< Wikipedia:Arbitration  (Redirected from Wikipedia:RFAR)

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

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

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

Please make your request in the appropriate section:

Requests for arbitration


Initiated by - MrX 🖋 at 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Involved parties

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried

Statement by MrX

I respectfully request that Arbcom open a case to fairly, but thoroughly, examine the history of JzG's actions as an administrator, and his general conduct that reflects adversely on his role as an administrator. The area where JzG struggles the most is with closing and re-opening discussions. On several occasions he has circumvented normal process, often when he has been involved with the underlying subject. He has also been formally warned for incivility, has engaged in edit warring, [4][5][6] and has violated WP:INVOLVED on several occasions.[7][8]. His attitude when confronted with these concerns have frequently been dismissive, indicating that he is not willing or able to change his approach.[9][10][11][12]

I've have been considering bringing this case request to Arbcom for several years, but I was hopeful that JzG would take the hint after receiving so much feedback from so many other people. The precipitating events that finally convinced me that a case was necessary are the two most recent ones linked in the 'Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried' section above. In the most recent one that I'm involved in, JzG re-opened an RfC[13] that I had properly closed three and half weeks ago. I reverted him and raised my concern on his talk page, advising him that there was a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE in progress.[14] JzG then reverted me,[15] effectively re-opening the RfC without regard to WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. He claimed that he did it because it was a WP:BADNAC, but did not explain his reason. I dispute that WP:BADNAC applies. I am an experienced editor[16] who has closed nearly 100 RfCs[17], and I am completely uninvolved with the subject. I'm not even sure how JzG found the RfC buried on the talk page of an article he has never edited. After my post to JzG's talk page, he then closed the WP:CLOSECHALLENGE discussion prematurely.[18]

There is a great deal more evidence that can be brought to bear that will show that JzG is unsuited to continue holding adminship. Given the number of complaints about JzG evincing a pattern of admin misconduct, and these recent incidents, a case seems long overdue. Thank you. - MrX 🖋 15:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Bradv It is my understanding that a closed RfC (or most any consensus-building discussion) should remain closed until there is a consensus to overturn the close. This is based on observed practice and the lack of any instruction in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE that says that a discussion should be re-opened during a close challenge. It kind of makes sense if you think about it, since re-opening it removes the closing statement from the discussion and allow editors to continue to comment in the discussion while the close challenge is underway. I can't recall ever seeing a case where an RfC close was re-opened during a close challenge. Are you aware of any such cases? - MrX 🖋 16:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • JzG seems to be indulging in a bit of revisionism in his statement. The fact is, he reopened the RfC at at 18:53 yesterday. Only after I raised the issue on his talk page at 11:59 today, did he then close the discussion at WP:AN at 12:23. At least he admits that he was not evaluating consensus in the close review, but rather substituting his own view of my closure (Which is text book WP:SUPERVOTE). - MrX 🖋 16:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @El C: Would you please cite the policy advising that RfCs can be re-opened during a WP:CLOSECHALLENGE, especially by someone who has commented in the very same close review? While you're at it, feel free to answer the questions I asked in the actual close review. - MrX 🖋 17:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
It's conveniently self-serving to say that "not all policy is written". Why even have a close review process if admins can just delete any close they disagree with? - MrX 🖋 17:44, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Still no one has shown that there is actually a policy or guideline to support the notion that admins can revert non-admin closes that they disagree with. The argument relies entirely on this entry made in January to the supplement: [19]. It does not enjoy community consensus, and it is in direct opposition to the principle that any experienced editor can close an RfC and that there is a process for challenging closes. As described in WP:CLOSE: After discussing the matter with the closing editor, you may request review at the Administrators' noticeboard.
As it happens, the discussion did start at Talk:People's Mujahedin of Iran#Recently closed RfC. Vanamonde93 shut it down with the comment: "This is quickly turning into a relitigation of the RfC, and in any case this isn't the place to challenge a closure. The closer has been asked to explain their statement, and they have done so. The next step in the process would be to ask for a review at WP:AN. I would recommend against that, because I see no reason why this was an unreasonable closure."
I'm disappointed to see wagons circling to defend this culture of admins doing whatever they want outside of our usual community consensus process. This was not an emergency requiring admin action and there was no "disruption" as falsely asserted by El C. It was a calm deliberation that was short circuited by an elite minority of close-knit allies.
This is nothing more that a few admins taking control of content, which is antithetical to the founding principles of the project and specifically contrary to WP:CON. Once again, the bar for examining admin conduct is set so high as to be unattainable by us drones, yet if an admin brings a case against an unpopular admin, that case is accepted with the barest of evidence and prosecuted with zeal. - MrX 🖋 10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Boing! said Zebedee proves my point by telling me that I should shut up and go about my business. I wish I found that surprising. - MrX 🖋 11:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

Per Floquenbeam, I am more than happy to admit that I could have handled this better. If I'd thought for a minute that MrX was likely to escalate so fast and so furiously, I would have explained at greater length. I would undoubtedly have done so had the attempts to resolve the dispute lasted longer than half an hour and three comments and their replies.

1. The People's Mujahedin of Iran RfC close

MrX performed a non-admin close. A thread was opened at AN. Based on input from El C and my own review of the close, I reopened the RfC (see [20]).

MrX reverted this: [21]. That is inconsistent with WP:BRD. I reopened the RfC again, so MrX posted to my Talk page saying I'm surprised that you would edit war over this and use such poor judgement to circumvent consensus. [22]. That is incorrect: he reinstated his own NAC after it was reverted, the edit war starts with the second revert, the first revert is WP:BRD.

There was no meaningful attempt to resolve the dispute, including through the existing noticeboard thread. The time from MrX's first challenge to my reopening, and his announcement of his intent to file this case, was 33 minutes and 27 seconds, in which time he made exactly three other edits. The discussion on my talk page cited as "prior attempts to resolve the dispute", it consists of two comments and their replies over a period of about five minutes.

An RfC close is pretty much the only thing we do, other than deletion, which is binding on content, so it's normally left to uninvolved admins. In fact some RfCs are closed by panels of three or more uninvolved admins and editors, and can take many days to evaluate. As MrX knows from recent past experience, non-admin closes of contentious RfCs that would have the effect of making binding changes to long-stranding content, are wont to be controversial. The onus is rather obviously on the closer to justify the close. Here's a close I made of a contentious debate.

2. AE re. infobox on Frank Sinatra

Per [23] and [24], there is no apparent disagreement that the sanction against I-82-I (which includes an indefinite block for editing logged out to evade scrutiny) is appropriate, but substantial and loud disagreement - with no obvious consensus in any direction - on what to do about some other editors. All the drama stems from the fact that the discussion had morphed into an ironically bad-tempered discussion of other editors, notably SchroCat.

The question therefore I guess comes down to interpretation of Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement § Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement, a legitimate question. The "steps to resolve" here would be via WP:ARCA, which is exactly where it currently is.

Prior attempts to resolve have not yet failed, they are underway. [edited for brevity] Guy (help! - typo?) 07:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC on the RfC for RfC closures...

Robert McClenon makes a very good point. With deletion, we have a well established process for review and reversion, but this is complicated by the need for the sysop bit in order to delete or undelete. It seems to me self-evident that the closer of an RfC bears the burden of satisfying the community that the close is valid, and that any challenge in good faith, whether to an admin or not, should, by default, result in either reopening, or perhaps the application of the {{closing}} wrapper while the close is debated, but there is no clarity. I think this would form the basis of a sensible discussion at WP:CENT, and have initiated discussion: Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment § Process for challenging closes Guy (help! - typo?) 07:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by El_C

This seems like a frivolous request. Had I the time, I likely would have reopened the RfC myself. I thank Guy for, correctly, having done so. And, yes, I am the uninvolved with the most experience with the article, notwithstanding having taken a break from engaging it for the last several months — the Wikipedia:General sanctions/Post-1978 Iranian politics is a testament to that thorough engagement on my part (my role as an uninvolved admin in the article precedes that GS by many months, though). I'm certain that Vanamonde93, who has been the uninvolved admin with the second most experience with the article in question would confirm this. In closing, this was an inappropriate closure which needed to be overturned, and so it was. El_C 16:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

MrX, not all policy is written, and again, this is an article covered by General Sanctions. In fact, it's the article which largely gave rise to the GS in question. For the benefit of the Committee, this RfC was about condensing key longstanding text to something like 1/20th of its size. I have no opinion about the change itself, but you don't close a discussion which concerns a decision of such gravity with so little substance. That simply falls below standards. It was a closure which required correction and, dare I say, ought to lead to due reflection on the part of said closer. El_C 17:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
MrX, it is at the discretion of an uninvolved admin to correct actions which they deem to be disruptive to the stability of the page in question, including NACs. Sometimes a lengthy review process is due for challenged NACs, sometimes not. That also falls at the discretion of an uninvolved admin. As Guy Macon notes: editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing [...] I think that speaks for itself. El_C 17:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
MrX writes: a calm deliberation that was short circuited by an elite minority of close-knit allies — that concerns me. Not only there is an unwillingness to recognize shortcomings which pertains to the closure (lack of depth and breadth), but there are also these bizarre accusations which are totally baseless. El_C 15:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC) Strike out of respect. I did not realize that MrX has left the project over this dispute at the time of writing this comment. That sucks. El_C 20:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
A sidenote about Ayurveda. I am the admin who mandated the RfC in question (logged as a discretionary sanction). Note that I did not add the requirement that the discussion be closed by an admin. I could have, but I chose not to. That is because I do believe non-admins are qualified to close controversial discussions. El_C 15:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde

I'm still undecided on the closure itself, but the discussion was messy and contentious, and the topic is under discretionary sanctions, meaning that an admin close was probably a good idea. I don't see how this was misconduct at all, let alone misconduct worthy of a request to ARBCOM. Yes, I'm a party to the ARCA request involving JzG at the moment, but that doesn't mean I necessarily doubt his judgement in general. When the actions of long-standing administrators are in question, I think you need evidence of frequent or sustained bad judgement for a case to be justified, and you don't have that here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

Previous discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RFC closure review

I am becoming concerned about MrX's NACs. I noticed a problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive323#Close challenge, where he clearly got it wrong and dug in his heels when multiple editors complained. Now he appears to be doing it again.

Here is a brief timeline with diffs:

On 19:41, 14 August 2020 MrX performed an extremely contentious NAC.[25]

As can be seen at [26], the rough count was 7 yes, 4 no, so a reclose by an uninvolved administrator might very well come to the same conclusion, but WP:BADNAC is clear:

"A non-admin closure is not appropriate [when] the outcome is a close call (especially where there are several valid outcomes) or likely to be controversial. Such closes are better left to an administrator."

I don't think that any reasonable person would conclude that the outcome wasn't likely to be controversial. The Ayurveda RFC was also clearly controversial.

On 16:28, 8 September 2020 Administrator El_C !voted to overturn the close.[27] MrX was aware of El_C's opinion.[28]

I suspect that the comment "I found that Mhhossein's detailed argument was adroitly rebutted by Barca's." in the closing summary was inappropriate. It could be argued that the closer should talk about what the consensus is and not about who is right (with the exception of when an argument is against policy) to avoid the perception of a supervote.

On 18:53, 8 September 2020 Uninvolved administrator JzG undid the close, citing WP:BADNAC.[29]

On 11:59, 9 September 2020 MrX reverted[30] with the edit comment "Editors cannot unilaterally reopen closed RfCs" This claim directly contradicts Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Who should close discussions:

"While rare mistakes can happen in a close, editors whose closes are being overturned at decision reviews, and/or directly reverted by administrators, should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator, and that administrator gained comfort that the closer understands their mistakes, and will not repeat them."

Our policy is clear: editors closes can be overturned by being directly reverted by administrators, and in such cases the closer should pause closing until they have discussed these closes with an administrator. Mrx first posted to JzGs talk page on this[31] at 11:59, 9 September 2020‎ -- the same minute as the revert. In that post he wrote "Please don't unilaterally reopen closed RfCs. As an admin, you should know to follow WP:CLOSECHALLENGE", but CLOSECHALLENGE does not say that it is the only acceptable way to undo a close, and indeed administrators reverting BADNACs is an everyday occurrence.

