully appealed were it on the books). What we have on the books is a 2-way ban that Tryptofish couldn't accept and so had to wriggle out of. Above are two clear examples of Tryptofish referring to me obliquely. By his own admission below, absolutely none of my subsequent edits prior to the opening of this case have referred to him (even obliquely), including the reversion of KoF's removal of the person identified by the NYT as having requested ghost-writing help from Monsanto for his Forbes article. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 01:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Someone should really sanction Kingofaces43 for contempt of AE.
Fact check
  • use of the word battleground in the original case: Kingo: 8,admins:0
  • use of the word advocacy in the original case: Sashi: 1 (speaking of KoF), everyone else: 0.
🌿 SashiRolls t · c 07:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
@El C:: No that is obviously not OK. You have yet to study the very clear evidence, despite the fact that you edit en.wp 13/24 hours a day (mostly in vandalism removal). Please provide evidence of any disruption. Topic banning me for removing obvious whitewashing is just going to confirm the general opinion that en.wp admins are not to be trusted. You seemed not to like me pointing out the clear ownership behavior on the talk page... ( One wonders why. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 20:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Like I said El C, demonstrate that this double jeopardy is warranted, despite the fact that Trypto has been shown to have been spreading false rumors about me just above just as I have shown that KoF is making stuff up above. You need to recognize where the real problems are, which requires study, not video-game style vandalism reversion. You need to study the texts. Please indicate which texts you have read. Have you read the NYT article in question, for example? Do you think @Sj: was wrong to follow up my edit as he did given there was no consensus for KoF's edit? I happened to see the page on my watchlist, saw how silly the whitewashing was, saw there was no discussion on the TP associated with KoF's "authoritative" removal and acted. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 21:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
El C: I simply want you to encourage you to reflect. RfPP is a page where you count the number of IPs who have vandalized and decide whether page protection is necessary. That's a good thing to do. I know I've appreciated seeing various pages I am one of the principal authors of protected. The 3RR noticeboard is in general a question of counting the number of reverts to see if it goes beyond 3. Writing an encyclopedia also requires in-depth study of sources. That's what I do. That's also what you should be doing here, rather than "policing tone" of someone reacting to the two complainant's blatant misrepresentations. As shown above, there is an example of one just three sentences lower ("I've entirely stayed clear of SashiRolls"). TF has referred to me disingenuously on more than one occasion on very public pages (RfA, WT:HA) and should stop doing so. Look at those diffs, please, and tell me explicitly that you think they are OK, please. Please also confirm that KoF's repeating "battleground" 8 times in his initial complaint was OK too (cf. Psychological projection).(their 1RR complaint was rejected by everyone who looked into it, even TF). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I have, of course, not said that Trypto "baited me into making an edit on glyphosate". As one who has been harassed (by Cirt, by Trypto who has shown up to every significant noticeboard discussion I've been involved in, including, of course, this one), I have WT:HA on my watchlist and participate there in an effort to improve the toxic en.wp environment. I also have every right to participate in RfA without having aspersions cast on my actions. NB: in neither case did I dignify their pot-stirring with a response (nor did anyone else). 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
El C. Please refrain from calling adding another smoking gun diff "refactoring".🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't understand what you want El C, but I would appreciate that you stop calling me "the user" (as you do below) and saying weird stuff about refactoring code. The former was one of CIRT/Sagecandor's depersonalization tactics. I am a person and the above is not code. I have the right to defend myself... and since you have provided the "smoking gun" proof that I added a diff showing Trypto insisted on getting an answer from an RfA candidate about something concerning me that the RfA candidate could no longer see (not yet being an admin), we should be good. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 23:51, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Fact checking KoF who said "We also talked at SashiRolls' last AE that an admin could have flipped a coin on which single DS to formally log the sanction under", I discover that in fact it was only KoF who said this (talking about events from over 3 years ago, for which time was served for any "wrong-doing"). Again, this should be closed with a ban from AE for Kingofaces43 (contempt of AE) and the reinstatement of the 2-way ban with Tryptofish, and the reassertion of what is logged (a 2-way IBAN only) without going back and changing what is logged. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 16:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

El C has provided a link below (§) which is unrelated to this case (to a comment made on my TP by a user entirely uninvolved in this discussion). In fact, El C probably wants other admins to see that another person KoF prosecuted commented on my page just after El C cherry-picked a line from a paragraph I wrote (without providing the context). El Cshould have provided the link to the context (Talk:RFA, where Trypto had been trying to encourage admins at RfA to get involved (cf. WAP:CANVAS) in the case KoF had just filed and on which Trypto had commented just two hours earlier). Here is the full statement in context. I'm not sure why El C finds transparency troubling, or why they chose to link to a 3rd party commenting about Tulsi Gabbard on my page. (Incidentally, I just helped en.wp by providing strong evidence of an LTA sockpuppet acting on that page who has now been blocked (months after being temporarily blocked for harassing me with their first edit to en.wp))

The nonsense about GMO & Jill Stein is just that. Trypto later boasted about coming to Jill Stein to hound another user I have followed the edits of editors who were parties to the GMO ArbCom case [...] and I observed that one such editor made an edit to this page that violated the DS, so I came here and corrected it. source (in fact he didn't "correct" anything in mainspace, Victoria Grayson did... but that's not overly important). Read Nuclear Warfare's comments and tell me where he talks about GMO. He doesn't. at all. He and only he decided the 6-month topic ban. The question was about sourcing of a sentence about 3rd parties, and about my inexperienced efforts shortly after I first became active on en.wp 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 19:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest KoF start a clean request which recognizes there is no TBAN or ABAN logged anywhere. Too many words have been spilled into this page and several others because of this request. In any case, I will not be participating further for at the very minimum 3 days. I have 40 or 50 pages to translate this weekend. Sorry. 🌿 SashiRolls t · c 00:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Final Statement

So a few people had comments this weekend. I'll take a break to reply.

One of the commenters I am only allowed to respond to here because of the fact that KoF filed this case, (erroneously) alleging a violation of an IBAN, because I reverted his deletion of another person (SJ)'s edit. That commenter (Mr. Trypto) has recently written over 9.3K in this thread and 8.4K in another discussion thread about things concerning me.

Despite my conciliatory efforts to get him out of my hair (I offered to delete the evidence page, for example, and hatted any reference to him on this page), they didn't take the hint and continued adding more and more comments to this noticeboard thread, and spreading disinformation about me at deletion review: e.g. "SashiRolls is also banned from GMOs" (source).

Let's read his words again: "I also understand and agree that if hypothetically I were to abuse the lifting of the restriction [2-way IBAN], it will be reinstated." --Tryptofish: 20:35, 5 June 2019.

Again, after bringing an initial case against me at AE in 2016, he has followed me to AE at least 4 times: twice for Cirt (Christmas 2016, May 2017), and twice in 2019 for Kingofaces43. He was particularly involved in lobbying against the CIRT unblock in 2018 ("strongest possible oppose") at AN, and followed me to AN/I with scary fish pictures. Since his part of the IBAN was lifted, he has opened discussions about my actions at RfA, alleged that "someone" hounded them at WT:HA, and said demonstrably false stuff at deletion review in addition to lobbying for sanctions here.

Perhaps Trypto himself, in the interest of fairness and the sheer volume of evidence, will voluntarily submit to the reinstatement of the 2-way IBAN given his difficulty staying away from me / not talking about me. Nope, Tryptofish has indicated he won't take responsibility for his actions. (actions = fishing for sanctions at noticeboards, speaking of which, I forgot to mention their comments on Kolya's unanimously rejected ArbCom case.)

Meanwhile, Laser brain is miffed. Laser brain has done 1/6 of the work I have in mainspace this year. I have never seen him on a single page I've contributed to, suggesting he might not be an expert on my skills or lack thereof.

Tony Ballioni says he has nothing to say about this case, but has taken the opportunity to make a speech about making sanctions clear. What could be clearer than a 2-way interaction ban? Certainly not a 1-way IBAN which sanctions the victim of a demonstrable pattern of noticeboard fishing.

Regarding glyphosate I am still waiting for any evidence whatsoever of disruption in the last three months. My prediction is that it will be hard to find, because it doesn't exist. Many of my additions this year have remained (or were moved to another related mainspace page by an admin). It's difficult to see what the complaint is. Here it appears to be that I reverted Kingofaces43 once and reverted my reversion as soon as it was suggested I should, which I would submit is not nearly enough to topic ban someone.