If MrX had argued that his NAC wasn't bad, that would have been within policy, but instead MrX has repeatedly claimed that admins cannot undo NACs even if they are bad. And, given that "bad" specifically includes "likely to be controversial" this NAC was clearly "bad". --Guy Macon (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Barkeep49

As a person who just filed an ARCA where I think JzG overstepped, and was (am) pretty frustrated with the way he dug his heels in after acting against consensus, I still have a hard time seeing enough here for a full case against him. I think JzG's actions at the RfC, unlike in the ARCA incident, done with tacit or explicit endorsement of others and the reversing of the close in-line with appropriate practice. If the April 2019 ANI thread had been from this year, maybe, sure. But it wasn't and I have a hard time saying that there is enough here to merit a full case against JzG. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Just noting that I don't think or policies, guidelines, or typical procedures supports the idea that non-admins shouldn't close controversial RfCs. I closed some controversial RfCs before becoming an admin without issue. I can't find the thread now (silly Wikipedia search abilities) but this year S Marshall had closed several controversial RfCs all of which were upheld on review at AN. Additionally we have a 2012 RfC which tells us On the question of whether an RFC close by a non-admin can be summarily overturned by an admin, in most cases, no, and never if the only reason is that the closer was not an admin. We have plenty of competent non-admin who can and should close a wide range of RfCs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker

Just to note BADNAC and CLOSE are neither policy nor guideline, so the committee if it takes this up will have to deal with the fact that the community has not seen fit to get an explicit consensus on them. As for NACD that is only for deletions not RfC's -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, some of the seeming 'high-handedness' about experienced editors being forbidden to close RfC's, is IMO without consensus and mostly wrong (of course, if you don't want to be in a hot-seat, angles fear to tread and all that). But than I closed an RfC related to The Troubles back in the day and it seemed to work out fine, perhaps people were not wrapped up in status then or they more closely followed the admonition not to go at something simply because one is an experienced editor (or perhaps another way to say that is, 'focus not on the person'). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Reyk

This seems like someone is sour at being overruled, has seen that JzG has rubbed people the wrong way in the past, and sees an opportunity to use ArbCom as a vehicle for revenge. I don't think ArbCom should accept this. Reyk YO! 19:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PaleoNeonate

Considering that an AN thread also existed challenging it, I don't see a problem with unclosing. —PaleoNeonate – 04:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Works in difficult topic areas so the Committee may determine that his behavior was necessary in those cases - we won't know without a case so community time should be lost to know? We can't afford to lose an editor of MrX's caliber why would/should this result in the loss of an editor? (And the same for Guy, who I see doing a lot of good work on Wikipedia.) Perhaps we should have an ArbCom case about non-administrative closes if the goal is to change the policy, wouldn't the village pump and/or policy page be a better venue? If we continue to refuse to look at administrator conduct unless there's been a recent, clear-cut misuse of the tools was an editor wrongly blocked or an article wrongly protected here? —PaleoNeonate – 09:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee

MrX says "I'm disappointed to see wagons circling to defend this culture of admins doing whatever they want outside of our usual community consensus process" amid other baseless accusations. I'm disappointed to see MrX trotting out such classic anti-admin whining. The case should be declined, MrX should quit making non-admin closes of contentious RfCs, and should stop complaining and trying to dig up dirt when they're reverted. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Deepfriedokra

There is no admin abuse here and nothing requiring ArbCom intervention. ArbCom should decline. I'm disappointed to see this from MrX . I agree with Boing! said Zebedee. MrX should stop it. Non admins should not make contentious closes. NAC's are reviewable and reversible by those entrusted by the community-- the admins. When a non admin is reversed by an admin, they should see it as a learning experience instead of filing baseless ArbCom cases. This case is just needless disruption. --Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEng

I have to say I was a little on the fence here. But I think Guy Macon & Boing! said Zebedee's comment really struck a chord with me here.

To Guy Macon's point about past closures, like the one at Ayurveda. Which incidentally during that RFC Guy Macon was heavy involved in and MrX closed against his positing while being completely uninvolved. Then an admin came by and basically made the same close. So I am not sure how his close was problematic or indicative of a pattern of bad closures. So that kind of argument is easily debunked.

Next with Boing! said Zebedee, it just looks like you are whining that the points MrX makes are correct. From what I can tell MrX is completely within written policy and everyone else is not. Then the accusations of bad faith are extremely disappointing and concerning. Perhaps a more productive path would be to answer any of the concerns that he has about admin behavior and policy rather than prove his point.

In the end from what I can see policy is fairly clear here. One, anyone can close an RFC. Two, the close review process is you take it to AN and if consensus is found to overturn then you overturn not before hand. Three, after being reverted on the close probably should not of edit warred to re-open it while not citing policy.[32] Four, he probably should of not closed the AN thread discussing it when his reverting of the close was controversial.[33] PackMecEng (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

I have to disagree with one point that Rober McClenon is making below. Just because an RFC or close might be contentious that is no reason to forbid a NAC. Being contentious is not in of itself an issue either, so I am not sure what you mean with the learn from their mistake part? Could you explain what mistake you are referring to? PackMecEng (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

You know Floquenbeam, if you disagreed with me less you would be right more often.  PackMecEng (talk) 19:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

I would encourage the arbs to accept this case. MrX is a very experienced editor and has every bit of judgment needed to close difficult RFCs, and their actions don't have any less worth simply because they haven't run an RFA. JzG has a pattern of taking a wikibreak or resigning his tools when things get heated (which is not a bad thing), but coming back from those breaks and shortly resuming similar behavior. Now we've had several discussions about JzG where consensus determined that the one specific thing wasn't actionable, but there is now a body of evidence that taken together should be considered by the Committee. JzG works in difficult topic areas so the Committee may determine that his behavior was necessary in those cases - we won't know without a case and I don't think the best idea is to kick the can further down the road. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

If we have serious editorial disagreements, is that not exactly what ArbCom is for? We can't afford to lose an editor of MrX's caliber, and I say that as an editor who frequently disagrees with them. I find that is exactly what makes Wikipedia better, as MrX has repeatedly engaged in discussion with me and given me advice that I find improves the approach that we all have. One of the last discussions on their talk page is where I approached them seeking feedback, knowing they would give it honestly and openly, and they did. Arbs, please open the case and help us understand how policies should better be applied! Mr Ernie (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Robert McClenon

This case request has at least two aspects. It is about non-administrative closes, and it is about the administrative conduct of Guy. First, perhaps we should have an ArbCom case about non-administrative closes, although it would probably result in ArbCom telling the community to clarify the rules on non-administrative closes. However, this case request is not the vehicle for the ArbCom to try to address that issue, if one is in order. It seems to be only one episode, not worth an ArbCom case. Second, perhaps we should have an ArbCom case about the administrative conduct of JzG, although I do not see the need at this time. What I see is an administrator who has been usually right and occasionally wrong and has made a reasonable effort to be a reasonable administrator

A case about non-administrative closes should not be brought by a non-administrator who has made a controversial close. If a non-administrator has made a controversial close that has resulted in controversy, they probably were too bold, and probably should learn from their mistake, rather than trying to use the case as a vehicle. A case on non-administrative closes, if there is one, will more likely be brought against the reckless closer, and will probably be at WP:ANI rather than here anyway, or may be brought against an administrator who was vindictive. This is not such a case.

There may be a future case brought to ArbCom about non-administrative closes. This dispute is not that case. The community probably should clarify the rules on non-administrative closes. This case is not the vehicle to bring the issue to the community.

Either part of this case may recur. This is not a case for ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment About RFC Close Review

It appears that User:JzG is suggesting a centralized discussion on formalizing the procedures for RFC closes. I agree that a centralized discussion would be a good idea. It is clear that RFC closes can be reviewed after the RFC is already closed, at WP:AN. I have taken part in a few such closes where, after closing an RFC that had been awaiting closure for at least a week, an editor asked me if I would re-open it so that they could insert their statement. In each case, I said No, but took the close to WP:AN. (In each case, I am assuming bad faith that the editor waited until the RFC was closed in order to try to get it re-opened. That is not important.) (One RFC that I closed that was reversed had to do with Ayurveda, and there was sockpuppetry. Some types of misconduct continue.) So I agree that a discussion of review of RFC closes would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Floq

I am surprised (no offense, I hope, but we disagree about a lot of stuff) to find myself agreeing 100% with PackMechEng's last paragraph (of their first post). Guy did not handle this well. MrX did not handle this well. People throwing around snark and assumptions of bad faith all over the place are not handling this well. I don't understand (well, by now I guess I do understand, but still wish it weren't so) why everything around here has to end with namecalling and a long time productive editor quitting or getting kicked out. It would have been fantastic for Guy to say "yeah, I could have handled this better", and MrX saying "yeah, I could have handled this better", but ... that kind of thing basically never happens around here. Bye User:MrX, I hope you come back whenever you're ready. If not, vaya con dios. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

Largely agree with PackMecEng and Floq here - IMHO MrX shouldn't of closed that RFC however Guy shouldn't of kept reverting either - Both are to blame here however as a whole I see no issues with Guys behaviour so as such IMHO this case should be declined. None of this drama helps our readers. –Davey2010Talk 20:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Awilley

I just want to emphasize that there is no policy prohibiting a non-admin from closing an RfC or suggesting that only admins should close RfCs. Non-admins are obviously discouraged from closing discussions whose result requires admin action (think WP:AN/EW), and they should avoid closing messy and contentious close-call discussions. But any uninvolved editor with experience and a grasp of policy and procedure can close an RfC, and when we're evaluating an RfC closure we should be looking at the quality of the close, not the adminship of the closer. ~Awilley (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Hobit

Arbcom cannot be allowing an admin to just change a close they don't like. There is no basis in policy or guidelines (that I'm aware of) to do so. WP:BADNAC A) isn't a policy or guideline B) has never to my knowledge, been used to revert an RfC close, C) has mostly been used on XfDs. If Arbcom is going to endorse JzG's actions here, that's fine. But I will remind you that there is a huge backlog on closes needed. I was in the middle of one actually. I've closed major discussions on advertised on CENT that have taken literal hours to read and understand that were quite close. And heck if I'm going to do that if any admin can just disagree with it and undo it without discussion. Arbcom has no buisness creating new rules. And you very much are doing so here. If there isn't a "pattern", fine. But if you are going to claim that undoing an RfC close unitarily based on admin status isn't "problematic" then I suspect you are going to be creating a heck of a work backlog. And creating new admin powers all in one go. And I don't think that's within ARBCOM's remit. Sorry, but I'm pretty pissed. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Yeah, probably just too long of a day. Covid be like that. That said "With respect to the "People's Mujahedin" RfC close, I see no evidence of misconduct." would seem to be an endorsement of that action. Hobit (talk) 03:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

JzG can be a hardliner and often does not mince his words but he is also one of the finest defenders of the Wiki we have. Long drawing a line in the sand against POV pushers, pseudoscience peddlers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, junk science and borderline witch doctors trying to shove bad medicine into our medical articles, JzG has been at the forefront of that hardline stance for a decade and a half! On politics, he and I don't agree at all, not even a little, and we have had numerous discussions which resulted in no concession from either of us. Yet, I still respect him and allow me to explain why. His strong thoughts on politics are in my mind almost a distraction, but not once has he acted in an Administrative capacity in that arena. That is far more restraint than I had when I was an admin. Being one of the earliest admins to be desysopped by the committee, no doubt I had allowed my "power" to be brandished in an Administrative capacity that led to my desysopping. I misued my tools and position to try and win arguments. Many said well it wasn't such a bad deal since most everyone I was bickering with was peddling 9/11 conspiracy theories, but it still doesn't matter. Here, with JzG this is NOT the case. In the links above provided by MrX, JzG repeatedly encourages them to seek further discussion from neutral outside uninvolved admins, to open up an AN/I to seek outside voices and he even posts requests himself for review of his actions. That is not the kind of behavior that a power tripping admin displays. JzG may be somewhat dismissive of many, even arrogant at times, but we elected him to be an admin to defend the wiki. He hasn't got it right every time, nor has he always been receptive to feedback but neither of these issues are grounds for an Arbcom case, not when you compare them to the misuse of tools and position I was guilty of. MrX wasn't obviously at risk of sanction here, but seeing his arbcom request was getting little traction, he runs out of the house. MrX is used to a much warmer reception over at AE where he has brought forth some deserving and some less than deserving foes for vanquish, his efforts here are nothing more than the same, he has a long personal history of disagreements with JzG and I guess for him the straw broke the camels back since he was once again rebuffed, and correctly so IMHO, by JzG, who is guilty of what offense here? Defending the wiki? Reject this case for the drama it is causing and stop placating to hurt feelings and temper tantrums.--MONGO (talk) 23:55, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

@Beeblebrox:, regarding judge based on the evidence presented as we normally do: well, that will happen if the case is opened and the evidence phase takes place. I do agree there should be reasonable indication of a possible problem in order to open a case, and I understand if it is your judgement that this criterion hasn't been met, but as has been expressed by arbitrators in the past, it's not necessary to overburden the request phase with a full presentation of evidence. isaacl (talk) 23:58, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Pawnkingthree

This case should be rejected because there has been no evidence presented of a pattern of admin misconduct that is ongoing. Two disgruntled editors have both happened to bring cases that have nothing to do with each other within the space of three months, but the complaints that have been raised previously at ANI about JzG's incivility have not arisen in either of them, and seem to be firmly in the past now. P-K3 (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

A majority (8/14) of arbitrators have declined this case. Shouldn't it be closed? GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Banedon

@Beeblebrox: I think the idea behind the accept votes is similar to the one in this thread. Some arbitrators are voting to accept, knowing full well there might not be evidence of misconduct and therefore the case could end with no sanctions. Others are requesting evidence before accepting, which will (of course) necessarily lead to sanctions.

If you fall in the camp which thinks evidence of wrongdoing must be provided (and therefore a case will almost surely lead to sanctions), that's fine and I'm not critical; I just want to be clear.