🌿 SashiRolls t · c 10:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish[edit source | edit]

Facepalm Facepalm. I guess I'm glad that I was not logged in when the edit to glyphosate happened. But, good grief! First of all, I've entirely stayed clear of SashiRolls, even after the IBAN was revised to 1-way, and I am aware of this AE only because I was pinged. But I've got to wonder: why didn't SashiRolls just say here something like "woops, that was a mistake, I'm sorry, and I won't do it again"? (He did self-revert in response to this complaint.) This is the first time that SashiRolls has violated the "letter of the law" of El C's IBAN, but it is unambiguously a violation. I will note however, that SashiRolls has also shown up, after the IBAN was in place, at WT:HA, where I have long been a very active contributor. Here's a permalink to the current version of that talk page: [108]. If you just do a very fast skim of it, you will see me showing up in nearly every thread. But when you get down pretty low on that talk page, when you come to WT:HA#Abuse of Administrative Boards, there he is. I stayed out of the thread that he started, and the next one, until what I describe next happened (even though this happened after the IBAN had been changed to 1-way). In a later thread, I was discussing some things with TonyBallioni: [109], [110], and then SashiRolls replied directly into that part of the discussion: [111], taking up the thread of "opposition research" from Tony's reply to me. I found that a bit uncomfortable. I did not make an issue of it, because it did not, strictly speaking, violate the "letter" of the IBAN. He wasn't replying directly to me, and a case can certainly be made that he could have had a legitimate interest in the harassment policy, and El C's IBAN was written only in terms of mainspace, for the entirely valid reason of not applying to noticeboards, and this was policy space. It sure looks to me like testing boundaries.

But, as already noted above, it is simply preposterous to argue that it was not obvious that glyphosate was part of the IBAN. The original conflict that led to the IBAN took place at that very page (along with the related Séralini affair). And SashiRolls has actually said that he knew that glyphosate was included in the ban: [112]. And, for a topic area that ArbCom placed under 1RR, the tone of the edit was clearly battleground-y. It's a violation of the existing 1-way ban, no matter what modifications anyone might consider for the future.

For the future, changing it to a GMO topic ban, in part, might be helpful, as might, in addition, making the 1-way IBAN a traditional 1-way IBAN. But whatever you do, please do not eliminate the 1-way IBAN with me. I don't need any more of this stuff. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

@Admins: I think that a TBAN just to glyphosate would be a mistake; it should instead be a TBAN over the entire GMO DS topic area. For example, the run-in with me very much also involved Séralini affair. Also, it would make little sense to topic ban from glyphosate but not from Roundup (herbicide). (The DS topic areas of previous AE complaints are irrelevant here.) And I do think there needs to be a TBAN in addition to the IBAN, because otherwise I have no doubt that I will find myself with Tryptofish-only and SashiRolls-only talk page sections going on simultaneously at multiple GMO page talk pages (and I think everyone agrees that asking SashiRolls to look at long-term page edit histories is suboptimal, so it needs to be topic-based). My experience so far has been that the GMO area is the only topic where I've had problems that would not be easily covered by the IBAN. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
I have absolutely not baited SashiRolls into making the edit at glyphosate, which is what this AE is about. I haven't baited him anywhere else either, but if he feels mistreated he can open a separate complaint about it. (Otherwise, it's just deflection.) And a great way not to be troubled about anything that I post would be to stop following me around and reading what I say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
Following up on some recent comments:
@El C: About your burnout-related comments, that's the way (but as a non-admin) that I've been feeling for a long time about my own interactions here. 'Nuff said. About the TBAN scope, though, whether "light" or not, I really would strongly encourage you to simply follow the scope of the GMO DS (which include carefully crafted wording about "agricultural chemicals"). That definition of scope was worked out with much effort over a monster of an ArbCom case and a subsequent amendment, and has been working very well. There is no need to try to reinvent something new.
@Vanamonde and KofA: I personally like both of you very much, and I hope we can all lighten up a bit about the topic area for Jill Stein. As I understand it, the earlier sanctions were logged under AP2 and not GMO, but arose from the GMO section of the page (a BLP of an AP politician). The complaint we are dealing with here, however, is focused on one edit at the glyphosate page, but with too much noise in the background. The nature of this complaint leaves everyone including me feeling irritable, but I think both of you are acting in good faith. Peace.
--Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
I want to briefly address Levivich's comment. At least some of it might be true, if what we were talking about were a standard IBAN. But it wasn't. One thing that I think everyone, including El C, agrees about is that the sanction that El C imposed (I'm talking about the original version of the IBAN, not the brief indef) was a Rube Goldberg improvisation that should be cleaned up here. Let's be very clear what was, and what was not, in effect at the time that this AE was opened:
Here is El C's original statement of the sanction: [113]. Quote: either of you are subject to an WAP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first. That was not subject to any exception based on the momentary context. Subsequently, the sanction was lifted for me, making it a 1-way sanction applying to SashiRolls. Thus: SashiRolls is prohibited, full stop, from editing any page that I edited first. And SashiRolls knew that glyphosate was such a page, because he said so himself: [114]. And Levivich knew it too, because he too said so himself: [115]. And both of them ought to remember it. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The tl;dr: SashiRolls was banned from editing glyphosate, and he knew it: [116]. But he chose to thumb his nose at that sanction: [117]. That's it. It's just that simple. All the rest is noise, or intentional misdirection. What remains to be done now is to fashion a resolution that keeps things peaceful between him and me. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • During the brief indef block, SashiRolls posted at Wikipediocracy that he thinks that I am trying to get some negative information about Monsanto deleted from the glyphosate page. At the time he posted that, here is the single edit that I had made, to the talk page: [118]. Judge for yourself. So what we need is: (1) a standard 1-way IBAN with me, and (2) a standard TBAN from GMOs, with the scope defined in the standard way devised by ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • +1 to what Tony Ballioni said. It's above my pay grade what you all should do more broadly, but whatever you decide, I want this user to be kept away from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Admins should consider self-awareness and willingness to accept responsibility. (And noting: [119].) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nblund[edit source | edit]

Just going to butt in here: I'm not involved in this particular dispute, but I'm definitely involved with regard to SashiRolls. I think this interaction, my previous experience at ANI, and the even older AE discussions linked above point to a consistent pattern of asserting incredible levels of bad-faith on other editors in topic areas involving left-wing anti-establishment politics, while simultaneously demanding the assumption of good faith for his own actions.

Most discussions I have with SashiRolls contain multiple variations on the theme in the final sentence of his comment to EL_C here: an over-the-top, evidence-free, non-specific allegation of malicious intent that is guaranteed to derail the discussion if anyone bothers to address it. By the same token: I suspect that everyone pretty much recognizes that SashiRolls' off-handed accusation that Tryptofish has "harassed him" (here) is absurd, and yet — because it has absolutely nothing to do with the dispute — it sort of just slides by without a remark from anyone.

It looks to me like that problem has been ongoing for years, it hasn't improved despite multiple sanctions, and, yes, I suspect it has gone unaddressed partly because the admins most familiar with the behavior end up feeling burned out and/or emotionally involved after being on the receiving end of it. I understand it would probably be draconian to suddenly turn this AE request in to a referendum on SashiRolls' long-term behavior, but I just want to note that what is on display here is more-or-less the norm, and I really doubt a topic ban will address the root problem. Nblund talk 19:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich[edit source | edit]

I appreciate El C erring on the side of unblocking.

This report should be closed as no violation. It is based on one diff: this one, which was restoring sourced content that KofA removed here. This is not an edit war, this is one revert. It's not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp, because it's a revert of KofA, not Tryp. It's not a violation of a TBAN because there is no TBAN. It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded. So, there's no violation here.

It reads to me that when Sashi reverted KofA, KofA's response to that was to take Sashi to AE, and allege it was a violation of a TBAN that he had already had explained to him did not exist. This is the weaponization of AE, and it should be discouraged. Sashi hasn't edited that article or talk page since May, and one revert gets him reported at AE? I find it outrageous.

Finally I note that on Sep 27, both Sashi and Tryp (along with other editors) were pinged to a thread (about a content dispute involving KofA, incidentally). Tryp posted in that thread; Sashi did not. That's evidence of Sashi complying with the IBAN even though Sashi doesn't agree with it.