Banedon (talk) 12:06, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

"I feel it's worth a look particularly since this is the second request in three months" is not a sound basis to accept a case because frequency of complaints does not imply validity of complaints.. (On the other hand, I am loath to open a case merely to punish editors making complaints.) For many years Guy has been a bulwark against editors who would like to insert nonsense into the encyclopedia. Of course a number of such people will gang up and complain about Guy. Sometimes they will even convince uninvolved editors to take up their cause. The only reason to accept a case is if there is plausible evidence of wrongdoing, or an intractable dispute between editors. I am not seeing either of those circumstances in this request. Jehochman Talk 13:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Calidum: the users should complain here, but if there's no prima facia case, the request should be declined. I think any disputed non-admin close may be reversed by anyone, and then an administrator can come along and reclose. I don't see how that is wrongdoing. Jehochman Talk 17:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
It seems that we really have a policy problem here. There's a backlog of RFCs to close. Well intentioned editors wish to close these things, but as @GRuban: points out below, there are RFCs because the issues are contentious. This is exactly a situation where an administrator is needed, somebody very experienced who has demonstrated that they are trusted by the community. Maybe what we need are more administrators to help clear the backlogs. The fact that we haven't yet agreed how to make this process work smoothly should not be grounds to sanction editors who step in, trying to help, and fall short in some way. Jehochman Talk 18:19, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum

Guy has just made yet another overturn of a non-admin close at WP:Move review [34]. He probably shouldn't be overturning NACs while this is still going on. (I should also note Guy did open an AN thread about it here.) -- Calidum 17:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jehochman: Unfortunately, this is the only venue where complaints about admins can be properly handled. So if editors keep having problems with an admin, where else should they turn? -- Calidum 17:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
@Xeno: I'm aware it followed a move review. But it is somewhat suspicious that he chose now of all times to close a move review when he had never done so before. Plus, it is fundamentally wrong because discussions are not a vote. -- Calidum 17:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sir Joseph

I didn't see this evidence mentioned and wanted to bring it up because it was an egregious violation of the admin tools, as Guerillero said then, "it's firm grounds for desysopping at ARBCOM." At [35] Guy was brought to ANI (in the same archive as in the OP, for Stop the Church action) for edit warring, the OP in the ANI then mentioned that Guy was following him and placed a nasty comment on the talk page and then thought better of it and revdelled it (not a revert, but a good old fashion revdel). Here is the deletion log of the page, [36]. This is yet again, another violation of admin conduct from JzG. Sir Joseph (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to add, this case request is NOT just about NAC, it's about continuous admin misbehavior and conduct. I am not sure why some of the arbs are voting as they are based on NAC issues. Sir Joseph (talk) 18:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by GRuban

No opinion about the specific close, but a strong opinion about the arbitrary reopen. Please accept the case to clarify whether WP:BADNAC may be treated as policy, even though marked as an essay. Because if, as BADNAC says, non-admins shouldn't close controversial RfCs, where controversial is defined as 7-4, then non-admins basically can't close RfCs, because if an issue wasn't controversial there probably wouldn't have been an RfC about it. That's the whole point of RfCs, to settle disagreement, also known as controversy.

Statement by Atsme

ArbCom needs to take this case and not dismiss what so many editors have brought to their attention. MrX laid it out quite well regarding behavior, and I'm certainly not a big fan of MrX considering our history, but it has always been respectful disagreement on my part. The same applies to JzG, although I actually was a fan of his despite the behavior. I maintain a safe distance from both of them, and find that I'm much happier. When I first saw this case, I wondered if maybe POV creep was at play, or if MrX inadvertently took something out of context or misinterpreted something JzG said or did. After I dug deeper, I came to the conclusion that there are issues arbcom needs to review regarding JzG's long term behavior, and I don't doubt that more diffs will be presented to demonstrate behavior that is unbecoming an admin that are not the result of admin. actions. I would not support desysopping at this point, but an admonishment from ArbCom would probably help get him back on track. I echo all the kind sentiments about him and appreciate all the good things he has done as an admin over the years - he has taught me quite a bit, and I've heard that he is one helluva singer. But his behavior here has to change and I don't see that happening if ArbCom doesn't take this case. I hope our arbs will take another look at the concerns that have been raised - they are valid - and I respectfully request acceptance of this case for JzG's sake. If nothing else comes of it, it will at least encourage introspection and help with attitude adjustment. Atsme Talk 📧 20:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Crouch, Swale

I'm not generally in favour of PDABs and I would generally strongly disagree with them. That said there has been consensus that in limited cases they are allowed and there can be a (limited) benefit to users. In the close of the RM the close looks fine, although as noted most opposed, those supporting did provide evidence that it was primary in the sense of getting 99% and being far more important so although the close might seem as a supervote I don't think it was problematic. Then the close was overturned on the grounds that the opposition might actually have had some basis in policy and that there was a clear majority against the move. That close also seemed reasonable though it could easily have been closed as no consensus due to the supporters arguments potentially being stronger but the RM could have also have been closed as no consensus but either way I don't think anyone has done anything wrong and no one needs sanctioning. Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {Uninvolved editor}

JzG: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • GoodDay, removal of a case request as declined is also dependent on confirmation from an arbitrator. The clerks have not yet received this confirmation. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 18:08, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

JzG: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <4/9/0>

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • MrX, can you explain a bit more of your thought process behind restoring your close while it was under discussion at AN? Procedurally, shouldn't you have waited for that discussion to reach a conclusion? – bradv🍁 15:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Decline – I do not see an ongoing problem here that would require arbitration. If more input on the RfC close is required, that discussion can be held at AN. – bradv🍁 13:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
      Hobit, the committee declining to intervene here does not mean that we're endorsing anyone's behaviour, nor does it mean we're inventing new rules. I'm voting to decline this because I feel that this is a matter that can be resolved by the community, especially if there are new rules to be made around RfC closures. I'm not unsympathetic to your point that there is a huge backlog of RfCs that need closing, and grateful for those who do that tough work, but I am not sure how ArbCom can help with that. – bradv🍁 21:06, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline. I do not see a pattern of problematic closings by JzG that requires arbitration. With respect to the "People's Mujahedin" RfC close, I see no evidence of misconduct. With regard to the infoboxes AE close, it is being discussed in the ARCA thread and even if we wind up modifying the close, such a disagreement would not rise to the level of misconduct either. In voting to decline a previous case request against JzG in June, I urged him to remain civil even in difficult situations. It is good that in both of the recent disputed discussions, he appears to have done so. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Accept, per my vote on the previous request. Admittedly, the incident that prompted this filing does not seem particularly serious. But both this and the last case request asked us to examine the long-term conduct of an administrator and the history of prior dispute resolution does show sustained concerns from the community. We should have a low bar to accept cases like this, because arbitration is the only venue where such concerns can be effectively investigated. If we continue to refuse to look at administrator conduct unless there's been a recent, clear-cut misuse of the tools, we are seriously undermining one of ArbCom's most important responsibilities – to hold administrators accountable. – Joe (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline. While WP:BADNAC - which is not a policy or guideline as was correctly pointed out - says non-admins should avoid closing controversial discussions, it does also say (in note c) "Administrators should not revert a closure based solely on the fact that the original closer was not an administrator, based on consensus following this request for comment. Per WP:ADMINACCT, administrators are expected to promptly and civilly justify their decision to revert based on an assessment of the local consensus and application of Wikipedia policy and guidelines". (emphasis added) Guy's comments on his talk page when challenged (User_talk:JzG#Close_challenge) as well as in this request sound as if violating BADNAC was his only reason to overturn the close, which is, as Barkeep49 correctly points out, not a sufficient reason to do so. That said, while I do generally agree with Joe's reasoning that ArbCom should not make it difficult to review admin's actions, this is not a pattern of misconduct here that would require a case to examine. Regards SoWhy 15:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline. not rising to the level of needing arbitration. JzG has worked in difficult areas over the years so it is not unusual that disputes end up being filed here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline. Like Cas, I don't think this rises to the level of arbitration. Mistakes were made, parties involved have owned up to it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 11:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline I also am more than willing to examine admins who display a pattern of persistent poor judgement, I think my track record speaks for itself on that matter, but I'm just not seeing that pattern here. The community may want to discuss the status of WP:BADNAC though. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
The situation appears to have become more fluid, and as always I am willing to reconsider my position as I'm seeing good points both to accept and to decline. However, I feel as though some of the votes to accept are suggesting that we are going to investigate if there is a pattern, rather than judge based on the evidence presented as we normally do. I feel like if there was clear evidence of a pattern of poor judgement and/or misuse of admin tools, somebody would have proffered the evidence of it during the unusually long time this request has been open. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline per above. Maxim(talk) 21:26, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Decline per my colleagues. There were certainly some poor choices made here, but it does not appear to be a part of a pattern that needs addressing by the Arbitration Committee. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Accept based on my vote at the last case request involving JzG's conduct. Once again, I have no opinion yet about whether this is a pattern, but I feel it's worth a look particularly since this is the second request in three months. Katietalk 15:16, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Accept, based on continuing problems, per KK. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Accept. There months ago, we were here and left JzG with some advice and a decline. We're back already. The last time we had one admin appearing so quickly in succession was Fram - I'd rather I learned from that mistake and had a case to see if there is a pattern. WormTT(talk) 14:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • On reflection, I would accept the case to determine if the fact that JzG's actions have repeatedly been called to the committee's attention is an ongoing pattern of behaviour specific to JzG that should be curtailed, or merely be a symptom of JzG being more active as an administrator and working in more difficult areas. As arbitration is the only structured venue to examine these types of questions, we shouldn't shy away from examining the history - even if many feel the precipitating case wasn't a particular egregious example. –xenotalk 15:01, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Moved to decline on deeper consideration of remarks by Newyorkbrad and others. –xenotalk 11:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
    • Calidum: That overturn was following a consensus-building discussion about whether to overturn the move (and JzG noted the NAC was not in itself a factor). –xenotalk 17:38, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Requests for clarification and amendment

Clarification request: Pseudoscience

Initiated by RexxS at 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Pseudoscience 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:

Statement by RexxS

I apologise for making what appears to be a content-related request, but the behaviour of editors at Ayurveda and Talk:Ayurveda needs to be restrained, and a simple confirmation should be all that's needed to clarify the underlying issues.

Following a contentious edit war at Ayurveda and a WP:AE discussion, El C created an RfC at resolve the question of whether the phrase "pseudoscience" should be in the lead. The debate involved over 60 editors, was closed as no-consensus, reviewed, and re-opened for closure by an admin.

Many proponents of Ayurveda have taken the opportunity in that debate to argue that Ayurveda is not pseudoscientific and are attempting to have the phrase removed entirely. I believe that the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact. I am therefore seeking a clear confirmation from ArbCom that the article is subject to discretionary sanctions as a pseudoscience (as even that fact has been contested). Having a clear statement of the position will enable a closer to accurately weigh the strengths of the arguments and to reject entirely arguments that clearly contradict Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience.

In the decision at WP:ARBPS#Generally considered pseudoscience, ArbCom asserted the principle

Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.

I would like a clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light.

Thank you in advance for your assistance in this matter. --RexxS (talk) 21:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

@MrX: It is a truism that as far a WiIkipedia is concerned, Ayurveda is either a pseudoscience or it is not. If it is, then editors who breach WP:AC/DS requirements for behaviour can be sanctioned as an AE action. If it is not, then they cannot. You have earlier disputed that ArbCom has designated Ayurveda as a pseudoscience in Wikipedia's view, but that leads to an unsustainable situation. If your logic holds, any other editor can use your ipse dixit argument to claim that they cannot be sanctioned – simply by stating that Ayurveda is not a pseudoscience on the grounds that ArbCom has not explicitly said so. Any admin can take AE action against any editor breaching the expected standards of behaviour at Astrology; however the consequence, if your reasoning is accepted, is that anyone editing articles such as Ayurveda has a get-out-of-jail-free card by the simple expedient of denying that the topic is a pseudoscience.
We already have prior debate: RfC July 2015 and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience concluding that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, but that is insufficient, it appears, as editors are free to deny the fact as if it were not so.
Who then should be the authority that decides that question? At the very least, ArbCom needs to clarify that position. --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@Xeno: I'm not sure that ArbCom would be comfortable in addressing the second part of my request for clarification, although you were happy enough to do exactly that for Astrology, which is completely analogous to Ayurveda. The first part is naturally more important, particularly as we are currently under attack at the Talk:Ayurveda page from a concerted campaign, organised through Twitter to distort the consensus away from the recognised scientific viewpoint. An admin has felt it necessary to take the extraordinary step of semi-protecting the talk page temporarily, and I've been playing Whack-a-mole with about 30 newly registered meat/sock-puppets who have repeated the same disruptive edit requests. We need a lot more eyes on the disruption to that page, and it's possible that it is going to require another ArbCom case if the DS prove insufficient. Having a clear statement that Ayurveda is pseudoscience in the same way that Astrology is would go a long way to settling down the disruption there and establishing that Wikipedia's content cannot be held hostage by special interest groups. --RexxS (talk) 17:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad and Katie: we already have had two RfCs confirming that the community regards Ayurveda as pseudoscience, as well as a catalogue of reliable sources stating the same. See  Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 12 #Category:Pseudoscience and Talk:Ayurveda/Archive 13 #Pseudoscience. This does not stop the talk page being flooded with SPAs to distort consensus and oppose the appellation. The serious discussions have been made and the consensus is long-standing, but that doesn't stop the disruption.
@DGG: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Anuram567. Your idea and mine of "a very small number of editors" differ quite dramatically. --RexxS (talk) 17:35, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@Thryduulf: there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience, but that hasn't stopped the disruption. What is needed is some backbone from ArbCom to make sure that there is not a shadow of doubt about the position of Ayurveda. I'm up to my armpits in alligators over at that article and its talk page and you and a few more admins need to get their backsides over there by the time that the semi-protection wears off the talk page (!) and the disruption starts up again. I'm sick of boatloads of editors with no more than half-a-dozen edits turning up and arguing black is white time and again. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: The Ayurveda article has indeed recently been EC-protected. However, we're in the process of trying to decide issues by discussion on the talk page, but the recent disruption to the talk page has resulted in the talk page being semi-protected for two days. It is not a tenable situation to have talk pages protected, and I don't think you appreciate the degree of disruption we're having to deal with.