Reverting KofA's edit was not a violation of the IBAN with Tryp. Unless there is evidence of Sashi violating the IBAN since it was imposed, this report should be closed as no violation. Also, before we institute a TBAN from a topic area, we should probably have some diffs of disruptive editing in that topic area from, say, within the last 30 days. Levivich 03:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@Tryp: perhaps you missed the part where I wrote "It's not a violation of the ABAN, because, if I understand correctly, it was not logged and/or has been rescinded." Not sure where you got the idea I didn't remember the ABAN. What I find simple is this: Sashi hasn't violated the 1-way IBAN since it was instituted. Ergo, there is no further sanction that is needed to keep things "peaceful" between you two, because things are already peaceful. Unless you have some diffs of recent disruption to share? Levivich 18:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Result concerning SashiRolls[edit source | edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • This auto-ABAN concept would be unusual, and it's not mentioned as part of the sanction in the AE close or in the ACDSLOG, where it's noted simply to be an IBAN. IBAN itself has no such provision, and it in fact explicitly allows editing the same article without direct contact (in fact, the community recently overwhelmingly overturned an AE block in this situation). It's unclear to me whether this was just an erroneous statement by El_C, or if it was specifically intended to be an expanded IBAN with an automatic ABAN from any article edited first by the other user. This needs clarification first. ~Swarm~ {sting} 17:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
    • @Laser brain: Just as a procedural note, we cannot actually indef block under Arbitration enforcement; blocks are limited to a one year maximum. You may discretionarily block as you see fit. This seems to be trending towards a revision of the existing sanction, simply due to the fact that the existing one is impractical. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) It's a violation. But in retrospect, I'm not sure my unique sanction framework was the most well-formed idea — expecting them to search every article to see if the other party has edited it is a bit much. Unless they knew in advance that the other party has edited there, then it's just a straight interaction ban violation, which is (?) or should be in place, and consensus is for one-way. Anyway, now that I think about it, I should have probably just done a straight GMO topic ban alongside a one-way interaction ban, which we can still do. Sorry for the lapse. El_C 17:38, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @Kingofaces43: Still, due to my lapse, I get the sense that this will be more a discussion about implementing these new restrictions on the user than one involving the enforcement of existing ones. El_C 18:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Unless there are objections from other uninvolved admins, I intend to reformulate the sanction to cover an interaction ban with Tryptofish (one-way) and a topic ban from glyphosate, broadly construed. El_C 19:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @SashiRolls: Your objection is noted. As is the aggressive, battleground tone. A pivotal reason why you should stay away from Tryptofish and the articles they edit. El_C 20:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @SashiRolls: Your battleground tone is noted, again. Anyway, I want you to not edit articles where Tryptofish frequents. If there is no consensus among uninvolved admin to restrict you toward that end, also topically, that's fine with me. I'm not sure why I would need to study the nuances of the latest content dispute to adopt that approach. El_C 21:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Also, in regards to video game approach that SashiRolls attributes to me, I note that, currently, I have closed 8 out of 17 reports listed at AN3 and been equally active in RfPP. Just two example. What's most visible is not necessarily an indication of focus or time commitment. So that, coming from someone who argues for the need of further study, is especially ironic. El_C 21:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Once again, a superficial overview, not only of what I do on Wikiafripedia, overall, but also the often much more nuanced role that involves AN3 and RfPP. And those were just two examples. To say that I don't study sources as a Wikiafripedia editor is plain false. Diverting this request, which is about you, to focus on me, is a rhetorical device whose usefulness is in question. El_C 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • @SashiRolls: this isn't a negotiation. You are not permitted to refactor comments that others may have already responded to. Full stop. El_C 23:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I have reached out to Awilley to get their input about SashiRolls' conduct in these very proceedings. We have a user here, SashiRolls, who has been indefinitely blocked so many times for battleground behaviour and personal comments (which this time I was the recipient of) — always with another final warning. I'm not sure why this continues to be tolerated. There is a dissonance here that mystifies me. El_C 17:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm getting the sense there is severe admin burnout associated with anything having to do with SashiRolls, which leads to the continuation of egregious behaviour, seemingly indefinitely. As far I'm concerned, a GMO (or GMO-light) topic ban follows from SashiRolls stating, for example, that they may compile an off-wiki list of all the dramaboard GMO cases and recurring actors to help the press get a handle on what is going on. [120] That my somewhat misguided ABAN sanction failed to fulfill this intended topic restriction is not a reason such a ban from this topic area should be withheld. Vanamonde, in light of this, does your objection to a topic ban still stand? El_C 17:38, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure why El C finds transparency troubling@SashiRolls: this innuendo reflect poorly on you. I am obliged to attribute the quote, not provide what you deem as "context." Context which I am entitled to contend is immaterial, anyway. El_C 19:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Just noting that I have indefinitely blocked SashiRolls for linking externally to a deleted page that was twice deleted as an attack page. But due to the DRV being mixed about its status as an attack page, I've unblocked SashiRolls — so this request, which I have suspended, can now resume. El_C 23:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that "an WAP:ABAN on articles the other party has edited first." is an unreasonably restrictive sanction. It is not necessary to prevent disruption, and it prevents full consideration of a very wide number of articles. A standard i-ban is sufficient, and, given the above stateent by El C, ithe wording should be changed. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I can see why this needs to be a standard one-way IBAN, together with a warning that skirting the edge of the ban would be grounds for heavier sanctions. I don't see grounds for a TBAN yet; SashiRolls's behavior is poor, but I see no evidence that it's worse in a given area, only that it's worse when related to Tryptofish. Kingofaces43, I pointed out to you in a previous AE discussion that SashiRolls' TBAN from Jill Stein was under AP2 discretionary sanctions, not GMO discretionary sanctions. You've repeated that erroneous statement here. The enforcement log is here. That's borne out by the administrator comments at the relevant AE discussion. It might seem like a minor point, but it is very relevant to establishing the locus of bad behavior; and if you continue to misrepresent it, it reflects poorly on you. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
    Playing holier-than-thou isn't doing you any favors, Kingofaces43. I'm not going to excuse SashiRolls's behavior because of your choice of words, but his behavior doesn't excuse your throwing the kitchen sink at him, either. He was sanctioned for his behavior on the article on Jill Stein, including, but not limited to, material related to GMOs. And that's what you should have said. What you typed in your initial request is a misrepresentation. Vanamonde (Talk) 04:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
    @El C: No, I'm not going to stand in the way of a TBAN. SashiRolls's attitude here is terrible. I just don't want egregious bad behavior on one person's part to make us blind to everything else that goes on. Tryptofish, you know I've a lot of respect for you, and I'll go on record saying that your conduct in this area is something that other users should seek to emulate; but I think you have, on occasion, been blinded in this manner; and I have neither the time nor the patience to go into this further at this time, so let's just deal with SR and move on. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I am miffed that anyone is even discussing all these elaborate mechanisms to enable this editor to continue to take up community time. I supported his unblocking a year ago (after previously advocating for an extended block owing to poor behavior) saying "I'm convinced SashiRolls wants to contribute and improve Wikiafripedia." I still think this is remotely true, but my impression was that unblock was a "you're on thin ice" action and he's been blocked, what, three times since then? For poor behavior? Enough is enough, this should be an indef block. I object to the continued formulation of esoteric sanctions to attempt to deal with this editor. --Laser brain (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • No comments one way or another on this specific case, but I read Laser brain's comments and felt the need to comment more generally: there has been a trend of late to try to craft specialty sanctions to contain disruption in known areas while allowing freedom in every area other than the super niche rules. That is both next to impossible to enforce and also spreads disruption elsewhere because super-niche sanctions are prone to being gamed and people causing disruption in similar ways that do not fall technically foul of the sanction, but if a more standardized remedy had been applied, would obviously been a violation.
    All this to say, if sanctions are merited, I strongly oppose some special sanction. Make it standard. If that's an indef regular admin block, cool. If it's an AE block for however log, sure. If it's a TBAN, no problem, just make it a regular TBAN instead of a unique article one with special carve outs.
    In short, we should stop insisting on giving disruptive individuals every opportunity to prove they aren't going to change. If they've already shown it, then deal with it in a respectful ordinary fashion. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with TonyBallioni here. If someone is editing disruptively in a DS area, they need to be removed from this area. In this case, I think it is quite clear that SashiRolls' conduct has been disruptive (including even at this request), and I think they should be removed from that area, with a firm understanding that if the disruption moves elsewhere or there's any testing of the topic ban conditions, the next step is likely an indef. Most people manage to edit, even frequently, without causing too much trouble, so there's only so many chances for change we should give those who persistently are causing trouble. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit source | edit]