If the 2020 committee feels unable to affirm that Ayurveda is included in the principle "Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." that the 2006 committee passed 8-0, then so be it: I won't take up any more of your time. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

The actions of Petrarchan47 in starting yet another RfC at Talk:Ayurveda on an issue that was settled two weeks ago are a shining example of the sort of disruption that is being caused in this area following Opindia's campaign to distort Wikipedia's decision-making processes. Regular editors are becoming weary of the time-sink involved in dealing with questions that have been repeatedly asked and answered. As I've been assured that discretionary sanctions are sufficient to deal with the problem, I'll give advance notice that I intend to sanction Petrarchan47 as an AE action if that disruptive RfC is not withdrawn within 24 hours. Let's see whether ds really does do its job. --RexxS (talk) 18:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Petrarchan47: you can be as sad as you want to be, but the regular editors at Ayurveda are sick of disruption of the sort that you and Opindia are causing. There is no reason whatsoever to attempt to relitigate the "is Ayurveda a pseudoscience" question yet again, when all previous debates have answered that in the affirmative, including one that was closed on 30 August 2020. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Pseudoscience)

If the arbitrators feel that explicitly declaring this (or any) topic as pseudoscience would be a content decision, an alternative option would be to allow the discretionary sanctions to be applied to topics that are described as pseudoscience in independent reliable sources even if that status is disputed. In other words saying that the DS applies to subject areas that are or are called pseudoscience so that the application of DS itself does not require a determination of whether it is or is not pseudoscience and the application of DS does not mean that Wikipedia is necessarily calling something pseudoscience. Thryduulf (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Re Shashank5988 I'd forgotten about that case, but discretionary sanctions are indeed authorised for "Complimentary and alternative medicine" and would seem to be a good fit. The Ayurveda article describes it as "an alternative medicine system" and a look at the current talk page suggests that this characterisation is not disputed. Thryduulf (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
@RexxS: If there is or was a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. If there is active debate about whether the topic is pseudoscience then the pseudoscience DS applies. The alternative medicine DS also applies. If the DS isn't working then I don't understand what arbcom saying that the pseudoscience DS applies will change? In terms of content the most the committee could say is that there is a community consensus that the topic is pseudoscience (anything else would be a pronouncement on content that is outside their remit) - what would such a statement change? Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Shashank5988

Arbcom created Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture for subjects like this, to avoid the conflict between "pseudoscience" and "alternative medicines". Shashank5988 (talk) 11:46, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

I agree that clarification is needed, inasmuch as a principle from a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has been leveraged to assert that various subjects are pseudoscience based on ipse dixit declarations by involved editors. If my recollection serves me, previous Arbcoms have opined about this before (someone could perhaps check so that this Arbcom doesn't have to reinvent the wheel). Perhaps it's addressed in this FOF: WP:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Pseudoscience_2.

RexxS has expressed an understanding that, by my interpretation, would cast a broad net over a range of subjects making them automatically classified as pseudoscience based on (I guess) it being "pointed out in a discussion".[37][38] I think it's self-evident why such an approach to dispute resolution would be problematic. If not, please let me know and I will explain further.

There are proponents with strong views on both side of the dispute at Ayurveda (note: I'm uninvolved). I would aver that simply because members of one side declare that "the position on Wikipedia is that Ayurveda is a pseudoscience as a matter of fact" does not make it so. Nor does it obviate the question in dispute: should the subject be described as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the article? Arbcom either needs to distance themselves from this reasoning or embrace it, because the ambiguity left by a nearly 14 year old Arbcom case has to potential to be weaponized in these disputes. This is not the first article where such a dispute has broken out. - MrX 🖋 19:51, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

@RexxS: I'm not aware that there is a serious dispute that Ayurveda is subject to discretionary sanctions. WP:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Discretionary_sanctions says "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all articles pages relating to pseudoscience and fringe science, broadly interpreted.". Does anyone disagree that Aruyveda is at least related to pseudoscience and fringe science?
However, that's an entirely different issue than your request which says "clarification that the principle includes Ayurveda in the same way as astrology, and consequently that Ayurveda can be considered in the same light." In other words, I don't think you are asking if editors on the article are subject to DS, but whether the article can describe the subject as pseudoscience on the basis of the a principle written in a 2006 Arbcom case. - MrX 🖋 14:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by My very best wishes

Subjects like Ayurveda are clearly covered by the decision on Complementary and Alternative Medicine [39]. As about pseudoscience, it was another decision [40], with good wording: "Theories which have a following, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community".

In my view, no action is required here because the specific area of Complementary and Alternative Medicine is already covered by your decision. However, what qualify as pseudoscience in general is a good question. I think it is not enough just to say "if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case". One must have at least one solid RS saying that subject X belongs to pseudoscience. Yes, there are such sources in the case of Ayurveda, although the consensus of RS seems to be this is just a traditional medicine. Should we label all projects in the field of traditional medicine funded by the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (a part of National Institutes of Health) as pseudoscience? I doubt. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad. OK. So, if an admin thinks that certain edits (for example, about a book) might belong to pseudoscience, than it is covered by pseudoscience DS, even if there are zero sources claiming the subject belongs to pseudoscience (and in fact it may belong to mainstream science)? That seems too much, given that admins may not be experts in the corresponding area of science. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
@Newyorkbrad. Thank you! Understood and agree. My very best wishes (talk) 04:36, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sunrise

As far as I'm aware, the answer is that the pseudoscience DS apply regardless, but the scope of DS cannot itself affect how the topic is described in an article. This is because the scope follows the concept of broadly construed - the DS will apply because the question "does this qualify as X?" is itself an X-related topic (otherwise topic-banned editors could wikilawyer endlessly around the edges of their sanction). However, for the same reason, simply being within the scope of X-related DS doesn't actually tell us whether or not the topic is or is not an X. Quoting from WP:BROADLY (I'm the original author of this text, but it's never been challenged in the more than two years since it was written): "Broadly construed" is also used when defining the topic areas affected by discretionary sanctions. In particular, if there is any plausible dispute over whether DS applies in a specific case (for example, definitional disputes: whether a particular issue counts as a type of American political issue, whether a particular practice counts as a type of alternative medicine, etc), that is normally taken to mean that it does. For this particular case, while the article does indeed state that Ayurveda or parts thereof are pseudoscience as a matter of fact (and has done so for a long time), that is because of the strength of the sourcing as determined by previous consensus, rather than being directly determined by ArbCom. The specific statement at WP:ARBPS#Generally considered pseudoscience does apply, but I think of it as mostly being a confirmation that using the term "pseudoscience" is in fact permissible under these circumstances. Sunrise (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

@MVBW: Traditional medicine and similar practices become pseudoscience when their effectiveness is disproven and they continue to be promoted regardless. Except in the most restrictive definitions, promotion with a disregard for evidence or on the basis of an unscientific belief system will also constitute pseudoscience (non-scientific reasoning is being presented as supporting a scientific claim). With regards to the allopathic medicine article, the template itself may or may not be warranted, but the relationship comes from the origins of the term as a derogatory label used by homeopaths. Sunrise (talk) 15:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Aquillion

I I think the only answer is that all discussions of whether a topic is pseudoscience fall under the pseudoscience DS (that is the entire point of the restrictions, since that is the whole debate that requires DS in that topic area), and that, once the issue has been raised, the entire topic falls under the pseudoscience DS restrictions until there is an affirmative consensus that it is not pseudoscience. As long as there is reasonable doubt that it might be pseudoscience, basically, there is going to be debate of the sort that the DS were specifically created to govern. Obviously the applicability of the DS restrictions in that situation should not itself be taken as an absolute statement that the topic is pseudoscience, merely that it is at least under dispute. --Aquillion (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Pseudoscience)

The determination of whether or not something is pseudoscience is a content decision that needs to be made by the community, but the determination of whether or not something falls under the scope of an AC/DS is very much a decision that is ultimately ARBCOM's responsibility. Making that decision does not require a ruling on content as such; it just requires ARBCOM to determine whether the problematic behavior that led to the authorization of DS is present in the topic under consideration. As such, this is a decision ARBCOM needs to be willing to make, regardless of whether another DS regime applies. By refusing to decide whether the pseudoscience DS regime covers Ayurveda, ARBCOM creates the possibility of endless wikilawyering with respect to the scope of such regimes, specifically, the argument that because there is not consensus among reliable sources that a topic is related to the name of a DS regime, that the relevant sanctions do not apply. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:21, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

@Xeno: I'll leave it to RexxS to articulate what he wants from this request; but my statement was more in response to the many people arguing here that this would constitute an expansion of the DS regime, or that ARBCOM needn't bother answering whether Ayurveda is within scope here because Ayurveda is covered by the alternative medicine DS regime. I think both of those are dangerous lines of argument for the reasons I've given above. I think you (ARBCOM) need to make explicit that Ayurveda is within the scope of these sanctions, and moreover, clarify why you've made that determination. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: To be clear, are you arguing that pseudoscience DS do not apply to Ayurveda, contrary to what Xeno and others have said? Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
@DGG: With respect, that's not the question I asked. I'm asking whether Ayurveda falls within the scope of an ARBCOM authorized discretionary sanctions regime, namely, the pseudoscience DS. The scope of those sanctions is within your purview and no-one else's; refusing to take a position on that is a cop-out. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:15, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon

I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix, but I am sure that we have a problem, most of which is the direct result of OpIndia declaring war on Wikipedia and sending an army of twitter followers to the Ayurveda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) page.

An incomplete history of Wikipedia's previous attempts to solve this problem:

  • Re: "It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough?" We are still seeing a large amount of disruption. The protection stopped the flood of new accounts posting the same thing over and over, but OpIndia's twitter feed continues to attack Wikipedia and is encouraging posts to the Ayurveda talk page by twitter followers who have existing Wikipedia accounts and are already extended confirmed.
  • I am going to expand on what I wrote above ("I am not sure that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix"): I have yet to see a good argument showing that this is a problem that Arbcom should try to fix. We need multiple administrators watching over not just Ayurveda but whatever page OpInda attacks next (there is a list at User:PaleoNeonate/Watchlist Ayurveda). We need them to aggressively pageblock editors who were obviously sent by OpInda. I fail to see how any of this needs Arbcom intervention. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Question I occasionally see comments like "X says he scrambled his password, but we can't verify this". In such cases, is it technically possible to ask the users "are you sure" and then reset the password without telling them what the new password is? Or does the software not allow that? If the answer is yes, should we? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

If the community has determined that Ayurveda is pseudoscience, then ArbCom - which does not make content determinations -- must treat it as pseudoscience and enforce against it any sanctions which are routinely used against pseudoscience. ArbCom has absolutely no remit to overturn a community determination about content. ArbCom's personal or collective opinions on the matter are completely irrelevant, since its hands are tied by the community decision.

That being said, ArbCom could exclude Ayurveda from any specific DS simply by changing the wording of the text and excluding Ayurveda from the definition of "pseudoscience" for the purposes of that sanction.

Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Statement by jps

This strikes me as a tempest in a teapot. I am certain that Pseudoscience DS apply. I also think that that job of arbcom is not to adjudicate content. I asked you all some years ago to vacate the nonsense demarcation that a now-disgraced arbitrator penned oh-these-many years ago. The time is now to vacate that. An arbitration decision that says what is or is not pseudoscience is just not a good idea.

If there is a reasonable conflict/discussion about whether arguments about pseudoscience is relevant to a page, the pseudoscience DS are relevant. Obviously, it is relevant to ayurveda. That is as far as arbcom should be moving. I recommend vacating all the attempted demarcation and letting the community get back to business. Yes, that means that DS could be applied to pages relating to psychoanalysis (this is eminently reasonable). After all, WP:FRINGE works pretty well now in comparison to when this case (to which I was a party) was decided.

Love, etc.

jps (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

To clarify, it may be that there are enough interested parties to warrant a full case for arbitration. I am not yet convinced of that, but in principle if we get a lot of BJP activists coming in and arguing for more kid-gloved treatment of ayurveda or vedic astrology or hindu creationism, well maybe a case. But right now I think we have things under control as long as y'all are willing to say that Psuedoscience DS apply where the people here are claiming they apply. jps (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Oh, and in case you need a clearer exhortation, it's this: REMOVE SPECIFIC MENTION OF BOTH ASTROLOGY AND PSYCHOANALYSIS FROM THIS ARBCOM CASE'S RULINGS. This isn't because I disagree with those rulings (though, in the case of psychoanalysis, it is something with which I disagree), it is simply because arbcom doesn't make these kinds of determinations any more. jps (talk) 00:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

It is troubling that discretionary sanctions are still in force for a case that is 14 years old. Shouldn't these sanctions have an automatic sunset? The point of sanctions is to solve a problem. Once the problem is solved we should default to our usual rules, which should be sufficient. If a set of sanctions is in force for (to pick an arbitrary term) three years, and the problem still isn't solved, then it's probably time to have a another case to figure out why the problem hasn't been solved, and maybe change the sanctions to something stronger. If an area like American politics is a source of perpetual problems, then we should write that into our community rules and make whatever measures are needed permanent. Jehochman Talk 10:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

My views align closer to KrakatoaKatie relative to not knowing what vitamins I should take, if any. As for the content and conduct issues, there appears to be some agreement that ArbCom does not exist to adjudicate article content; count me as a +1. On the other hand, my perspective about DS is that, in practice for the most part, they are neither resolutions nor binding solutions to resolve conduct issues because you cannot bind what is malleable or what was left unresolved. Isn't that why we're here now? DS obliquely, if not directly in some instances, regulate content because they create unintentional hurdles in an environment that is ripe for WP:POV creep, perceived or otherwise. AE grants admins super-authority by allowing them to impose irreversible sanctions against editors in a unilateral action at their sole discretion. In essence, ArbCom is throwing the ball back into the court of irreconcilable differences allowing a single admin to grab the ball and run to the goalpost of their choice (which creates an in the eyes of the beholder decision-making process) and they can do so with no concern of an interception or penalty flag. Most of us try to AGF but as a realist, I'm not quite convinced that decisions based on sole discretion are completely void of prejudice or bias - especially when it involves issues that already failed other DR processes. Give me a choice between sole discretion vs a panel of independent thinkers, and I'll choose the latter. Bottomline, my perception of ArbCom's responsibility is to impose binding solutions to Wikipedia conduct disputes that neither community discussion nor administrators have successfully resolved.. Editors who are elected to serve on ArbCom possess certain qualities that have garnered the community's trust, in part because they have demonstrated sound judgment, fairness and neutrality. There is also the thought that several heads are better than one because it adds an element of diversity. Some of the issues that are perceived to be disruption in highly controversial topic areas are "ended" (not always resolved) by a single admin making a judgment call, and in those cases, the potential for such decisions to be unknowingly influenced by POV or prejudice against an editor is highly plausible. The latter is why the community elected a panel - ArbCom - to handle the difficult cases. Somewhere beyond that is the reason we have so many essays. Atsme Talk 📧 22:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Guy - not trying to be contrare, but I am curious...isn't John Hopkins Medicine a RS? They make no reference to ayurveda as a pseudoscience, rather they refer to it as "a complementary therapy in combination with standard, conventional medical care." Also, EPMA Journal, which has an 4.9 IF and a Scopus CiteScore of 7.7 in 2019, states: "This review article concludes that traditional knowledge systems like Ayurveda and modern scientific evidence-based medicine should be integrated." And there's also Science Direct (Elsevier) which lists multiple books and chapters about "ayuverdic medicine", and this article, (, Chapter 9 - Potential Treatment Strategies of Dementia With Ayurvedic Medicines, and on and on. I know Science Direct is a RS, and they don't exactly support the POV that it's "pseudoscience". Atsme Talk 📧 15:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    Adding Who Global Report On Traditional and Complementary Medicine 2019, pg 189, which states: Traditional Medicine (TM) and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM):“Traditional medicine” is a comprehensive term used to refer to both various forms of indigenous medicine and to TM systems such as traditional Chinese medicine, Indian ayurveda, and Arabic unani medicine. Atsme Talk 📧 15:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

  • The community can't really decide if a topic fits under a DS. They can make content decisions, but not this determination. That's made by uninvolved admins by an authority that descends from ArbCom.
  • If an abuse of admin discretion was suggested at ARCA, some criteria to determine whether the article was in scope would probably apply (even if only implicit; obviously it would be inappropriate to apply PSDS to Banana). That would be as much of a content decision as deciding whether Ayurveda fits the bill under the psuedoscience DS.
  • This particular case is probably resolved by Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. It does not necessarily fix the underlying issue. Arbs have suggested the Acupuncture case as being relevant to Ayurveda and thus resolving this issue, which means they consider Ayurveda as "Complementary and Alternative Medicine". According to our articles, "Alternative Medicine" is a subtype of pseudoscience (indeed, it is by definition). In other words, that determination effectively states that Ayurveda is a psuedoscience in a roundabout way, which is apparently what the Committee wants to avoid in this case.

It's not a content decision to decide whether something fits the scope. Ayurveda obviously fits the scope, we all know that here, so that part isn't exceptional. What is exceptional is that nobody wants to say it.

Thus, I think the real lesson here is to create non-inflammatory scopes for a DS. Calling something a "psuedoscience", even under the language of WP:BROADLY, is perceived as inflammatory I guess, which is probably why Arbs don't want to say it. But nobody would hesitate clarifying NRA falls under "organizations associated with [gun control]". PSDS is probably the only active DS with a perceived inflammatory scope. But, as above, AC ultimately still has to decide if an article fits within the scope of a DS, because it's the only body that can, and it has to make this decision (even implicitly) every time it reviews an ARCA for scope overreach. Shying away from that for PSDS doesn't seem like a good idea. Easy way out seems to be a comment along the lines of NYB. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by JzG (Pseudoscience)

Is aurveda unambiguously pseudoscience? Is the study of ayurveda permeated by pseudoscience? Are these the same thing? That would be an ecumenical matter, but that is not the question here. ArbCom would not mandate that a thing is or is not pseudoscience, they would mandate whether it falls into the pseudoscience DS. Which IMO it does, per WP:BROADLY, because there is, at the very least, solid support in RS for the idea that it is.

There appears to be consensus that the term pseudoscience can be included in the lead, as it is well sourced and in line with our approach to other pseudomedical modalities (as shorthand, Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine or SCAM). The main problem is an endless succession of new single-purpose accounts following a thread on Twitter, a side effect of blowback from recent statements by the Indian medical Association characterising people practising medicine based solely on study of folkways as quacks. This is complicated by the prevalence of ayurveda in India, whose pluralistic and multitheistic culture leads to an acceptance of quasi-religious beliefs as inherently valid. This lack of judgmentalism - a core Indian value - means that quasi-religions alternatives-to-medicine are accorded parity of respect with reality-based medicine, including by the government via its Ministry of Ayurveda, Yoga & Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha and Homoeopathy (AYUSH).

Per DGG's points below, when the original DS were passed on homeopathy in 2006, it was considered thoroughly refuted by informed scientists but it was still actively promoted by national health systems. Since then, Switzerland, the UK, Australia, France, Spain and Russia have been through high level reviews and have recommended withdrawal of funding. In 2006 there were several homeopathic hospitals in the UK funded by the NHS. Now, there are none. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy would not happen today, we would simply topic ban Dana Ullman.

The status of aurveda today is not dissimilar from that of homeopathy in 2006. Because it uses pharmacologically active doses it is more resistant to trivial refutation than homeopathy, but the trajectory is similar: it is a pseudomedical system with a growing base of evidence that its fundamental approach is incorrect, and, crucially, it cannot self-correct because any honest test of whether substance A or substance B is better for condition X gives an ideologically unacceptable answer: neither. The reality-based study of herbal preparations - "does this herb contain molecules that may have a curative property" - is called pharmacognosy, ayurveda starts from the incorrect premise that some herb is always a cure and that nothing else is necessary.

The DS are there to manage behavioural issues brought on by asymmetric motivation and the collision of quasi-religious belief with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. That is present here. It needs the provisions of DS now for exactly the same reasons that homeopathy did historically, and in 10-15 years' time these too will probably have become superfluous save for rapidly separating the occasional True Believer from the article. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC) [edited for brevity]

Statement by Petrarchan47

There is justification for a case here, but not because some Indians are pestering editors at Ayurveda with spurious complaints. A potential case should look at the behaviour of editors who have been misrepresenting sources, rejecting needed corrections, and defending the unsupported "Ayurveda (AY) is pseudoscience (PS)" claim as sacrosanct. Editors and Admins have violated WP:V and WP:NPOV to create the article that is causing so much distress.

The Hindu Post has an article calling out the bias on this page, it's worth a look. The laughable idea being floated is that some unidentified tweet is responsible for the flood of criticism, as if to say critiques have no merit.

Today in this edit, Guy removed recent corrections to the page, referring to them as "bowing to the Twitter mob", and restored false claims, including a wildly inaccurate claim to first paragraph of the Lede, reinserting: The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. In no way does the IMA refer to all practitioners of AY in their statement. The IMA clearly states that some practitioners of alternative therapies in India are representing themselves as qualified to practice modern medicine, but aren't properly licensed, and they are (rightly) categorized as "quacks".

Google revealed no consensus for "Ayurveda is pseudoscience", but rather justified removing the label. There is no mention of PS in:Merriam Webster, Brittanica, online dictionary, WebMD, John's Hopkins, NIH , or

Wikipedia is the only major source calling AY PS in unqualified terms. The WP community cannot override the scientific community using shoddy, outdated sources, misrepresenting sources, and WP:SYNTH:

A look at the article


The theory and practice of Ayurveda is pseudoscientific


  • Psych Oxford Handbook of Psychiatry, 2013 - 1 mention of AY found: "These pseudoscience theories may...[such as Ayurveda] confuse metaphysical with empirical claims"
  • "Disenchanting India: Organized Rationalism and Criticism of Religion in India" (2012) book by Johannes Quack; paywalled, no quotation given


1) Today, ayurvedic medicine is considered pseudoscientific on account of its confusion between reality and metaphysical concepts.


  • Psych

2) Ayurvedic practitioner Ram P Manohar writes that Ayurveda has been alternatively characterized as pseudoscientific, protoscientific, and unscientific, and proposes himself that it should be termed "trans-scientific".


3) Research into ayurveda has been characterized as pseudoscience. Both the lack of scientific soundness in the theoretical foundations of ayurveda and the quality of research have been criticized.


petrarchan47คุ 23:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

  • DGG - Respectfully, while WP may have once been 'just an encyclopedia', it now serves as the ultimate purveyor of facts for searches on Google, Siri and Alexa, who use the first few sentences of WP pages to answer queries about any subject. Thousands of Indians are rightfully upset since the recent addition of false, unsupported and disparaging material to the Lede paragraph shows up globally for all searches of "Ayurveda". There is a 2 week old petition with 10K signatures ("We are against wikipedia's statement which says ayurveda is pseudo scientific").
My attempts to correct one falsehood have been reverted by Guy M and Guy C
You might take a moment to review the sources used to support the "pseudoscience" claim. They are mere mentions by random authors, no substantive discussion nor any authoritative source is offered, because none exist AFAIK. The label was created by WP by ignoring basic policy. Only Arbs can curtail POV pushing admins/editors.
Interestingly, Ram Manohar shows that it is easy to cast modern medicine as pseudoscience if one desires. petrarchan47คุ 16:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I have opened a RfC to discuss whether sourcing supports the pseudoscience label at Ayurveda. petrarchan47คุ 18:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
RexxS I have shown that the IMA is being misquoted by editors and admins, yet no one has jumped to apply DS. This ARCA clearly shows there are questions within the community about the categorization of Ayurveda. My review of the sources used to support this contentious claim show me that there is absolutely no authoritative source, nor mix of them, that qualifies. I have listed the sources in the RfC with the cited material, and if the community disagrees with me, fine. To call my good faith efforts "disruption", and group me in with past, unrelated disruption, and threaten me for doing the work of a good faith editor is just sad. petrarchan47คุ 18:49, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Littleolive oil

It seems to me that arbitrations are a means to support that admins in highly contentious situations, that is, in situations which they cannot deal with on their own. So we have arbitration, and then perhaps a discretionary sanction so that the admins have something behind her or him when things get rough. Arbitration has declared some subject areas pseudoscience, those "which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience." If arbitration was out of step with the "don't involve themselves in content disputes" well it's too late. Whether Ayurveda is a pseudoscience, "characteristically fail[s] to adhere to scientific standards and methods" or is fringe to the mainstream science is not disputed by numerous sources. Arbs don't have to agree to anything here except to support something they in the past have already agreed on. I don't see the difficulty.

And we don't have to compare Ayurveda to anything. As an alternative medicine system it is thousands of years old so we can expect there to be a huge divide between those who practice or support Ayurveda and modern medicine. I would disagree that the trajectory of Ayurveda is similar to homeopathy. Ayurveda has been around for a very long time, predates organized religion, and physicians are still being trained; my suspicion is that it will be around for a lot longer. None of that matters, though. As long as Wikipedia has both taken the mainstream scientific view and Ayurveda fits that view, then, that's what we deal with in articles. If an admin needs a clarification in a situation that is beyond one person to handle what's the sticking point. (And as aside. I think at times we use pseudoscience and fringe as weapons. Fringe simply means something is not in the mainstream. Yet (possibly). Most if not all research begins as fringe and as non-compliant with our MEDRS articles.) Littleolive oil (talk) 22:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Gandydancer

I've known for years that the Indian medicine articles were hopelessly biased and I've also known for years to not even bother to make any attempt to remove what I see as the blatant bias. India does have doctors and nurses well-trained in western medicine but many of them leave the country because they can earn more money elsewhere and those that don't leave almost invariably choose to practice in the large cities. So that leaves most Indians with Indian medicine as their only choice. So what that comes down to is that we have our encyclopedia saying that most of the people in India are being treated by quacks using pseudoscience. The Indian parliament is not calling their practitioners of Indian medicine quacks. So either they are so ill-informed that they can't understand that only western medicine is real medicine or they just don't care about their own people. I believe that it is racist to call a good number of the Indian people either stupid or uncaring or both. Knowing what I was getting into, but never the less I tried awhile ago to change some wording that I felt was racist in one of the Indian medicine articles and eventually had to give up with many wasted words and a fair amount of wasted time. Quoting Petrarchan above, I was met with the same argument: "The Indian Medical Association (IMA) characterises the practice of modern medicine by Ayurvedic practitioners as quackery. In no way does the IMA refer to all practitioners of AY in their statement. The IMA clearly states that some practitioners of alternative therapies in India are representing themselves as qualified to practice modern medicine, but aren't properly licensed, and they are (rightly) categorized as 'quacks'." IMO both Petrarchan's and Littleolve oil's posts are both spot on. Gandydancer (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {Editor}