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 Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit source | edit]

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 21:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Johnrichardhall‎‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikiafripedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change#User conduct and Wikiafripedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Editing_of_Biographies_of_Living_Persons#Decorum :

Original venue - BLP Talk:Greta Thunberg

Lead up - The lead up involved some discussion of RSs for the part of Greta Thunberg's message that touches on biodiversity loss. We had RSs before us and were working on the best way to include them. Into that discussion, with no RSs at all, John starts talking about Indigenous peoples. Talk pages are not for general WAP:FORUM discussions and we generally try to avoid comments like "There must be sources". I tried getting John to come back with sources. Maybe subtle hinting is lost on John, I don't know. Anyway, before long

"this back and forth with [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy]] is a prime example of why. I'd rather have a root canal with no [[Novocain]] than respond to such pontifications. Accordingly, I'll jump out of [[User:NewsAndEventsGuy|NewsAndEventsGuy's]] sandbox to avoid further sanctions and/or postings on my talk page which I delete post-haste."
"this back and forth with NewsAndEventsGuy is a prime example of why I'd rather have a root canal with no Novocain."
  • 19:48, 1 November 2019 At John's talk I asked him to self revert. I closed with an attempt at self-deprecating humor.
"Your declaratory statement of deeming my statement—preferring a root cannel without Nonvaccine over interacting with you—as a personal attack on you does not make it so and is beyond my control, and frankly shows a fragile thin-skin state of being. It seems that you are becoming obsessed with me..."
That last part is really strange, since I've never dealt with John before seeing him at this BLP page and to best of my knowledge we haven't engaged in any back and forth before this incident.


In the grand scheme of things, this is a little thing. But disruption is best nipped when it is a little thing, so I decided to take time to file. Both WAP:ARBCC#Principles and WAP:BLP#Principles reiterate the policy on WAP:No personal attacks. John's initial attack on me could be attributed to not knowing or having an off day. But his insistence on first restoring it, and then telling me and my thin skin to bugger off is not how we build trusting collaborative community.

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

John was notified 21:59, November 1, 2019

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification of ARB/DS in effect

Updated... (thanks @Ymblanter:... sorry I forgot them earlier NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Swarm: My response at this particular page was influenced by my knowledge of the protection log and long history of problematic commentary. Mostly I would have asked for sources simply and directly, yet the opening post was based on observations of where people stand. Sure sounded like WAP:Original research and not long ago the OR subject under discussion (by others) was this minor aged woman's looks. So just wanted to say location history plays a large part of my choice of approach there. I may have misjudged in this case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion concerning Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit source | edit]

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 Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit source | edit]

Please have me thrown off of Wikiafripedia, I shall not fight it. I was simply passing time and trying to assist, to which--NewsAndEventsGuy--is oppose. I'll happily accept banishment from your sandbox if that is the decree. Pinging @NewsAndEventsGuy:Johnrichardhall (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)[edit source | edit]

Result concerning Johnrichardhall‎‎[edit source | edit]

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • So far, I do not see any evidence that the user has been made aware of discretionary sanctions.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The thread itself started out fairly innocuous. John suggested that the subject's emphasis of indigenous peoples is important to the article. NAEG asked what the significance was and and what the sources say, which is perfectly reasonable. John appeared agitated by this inquiry, perhaps misreading the tone, saying, sarcastically, that no one cares and it's meaningless. NAEG responded amicably, saying that the relevant RS should be examined. John says okay, he'll look into it if he can find the time. All good, until NAEG responds, telling John to not start threads without having RS at the ready first. That's where everything seems to go downhill and the series of diffs above occur. John's mannerisms are perhaps a little eccentric, but it's quite clear that John was simply talking about improving the article in good faith and NAEG upset him by essentially calling his thread worthless. There's nothing wrong with suggesting adding content without having sources on-hand, obviously, and, as can be seen in the thread, it clearly wasn't going "nowhere", with another user already agreeing with John's suggestion. Were John's words technically a personal attack by way of invoking negative personal commentary? I guess you can say that. Did it really warrant unilateral deletion, demands that he remove it, AE sanctions? No, it is minor, but that's not why this shouldn't be actioned. It shouldn't be actioned because it's not indicitave of a behavioral problem, but was directly provoked by an unnecessarily rude and condescending comment. When a user says they'd rather have a root canal rather than respond to your "pontificating", it's probably best to examine whether you're being a little bit out of line before attempting to railroad them for personal attacks. ~Swarm~ {sting} 22:56, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I would not take any action on this request. Certainly the "root canal" comment probably wasn't the best response, but it was also in response to a fair degree of provocation. "Can you source that claim?" is of course a reasonable request, but it still can be made a great deal more civilly than it was, and I think it was NAEG's snark that caused things to degenerate in tone. That needs to be toned way down going forward, especially in sensitive areas. This type of request is a good way to see a boomerang fly. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)