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

Pseudoscience: Clerk notes

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

Pseudoscience: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • I don't think the committee has to take the position that any particular subject is pseudoscience for DS from that case to be applied (that the status is disputed is rather the point). RexxS: others have noted that the Acupuncture DS could also be applied: would that solve the immediate issue?xenotalk 16:23, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Vanamonde93: Any article where there is significant dispute as to whether it is pseudoscience is covered under the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions: the article already carries the PS DS heading, and I don't think that loophole would carry very far. It seems the clarification request goes further in asking the committee to declare that not only does the DS apply, but also to classify the article subject "as a pseudoscience" (making a content determination) so that certain principles of the Pseudoscience case can be applied more directly - am I reading that right RexxS? –xenotalk 16:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Vanamonde93: The existence of significant editorial disputes as to whether the topic is pseudoscience is sufficient for that topic to be covered by the Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions. In this context, I've withdrawn my question as to whether the Acupuncture DS could be substituted. –xenotalk 17:04, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
    • RexxS: I don't think you'll get a pronouncement from the 2020 committee that the topic is pseudoscience, despite what the 2006 committee might have said about astrology. The committee might be able to certify that there is community consensus that a preponderance of reliable sources indicate the topic to be pseudoscience and accordingly there is a consensus for it to be be described as such in the article, but I don't really think that kind of thing requires the committee, it can be done at a noticeboard or the article talk page. –xenotalk 15:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
    • RexxS the topic would be covered by that principle to the extent that it "is generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". It's not the committee that needs to make that determination, it's the editing community through inclusion of sources and community discussions (and from what you've outlined here, that determination has already been made). In any case: any statement made here by the committee is unlikely to affect the behaviour of the inexperienced editors which have been coming to the article/talk page. –xenotalk 17:43, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Guy Macon: Thank you for the additional context. The article talk page is semi-protected until 12 Sept 2020, and a page was created for non-confirmed users to post. Discretionary sanctions are in place and enforcement paths are available. If the belief is that the community is unable to handle the issue administratively, it is probably better to file a full case that would allow for more and wider viewpoints (however my above comment re: efficacy applies). Since the edits of concern are mainly from new and newer editors, the wider issue (including the more recent developments covered in the ANI thread) could be heard at WP:AN so other interventions (general sanctions, higher levels of protection, etc.) may be considered by the community before asking the committee to intervene. –xenotalk 15:41, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
  • A discussion of whether or not a given field or phenomenon is a pseudoscience should fall within the discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
    • @My very best wishes: I'm speaking of a serious discussion that's overtly focused on whether something is a pseudoscience or not, not of a mental reservation that might be present in one admin's head. We just need to avoid the circularity of needing to know the outcome of a discussion of how we categorize something before we can define the rules of the discussion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I am unwilling to expand the scope of pseudoscience especially in a situation where there seems to be some cultural bias--it his treated in some geographies as a science with long historical roots and academic underpinnings. Arb com had no business declaring what fields are pseudoscience, or restricting or prescribing the content edited in these or any other fields. (with the exception of such things as blp) Nor does it have any need to deal with ordinary disruptive editing--ordinary admin remedies are sufficient for that. What arbcom does have the right and responsibility of doing is declaring that some fields are so exceptionally disruptive that arb enforcement sticky remedies are needed. The original basis for DS remedies was that in some such fields admins would revert each other, creating untenable situations unless the abbility to do so were restrained. The introduction of DS was successful, and did pretty much put a stop to that sort of privileged disruption. There may be some fields where this is still necessary--I might for example agree thaat American Politics is one of them, at least for the next few months, and some ethnic conflicts, perhaps even indefinitely. It could conceivably be argued that some forms of pseudoscience such as homeopathy are also. though I have doubts here--it has been so thoughly refuted. . I think the addition of any specific pseudoscience or other field to the list should should be discouraged unless it is proven that ordinary admin methhods have failed to deal with disruption. Ordinary arb methods have lately been dealing quite effectively with disruption, as can be seen by the many fewer cases that need to come to arb com. In my view, adding this field to the list unnecessary; its advocates are a very small number of editors who can be dealt with by the ordinary admin remedies. DGG ( talk ) 08:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
RexxS: I see a very large number of probable puppets, and ordinary sanctions, not DS, are quite enough to deal with that. DS had a possible role when there are persistent editorss getting repeatedly blocked; it adds nothing to the ordinary admin remedies in cases such as you mention. It does not show a need to arb com. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
RexxS: I did now look at the talk page. What do you propose to do under DS that you would be unable to do now.? DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
Thinking further since I wrote my original comment, I have strenthened my view on DS--I would never support using them even in AP, where they have served to discourage open discussion and influence POV,. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde My personal view of whether ayurveda is a pseudoscience is irrelevant here. I'm responding as an arb, and as an arb I have no opinion about content. To the extent the original pseudoscience RFA was an attempt by arb com to give an opinion on content it was a erroneous decision, and we should not repeat their error. To the extent it dealt with conduct of various editors, it was a good decision. DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
I thank you, Vanamonde, for your repeated question, because is has helped me make my positions clearer. it is not within the scope of any arbitrator to decide the nature of a medical procedure. It is not for us to decide this, and it was not correctly within our scope to make any similar decision we made in the past. If the previous cases implied it was, or required us to decide, they were wrong--it is outside our area. Based on the discussion here, a few other arbs seem to also refuse to take a stand on the matter. In particular your questions have helped me settle my position on the more general question of DS: I would abolish them, and then there would be no more such questions. among other merits of terminating the procedure, is that it leads to inappropriate requests for us to involve ourself in deciding content. What is within the scope of arb com is to end the concept of DS, and the only reason I do not now propose it by motion is that I do not think it would have a majority yet. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I can't decide what vitamins to take, so I'm in absolutely no position to decide if something is or isn't pseudoscience. Those are discussions that need to take place in a community process per NYB. Katietalk 13:27, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
  • I would prefer to leave the decisions of whether something is pseudoscience up to the editing community when possible. However, it seems like the discretionary sanctions on alternative medicine are applicable here, so is this now a solved problem? GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
GW--what makes it impossible for the editing community to deal with the question? It already has Extended confirmed protection, and why is that not enough? DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Guy, I thought that might be the problem, but wouldn't it be solved by blocking people making disruptive repetitive postings, especially by using the new facility for blocking from a particular page. Any admin can do that as a normal admin action--it doesn't take DS. The only advantage of DS would be if these blocks were being reversed by other admins. Is that the case? What else do you suggest that needs DS? Or is it just meant to be a way of giving a very strong warning? DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm a little confused which of these comments are directed at me—please feel free to move this reply if I've incorrectly placed it. I don't personally believe that the editing community is unable to determine whether this subject is pseudoscience. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
so, looking at your last note, you do not expect any practical effect from this? They why bother? The decision to call is pseudoscience is an editorial decision and can be done regardless of what arbcom thinks about it.. (fwiw, as I thought I had made clear, I disagree with labelling topics as pseudoscience at least in the overly heavy-handed way it is currently used for this topic, and if the arb com decision is used as an excuse to justify it, we need to revise most of the 2006 decision. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "why bother". Why bother making a clarification request? Presumably because RexxS didn't know if ArbCom was willing to answer one-off requests as to whether a topic is covered by a specific DS, which is understandable given that there is some general disagreement around whether we should. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Whether or not the article should refer to Ayurveda as pseudoscience is entirely the decision of the editing community, a decision which should be based entirely upon reliable sources and not past ArbCom statements. Discussions about such language can be moderated under the DS rules, and implemented at the discretion of an uninvolved administrator. Beyond that, we have the "broadly construed" language to cover edge cases, as well as the DS authorized for "Complementary and Alternative Medicine" for when "Pseudoscience" isn't the right description. – bradv🍁 21:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    Beyond My Ken, I don't understand your comment. What specifically are you asserting ArbCom is obliged to do? The only relevant remedies that I know of are listed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience#Remedies and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Remedies, and none of them mandate anything. They just authorize discretionary sanctions, which still have to be enacted by an uninvolved admin. – bradv🍁 23:52, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
    RexxS, you are clearly INVOLVED with respect to the Ayurveda article, having made your opinion on the substance of the dispute abundantly clear. Please leave arbitration enforcement to another administrator. – bradv🍁 18:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The "broadly construed" language though originally a good idea, is now in practice used as a device to sweep as much as possible into the same bin where arb com previously decided we need not follow NPOV, but what we think as scientists ought to be the POV. .
As a separate issue, anything that relies on DS will fail. The only way forward is for arb com to directly regulate conduct by removing prejudiced editors and admins, either from an area or from WP, not trying to adopt rules about just how disruptive they can be. DGG ( talk ) 04:39, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm indenting this, because it's intended as a reply to JzG and Atsme as my personal view only, to indicate my view of the error of those who feel obliged to use WP to tell people what to do, though in that sense it is relevant to the question of whether WP should enforce a POV. It's not really a statement by an arb as an arb, but I don't know where else to put it. A key factor in medical results is the trust the patient has in the physician, and this can be similar in all forms of medicine, rational, or irrational. A patient who thinks the physician understands them and is really trying to help will usually feel better, if only because so many conditions are self--limiting. A patient who distrusts the healer will probably not take the prescribed treatment, whether it's a rational or irrational prescription. The placebo effect is real, and, astoundingly, even if the patient knows it's a placebo. Many of the conditions modern medicine purports to treat it actually has no proven effective treatment for; the most common conclusion in Cochrane, if you actually read it carefully instead of use it as a magic word, is that the evidence isn't really good enough. ( I pretend to be rational, but I have for many years taken drugs for conditions I know could be better treated by exercise, because I really hate exercise; I finally did start to exercise as well based essentially on the charisma of my very sports-minded cardiologist. ) CAM is in basically a fad, but it is also in some sense a rational response to uncertainty-though I note that one oft he studies quoted was for depression, notoriously one of the conditions for which no one medical treatment can be shown effective. And of course almost anything sensible or not, can appear in the peer-reviewed literature-, and any one who accepts it without knowing how to analyze it can not be trusted to instruct others.
A much better case for WP adopting a POV can be had with climate change. This is much closer than medicine to being an exact science. But again, any particular aspect in the science can have errors, and our entire view of things could be changed completely by any of a number of catastrophes. Pre COVID, I would also have said that this might be a case where we had to tell people what they should do, because the alternative was disaster--unlike medicine, individual choices could harm the entire word irreparably. We now know this is also true about public health, tho in my opinion the public health establishment forfeited much of its claim to credibility back when it advised people that gloves were more important than effective masks, because it knew there were insufficient masks, and it did not dare tell the actual truth, which was that all the available individual measures were close to useless. We need a certain amount of skepticism, because most other people who have every lived , thought that they too knew what the correct POV about the world was, and almost all of them we would almost all agree been proven wrong.
All we can do is give people the available data, and the information and resources to judge its credibility. We can say what people in various positions who ought to be well-informed think. We can not judge from their standing in the world whether what they think is correct. And we need a certain amount of modesty, because no matter how accurately and effectively we give people the information they need, they in practice on both public and personal issues are not going to act on it. (e.g. to go to a field where arb com has even less place, probably close to 100% of the people in the US know that the current president is a deliberate liar, and knowing that isn't going to affect how they vote in the election) We take ourselves too seriously. We're just an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
JzG, there's too much here to discuss in this context, and perhaps we should take it off-line. But I agree that the way tolerance is extended to CAM remedies and supplements was a political decision based on no scientific principle whatsoever. As for placebos, --you are correct I'm going by tertiary sources & should do what I say anyone with the background to understand them should do, which is to read critically the actual research. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Petrarchan47. 1/. I've said myself, just above, that much of contemporary medicine as practiced is not actually scientific. (My personal bias is to prefer it nonetheless, because it alone of the systems being discussed has the potential to be so, and sometimes is) 2/That WP is mistakenly taken as a reliable source by most of the world is unfortunate. It casts on us a burden that we are by our basic mode of operation unable to fulfill. Unfortunately, all we can do about it is explain, and give disclaimers, and try in a reasonable way to not be grossly inaccurate, or at least give a range of sources. We do remain the only popularly accessed information source which at least tries to give references, and that part of our original mission remains valuable. (despite the perennial attempts at WP:RS to compromise honesty by permitting only those sources the majority there agree with.) I came here as an academic librarian, trying to revise things to make them more accurate, and replace bad references with good. . After a year or two, I realized that this was too difficult in our environment, and have focussed since on removing the worst of the garbage, and avoiding fields where people believe so strongly in the veracity of their favorite cult that dealing with it would mean too much fighting. As I did not come here convinced I could enlighten the world on what is the truth, I'm not horrified when we fail at it. DGG ( talk ) 06:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm late tot he party here, but i have been following this. On the question of whether DS applies here, I would say yes, either from the Pseudoscience case or the alternative medicine case. I can't see the committee making the editorial decision as to which topics actually are pseudoscience though. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: 1RR requirements and enforcement

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 20:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

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

Statement by ProcrastinatingReader

Whilst I still have some time I figured I'd leave this with you for clarification. Over past couple months I've spoken to several admins re. DS procedures, mostly relating to my work on simplifying/cleaning up community sanction templates (speaking of, gentle query on if you've come to a decision re. my July email yet?), as I didn't want to file a dozen clarification requests. This ARCA stems from a discussion I had with El C, here. Would ask if you could read that section (& possibly see the diffs of change on the linked templates) as it provides relevant context for this question. I understand that the 2020 ARCA asked a very similar question to what I ask now, but given the confusion (ref discussion & incorrect template wording for years) I think it's appropriate to ask for a clear judgement.

In the 2018 ARCA, the Committee passed a motion stating that additional page restrictions apply to enforce 1RR. Namely, this meant that enforcing 1RR would require awareness procedures (incl alerting) to be met. The reasoning by the arbs was a strong feeling of it being inherently unfair to enforce 1RR on articles when the editor may not have been aware of this. Thus, a talk and editnotice alone are no longer sufficient.

In the 2020 ARCA, the Committee was going towards the idea of: the 1RR restriction [does not] require a formal alert in order to be enforced. After close reading of both, I can only interpret this as 1RR by case remedy doesn't require any awareness, but 1RR by DS does?

Is that a correct understanding? If yes, doesn't it also logically follow that 1RR DS enforcement may use the full, broad range of discretionary sanctions enforcement mechanisms, whilst 1RR case remedy can only use increasing-duration blocks, per ArbCom standard procedures?

My next question is, is this two-tier approach to 1RR even logical? In practice, I don't think many admins see 1RR DS as different from 1RR Case Remedy. Both types of 1RR have the same basic awareness (a large talk notice and editnotice), so it's not really accurate to think editors will be more aware of one than the other. I'd also note that it is purely admin discretion on whether an article is "within the conflict area", so 1RR case remedy is also subject to the same level of "discretion", especially for sanctions like ARBPIA and Abortion which have very broad and discretionary scopes. Thus, it seems quite illogical to treat these two 'types' of 1RR as separate. I'd imagine this two-tier approach is also likely confusing & inaccessible to many editors.

@Bradv: that I follow, which is the assumption I made in para 3. The final two paragraphs of my statement carry on from that assumption and I think those are still relevant questions to ask here, as I think they're the direct consequences of that interpretation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 00:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Bradv: so, per your comments & the first sentence of GW's comment, what is the status of non-ARBPIA4 1RR case remedies (namely GMO & abortion)? Do those require alerting to enforce, or are they the same as ARBPIA4? Also, re para4, is it correct to assume 1RR case remedies (w/o alert) can only be enforced by blocks? Would non-block enforcement actions relating to 1RR (eg topic bans, other restrictions) require an alert + DS action instead? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme

DS...🤯 - also see above. Atsme Talk 📧 23:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, could the reason for lengthy AE requests possibly stem from confusing sanctions or possibly even WP:POV creep? Is it possible that an admin might be hesitant to take action against a truly disruptive editor because they are of like minds and/or have established longtime alliances in a particular topic area? NPOV is not an easy task, particularly in controversial articles. DGG nailed it: "There is no way of avoiding a first or second advantage in all RR rules.. and DS makes the unfairness all the harder to adjust, and all the easier to perpetuate." He also made a valid point in pseudoscience that applies equally to almost all controversial topics: The "broadly construed" language though originally a good idea, is now in practice used as a device to sweep as much as possible into the same bin where arb com previously decided we need not follow NPOV, but what we think as scientists ought to be the POV. Substitute "scientists" with political party, or gamers. Behavior may be determined to be disruptive simply because it is an opposing view, keeping in mind Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Mainstream media even recognized WP's problem, and it dates back several years as evidenced in this 2008 WaPo article, a 2016 article in The Atlantic, and more recently in The Intercept, and Fox News. Why allow it to continue, and for what benefit? ArbCom has granted individual admins power that ArbCom doesn't even possess as a committee, and I'm speaking of granting irreversible unilateral actions at an admin's sole discretion. We're losing editors and are well on our way to homogenizing topic areas, which is basically what the AE Log represents to me. Maybe NPOV, V, NEWSORG and RECENTISM are what need a closer look - remove the ambiguities, tighten the policies, and enforce them. Just food for thought. Oh, and Vanamonde I want to add that I absolutely agree with your conclusion in this discussion, and along that same line, I highly commend El C for his thoughtful considerations in the highly controversial AP topic areas. One last comment, aren't we glad this isn't about infoboxes? Atsme Talk 📧 16:37, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Abortion)

I was not anticipating commenting here, as the topic is somewhat outside my wheelhouse, but I'm honestly dumbfounded by DGG's assertion that dealing with disruptive editors from our contentious areas will be less work than managing the DS system that allows uninvolved admins to deal with them. DGG, have you looked at the AELOG lately? Most AE reports are comparable in their length to an ARCA request, and there's far more of them; not to mention the hundreds of yearly actions that individual administrators take outside of AE. ARBCOM has taken upwards of three weeks to handle one clarification request, above. How would it fare if everything currently handled under DS was thrown in its lap? Vanamonde (Talk) 15:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

1RR requirements and enforcement: Clerk notes

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

1RR requirements and enforcement: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • The 2020 ARCA was specifically in reference to the 1RR restriction in effect for the WP:ARBPIA4 topic area. In this case it is not a discretionary sanction, but a general prohibition directly authorized by ArbCom, and therefore does not require a formal alert. The 2018 ARCA, on the other hand, was about 1RR as one of the restrictions commonly enacted by administrators as part of the discretionary sanctions system. I know this is confusing, but these two discussions are about two different things. – bradv🍁 23:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
    • To expound on this a bit further: the 1RR prohibition in effect for the ARBPIA is accompanied by a 500/30 restriction. This means that editors who do not have 500 edits and 30 days' tenure can't edit these articles at all, much less edit war on them. This makes the bar for entry to these articles high enough that we can expect people to be familiar with the restrictions in this area, and when disruption occurs it can be dealt with quickly. However, as I said at that ARCA, this rule doesn't necessitate a heavy-handed or punitive approach. A simple note that 1RR applies in this area should be all it takes to prevent a good-faith editor from inadvertently igniting an edit war, and applying 1RR to everybody, without requiring extra formalities for some, helps to keep the collaborative editing process fair and balanced. – bradv🍁 00:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
      • ProcrastinatingReader, regarding the last part of your question and your last comment, the reasons for enacting 1RR as a general prohibition for this topic area are complex, and would require a thorough reading of the related cases and amendment requests to fully understand. The simplest answer I can give is that this system is felt to be simpler and more consistent than discretionary sanctions. As I wrote above, a blanket 1RR and 500/300 restriction, together, provide a level playing field for the entire topic area, without the rules of engagement changing from article to article (as they do in, say, American Politics). While I certainly wouldn't advocate taking this same approach on every contentious topic area, there is considerable value in keeping things simple, and without evidence that this remedy is failing to work as intended I have to assume it is accomplishing its goals. It's also worth noting that the "discretion" involved here in applying these general restrictions is different from discretionary sanctions – in the case of ARBPIA articles the templates and edit notices can be applied by any editor, not just by uninvolved administrators. And the only consideration in adding the templates is that it be part of the topic area, not whether disruption has occurred or is likely to occur. – bradv🍁 00:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
        • ProcrastinatingReader, ARBGMO does not require an alert for 1RR to apply, but the abortion restriction is a little more complicated (see the ARCA below). As for enforcement, blocks can technically be issued even on a first offense, but as I said previously, this is not and should not be common. Topic bans and restrictions are not enforcement actions, but are additional sanctions (a.k.a. bans), and can only be enacted under DS or as a result of a community discussion, per Wikipedia:Banning policy#Authority to ban. – bradv🍁 01:16, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I would agree with bradv that the 2020 ARCA was intended to address specifically the ARBPIA4 1RR, not all 1RR imposed as a result of a case. While I do think it can be reasonable to enforce the 1RR even without an explicit warning in that topic area (particularly because of the additional 500/30 restriction), I also think admins should be sure to apply common sense. As NYB and others said at the ARCA, The bottom line is that an editor should never be blocked for making an edit that would normally be acceptable but violates a discretionary sanctions restriction, if there's a reasonable doubt as to whether the editor was aware of the restriction. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
    Echoing what Bradv said. The topic-wide 1RR remedies imposed as a result of a case do not require the alerts that AC/DS require, but I'd expect it to be fairly rare that people are sanctioned via those 1RR without at least a quick heads up that 1RR applies. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • As others have noted above, it remains my strong position that an editor must never be sanctioned for violating a special rule that he or she was not aware of. Beyond that, the lack of clarity being discussed in this thread supports another strong position of mine, which is that the rules surrounding discretionary sanctions have become too complicated and confusing. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • There is no way of avoiding a first or second advantage in all RR rules.. and DS makes the unfairness all the harder to adjust, and all the easier to perpetuate. We need a new approach altogether. My idea is that the committee, which is electing to regulate conduct that ordinary admin procedures cannot handle, should do the necessary regulation of conduct rather than instruct the admins to do it a more complicated way. --It will be less work than the repeated dealing with issues such as ddressed by this request and the others requests here at the moment . Since the problems have not been solved, we are presumably doing something wrong--either we as arb com, or we at WP more generally DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Vanamonde93 the delays are because only the most complicated cases reach us. But it was not my idea that we'd take over all DS & AE requests, because with DS gone, there would be many fewer such requests--they'd be taken care of by normal admin action that didn't require arb com at all. But I agree that a good enforcement scheme is very difficult to devise--the only aspect I am sure about is that the current one does not remotely qualify, and we need to start over. I'm not set on my own ideas of how to replace it, though I have several; another one of them is the rule I apply to myself in almost all disputes, that nobody contribute more than twice to the entire discussion--but this would not be applicable to friendly cooperative work, & I haven't worked out that part yet. I recognize that almost everyone likely to come to the DR part of WP would find it quite unsettling to their usual way of working, and that would be my main argument for it. DGG ( talk ) 04:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Clarification request: Abortion

Motion enacted. Archived. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Initiated by ProcrastinatingReader at 21:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Abortion 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 ProcrastinatingReader

It appears in 2011, the community added sanctions for the entire abortion topic area. This included a topic-wide 1RR.

ArbCom later took over the Abortion sanctions in WP:ARBAB. They authorised DS for the topic area.

In 2015, a clarification request was made asking whether 1RR was to be made a case remedy, as it was enacted by the community. 5 arbs agreed to this. I don't believe that was a majority at the time, and there was no motion made, and there remains no amendment to the original WP:ARBAB case to specify 1RR exists for the topic area, and if so, what the scope of 1RR should be. Thus I don't believe that ARCA duly resulted in any change to the status quo. At the time, a clerk (Callanecc) noted that ArbCom did not take over the 1RR.

I have brought this to ARCA following advice from clerks at their noticeboard. The talk notice, {{ArbCom sanctions - abortion}}, and the editnotice {{AbortionGSEN}} indicates the 1RR is a ArbCom remedy. However, Wikipedia:General sanctions/Abortion/Log says it has been superseded, whilst Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Arbitration_Committee-authorised_sanctions says "See this November–December 2015 clarification request, whereby the previous community 1RR was incorporated into the ArbCom DS". A topic-wide 1RR can't really be part of a DS?

Can the Committee please clarify:

  • Has the Committee terminated the 1RR remedy from the community's 2011 abortion sanctions?
    • If yes, has it been replaced by an ArbCom topic-wide 1RR remedy?
      • If yes, should a motion be passed to amend WP:ARBAB, adding such a remedy and deciding on its scope?
      • If no, (but the 1RR from the community is still terminated), then I presume 1RR should be applied on an article-by-article basis? And in such a case, what's to happen to any 1RR enforcement blocks/sanctions prior to this ARCA?

Just a note that split logs overlapping with an ArbCom DS aren't completely abnormal, e.g. WP:GS/IPAK. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 01:26, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Worm That Turned indeed, but what about any 1RRs after the case?
    I don't believe it's possible for that topic-wide 1RR to be a DS, as I think Thryduulf's statement implies, since (as the ARCA above is suggesting) 1RR case remedy and 1RR DS have totally different requirements. Even if that difference is desired here, it would not be compatible with the community authorisation. DS is somewhat the opposite of NOTBURO in general, such a decision needlessly complicates the system even more and creates inconsistencies with eg IPAK imv. I don't feel like this question should be overcomplicated: do we need a topic-wide 1RR for abortion or not? If so, please just amend the case and make it a normal 1RR like every other case, for consistency and clarity, rather than make abortion a special case. If we don't need one, then some kind of collective statement clarifying that ArbCom doesn't have a 1RR in place would seem helpful to put the matter to rest. Personally, considering WP:AELOG (zero topic 1RR sanctions in 5 years; two DS 1RR sanctions in 2019), I feel the 2nd option is better.

Statement by Callanecc

This is hazy in my memory but my thinking is something like this. In the case, ArbCom didn't mention the community-imposed 1RR restriction but did take over the community-authorised discretionary sanctions (number 2 in the ANI proposal). The Committee needs to take affirmative action to override the community and they didn't in this case. Additionally, they also imposed 1RR on individual editors which wouldn't have been necessary if they took over the 1RR restriction. The clarification request from 2015 asked where community-imposed 1RR violation be logged and the agreement amongst the arbs was that only 1 log should be used (for simplicity and NOTBURO). I see three options for the Committee here: (1) take over the community-imposed 1RR restriction (effectively as a drafting slip from the original case), (2) vacate the community-imposed 1RR restriction (effectively taking it over as a drafting slip in the original case, then vacating it as no longer needed), or (3) leaving the status quo (1RR stays as a community-imposed restriction but is logged at WP:AELOG for simplicity (and NOTBURO)). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 09:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Nosebagbear

Personally I find it amazing that the ARBCOM at the time felt they had the authority to make retroactive decisions with regard to general sanctions, but that's neither here nor there.

The question might be worth asking, but I would note, that if ARBCOM has not implemented a 1RR remedy, then I'm not sure they have the authority merely to terminate a community one as a sanction. There is of course a question against this that they could have implemented one in 2015, and removed it now, which would have had the same effect. However, they missed that boat: just doing it at once is akin to ARBCOM just deciding they felt a community sanction was a bad idea and canning it, rather than as part of a conduct method. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

The 2015 clarification request asked a very specific question - where should violations of the 1RR be logged. The five arbs who answered (I was one of them) said in the central DS log. This, and the other comments in the discussion, imply that everyone was, and should continue to, treat it as a discretionary sanction under the provisions of the arbcom-authorised discretionary sanctions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

  • It might be worth making explicit that any existing specific remedies placed under the DS authorisations, including 1RR restrictions applied to specific articles are not affected and that it also does not preclude the placing of any new 1RR restrictions in this topic area. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other editor}

Abortion: Clerk notes

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

Abortion: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Is the community-authorized 1RR restriction still necessary? A look through WP:AELOG for the past number of years shows 1RR applied to certain articles as a discretionary sanction (such as Talk:Abortion in the United States), but it doesn't show anyone being sanctioned for violating the general 1RR restriction. I suspect that this blanket remedy is no longer being used, and if my assumption is correct, perhaps we should vacate it for simplicity and consistency. – bradv🍁 23:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Hm, this is a bit of complex question. The way it reads to me is that the ArbCom replaced the general sanctions with discretionary sanctions, but did not address the 1RR. Therefore I would say community-imposed 1RR in the topic area remains in place. The clarification request was about where sanctions should be logged, and it seemed to be agreed that the DS log made sense so there weren't two separate logs for the same topic area, but I wouldn't say that as a result of that clarification request the ArbCom took over the 1RR—that would have to be done more formally, I think. As for what to do now, the ArbCom could either decide to formally take on the 1RR restriction as an amendment to the abortion case, or we could leave it as is. Given the general disuse, I'm leaning towards the latter. However I would oppose us vacating the community-imposed 1RR, as I think that's a decision that should be left to the community. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
  • To my eyes, The discretionary sanction remedy states All sanctions enacted prior to this case under the terms of the community authorization shall be logged under this case as though they had been enacted under the new authorization. I would therefore have thought that the 1RR application should be considered under the Arbcom banner. What's more, as DS are in place, I would prefer a blanket 1RR is removed, and applied where needed. WormTT(talk) 08:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have a strong view on the specific clarification that is being requested, other than to suggest we not do anything that makes the rules governing discretionary and general sanctions any more complicated than they already are. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Motion: Abortion

The one-revert restriction on all articles related to abortion, authorized by the community here and modified by the Arbitration Committee in the Abortion arbitration case, is formally taken over by the committee and vacated. Discretionary sanctions remain authorized for all pages related to abortion, broadly construed.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 16:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. Proposed, in the absence of any evidence that this is still required or commonly used. – bradv🍁 15:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. Per bradv. No indication that DS is not sufficient. Regards SoWhy 18:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. we seem to be the right place for determinng conflicts between procedures like this one. DGG ( talk ) 04:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Maxim(talk) 19:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. The procedural question (whether we have the authority to vacate the 1RR restriction or whether the community should be asked to do so) is a close one, but based on the history that's been summarized above, I think the ArbCom decision is broad enough to allow us to make this change. I would be hesitant to do something that could even arguably be construed as overruling the community if the 1RR rule were still being actively used, but it seems that it isn't and that this is more of a "clean-up" request than anything. If any problems recur, 1RR can be restored as needed under the authorization for discretionary sanctions. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. I understand the logic of the opposes but I basically agree with NYB, this is more along the lines of cleaning up an old mess, as opposed to overruling community will. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. I understand the position of those opposing, while recognizing there have been no additional concerns raised following a note to AN about this open motion. –xenotalk 12:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. weakly (I nearly voted in the oppose column) but it strikes me as simplifying things slightly by taking over the 1RR Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:48, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. I also see this as uncontroversial tidying, and it's cleaner if we do it. – Joe (talk) 07:46, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  10. I believe this was the intention and reasonable housekeeping WormTT(talk) 10:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
  1. Per my above comment, since this was imposed by the community I think the decision whether to vacate it should be left to the community as well. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. I agree with GW in this instance. If it's a community sanction they can remove it themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Should we should note at WP:AN that this is being considered? –xenotalk 14:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    • That's a good idea. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
      • (clerk) I've gone ahead and left a note. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 18:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions

Initiated by Barkeep49 at 22:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Civility in infobox discussions arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. [42]
  2. Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement
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
  • Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes.
  • Whether discrestionary sanctions should be enacted against editors other than I-82
  • Role of consensus in arbitration enforcement

Statement by Barkeep49

On September 1, Ritchie filed an AE request for I-82-I about an Infobox RfC at Frank Sinatra. In subsequent discussion, diffs were brought forward concerning the actions of HAL333, Mclay1, Cassianto, and SchroCat. On September 4 TonyBallioni issued a Checkuser block against I-82-I for disruptive editing while logged out. On September 5, Cassianto opened a thread at ANI accusing Hal of harassment. Approximately four hours later, JzG closed the AE thread with an infobox Topic Ban on I-82-I. Prior to that close, 9 uninvolved administrators (including myself and JzG but not counting Tony) had participated in the discussion. At least three administrators, myself, Vanamonde, and Guerillero had supported sanctions against some of the other editors. A fourth, Ealdgyth, indicated that she saw incivility but did not wish to deal with the people involved [43]. The other uninvolved administrators had not commented on these sanctions pro or con - one administrator feeling that sanctions should not only be applied to one side and two of the uninvolved administrators were participating in a discussion about whether Guerillero's use of "Ok boomer" towards Cassianto was a slur and not Infobox Civility itself. Subsequent discussion with JzG clarified that he had indeed closed the thread as no sanction against any other editors. As this seems to fly in the face of the considered consensus of multiple uninvolved administrators, with ArbCom being the only place to apply an AE decision, and given the sprawling nature of this conflict (which also includes, at minimum, [44] and [45]), I am filing this appeal in regards to both Infobox editor conduct and JzG's close of the AE thread. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Kingofaces43: according to a previous ArbCom case, the decision to close at AE with no sanction is is a decision that can only be appealed to ArbCom. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement#Dismissing_an_enforcement_request_(alternate). As such those of us who felt other sanctions shouldbe levied cannot apply those sanctions.Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: I am glad Vanamonde replied first because they said my feelings better than I would have. Pinging you to formalize what I am looking for from ArbCom here and why I think in the name of comity we don't just move on. I think this gets at what you were asking also Kingofaces43. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    Newyorkbrad, the people I had mentioned were Mclay1, HAL, Cassianto, and Schrocat (who I know is gone but I have hope might return one day even if under a slightly different account name owing to a password scramble). HAL, Cassianto, and Schrocat have all been a part of Infobox disputes before. So their promise to "stay away" from Sinatra is good - I mean that sincerely - but the sanctions in my mind were more about whatever the next Infobox skirmish is going to be as it is Sinatra. So the only one I would be willing to reconsider in light of a kept promise to stay away is Mclay1. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Newyorkbrad: I have always thought that clear. What isn't clear is the ability of an editor to unilaterally shutdown a conversation of colleagues about whether sanction is appropriate currently rather than in the future. You seem to be telling me that it is appropriate which is a reasonable outcome. That will inform my choice to try and get involved in thorny AE discussions in the future. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Vanamonde93: I think what Newyorkbrad is saying is that if there were new misconduct the old conduct could still be considered when forming a sanction. So essentially no editor could be sanctioned for anything that happened at Sinatra (or previously) but if there is misconduct again at the next infobox front then Sinatra and earlier could be considered when responding. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • As to bradv's suggestion that a full case could be beneficial, maybe? I mean we have two different administrators whose actions have been criticized by a range of editors. We also have Cassianto feeling that the ANI thread did not offer him from the harassment he was perceiving from HAL and which wasn't really being discussed at AE. However, I'm not sure, as evidenced by the desire of many people here for this to go away (I mean I got more than one good laugh when I explained to some people close to me what DS is and that we have DS for things like American Politics, Palestine/Israel, Race & Intellegence, and Infoboxes) that a full case is going to bring things forward that an ARCA would not. Now if the structure of a case would be helpful in dealing with these desperate parts then sure go for a case. Just don't expect it to turn into too much more than what has already been presented here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC
  • JzG I had formally notified everyone but Cassianto who had indicated to me such a notification was unnecessary. I agree with you that such notification is important. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:37, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by HAL333

I am so thoroughly tired of this. The original ArbCom request was against I-82 and no one else. That editor retired, abused IP accounts, and was then CU blocked. Case closed. Additionally, SchroCat retired due to this whole ordeal. Can we please just stop here and not lose anymore editors.

Since being warned of the sanctions, I have not responded to a single opposing editor on that thread. I only asked an editor who supported the proposal to clarify his statement. Beyond that, I reverted edits by, who was repeatedly closing the RFC and claiming that there was a consensus to uncollapse the infobox (which they did and I reverted). I reported them for vandalism, and they were banned. A diehard pro-infoboxer (Which I'm not - I've gotten several of my works up to featured status without an IB) would have sat back and watched gleefully. I have agreed with SchroCat and Cassianto before, siding with them at Dispute Resolution and have even opposed the addition of an infobox with them.

Regarding the ANI discussion opened against me, here was my defense:

Earlier today, Cassianto referred to me, LEPRICAVARK, and two administrators as "messers". I was not familiar with this term: Cassianto often uses British slang. Oxford's Lexico defines it as "A person who makes a mess, or who messes about; a muddler, a bungler." According to Urban Dict, it is "Irish slang for a sloppy or messy person; someone who fails to take things seriously; a hopeless amateur, a gobdaw." Wiktionary defines it as "someone who messes". Accordingly, I respectfully asked Cassianto to strike through this personal attack. Cassianto was annoyed by my pinging him (which plenty of other people were doing at arbcom) and left a message claiming that I was harassing him. I responded courteously, without a ping. Cassianto then corrects the personal attack to "messrs", which, according to Google, is "used as a title to refer formally to more than one man simultaneously, or in names of companies." I found this a clever solution and it actually made me laugh. The barnstar of good humor was an expression of good faith. I was being genuine and met no ill will. I figured it would ease up tensions, but here we are....

  • Note I have previously given Cassianto a barnstar after a disagreement, and it seemed to have improved our relations. I was trying to do the same thing again and assumed he would respond similarly to last time.

Everyone has moved on. I have not revisited any infobox discussions. There is no reason that we can't just let sleeping dogs lie. ~ HAL333 22:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Genuine confusion This enforcement request was brought because people were edit warring over collapsing a section of the RFC (I was not involved in that). That has been resolved. Why is this continuing? Also, why is SchroCat included in this? He has scrambled his password and no longer edits on Wikipedia. Any sanctions or penalties directed to him would be ineffectual and for image only. Sysops have expressed that they would want to penalize the supposed pro- and anti-infoboxers equally. Cassianto has already been placed under sanctions. How can this be impartial if sanctions would just be applied to two "pro"-infoboxers? Furthermore, other editors commented just as much (and perhaps were much more uncivil) as I did in the RFC: just look at the discussion. (I should note that my colorful signature doesn't help lol) Why am I being singled out? ~ HAL333 02:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Cassianto

Statement by Mclay1

This whole thing seems pointless. The issue is over. I was not aware at the time of any specific rules about infobox discussions (which I'm still not clear on) and only made a few comments. I got into a very short and very mild disagreement with SchroCat, who was being quite rude to a number of people, but that conversation is long over and he's retired, so it's no longer an issue. My involvement in the discussion was not in any way unusual for a discussion on Wikipedia. As soon as I was informed of the infobox discussion rules (long before the ArbCom in question), I stopped commenting. I don't care about it anymore and have no need for sanctions. I have no intention of continuing the argument. I agree with HAL333. MClay1 (talk) 02:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by SchroCat

Statement by JzG

An AE was opened against I-82-I. That user subsequently used logged-out editing to evade scrutiny and was indefinitely blocked. Others used the AE filing as a vehicle for discussing (eentirely valid) long-standing issues with other editors who were not, I think, originally notified of the AE filing.

It seems to me that the subject of the original filing is effectively complete with the indefinite block of I-82-I. I have no strong view of what dispute resolution processes should be undertaken in respect of other editors discussed in the thread, other than that there should be some, but it seems to me that an AE on an obvious bad actor should not morph into sanctions discussions on long-standing good-faith editors without at least some effort to de-escalate or resolve the dispute. This would be my view regardless of the personalities involved.

As I said at the time and subsequently, if anyone wants to undo the close or spin out the separate discussions they are welcome to do so. I have no beef with any of the other parties here, admin or otherwise. I closed the AE in good faith because the outcome in respect of the original subject was clear, and it seems to me that AE discussions should be narrowly focused (because enforcement). I could be wrong. I am happy to leave this to others to decide because my views on the secondary parties are not strong, and because of a sudden worsening of C7 radiculopathy which means I am as of yesterday in too much pain to deal with this any further. Guy (help! - typo?) 07:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your patience, friends, the pain has subsided over the last couple of days.
I have proposed a change to the admin guidance at WT:AE. This entire thing comes from two groups of people looking at the same facts from different bases. I closed the AE because the result for I-82-I was obvious, and he was the named party. I took insufficient note of the way the thread had morphed, partly because I was viewing it in the context of a request against I-82-I. This was probably naive. That said, I think there is a basic fairness issue about sanctioning other parties without the formal notification requirement, and I hope that I am not alone in this.
If we look at WP:RFAR, there is a process for adding parties. At WP:AE, there is not. I'd internalised the idea that parties have to be formally added in arbitration, and I recognise that this may be incorrect in this context - and whether it's right or wrong, others may see it differently or may be viewing this through an arc that intersects with AE but is not solely AE (Vanamonde has made some good points here and recently pointed out to me some precedent for not viewing AE as I have always viewed it). Guy (help! - typo?)

Statement by Vanamonde93 (Infoboxes)

I will not rehash the summary Barkeep49 has provided, but just add the following points. First, editors who are parties to a dispute brought to AE are explicitly also subject to sanctions, assuming they have been appropriately notified, which isn't in question here. Second, in this AE report, there was agreement among at least three administrators as to sanctions against editors other than the one being reported. Third, JzG's closure, while made in good faith, clearly does not represent the consensus of administrators at AE. Fourth, the issue has been discussed with JzG, and he has stated that he has no objections to further discussions about the other editors, but not that he was willing to reconsider the closure of this discussion. ARBCOM has previously rules that a single admin may overrule a consensus of other admins recommending no action to take an action at AE; does this now mean that a single admin can overrule a consensus of other admins recomending action, to prevent any action from being taken? In other words, if I (or Barkeep49, or Guerillero) wish to implement the actions we agreed upon, are we prevented from doing so by the minutiae of procedure? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

  • As a general principle, I'd agree with JzG that a report against someone editing in bad faith shouldn't result in widespread sanctions. In this case, most of the problematic behavior I found occurred before the bad-faith editor even appeared on the scene, and so the subsequent block of I-82-I does not affect my assessment of anything; and I don't see why it should affect anyone else's. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:21, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  • @Newyorkbrad: I don't think anyone wants the AE opened again, but if that would be the only was for sanctions to be applied against the other editors involved, then what you are in effect saying is that any administrator can overrule a consensus of their colleagues to prevent discretionary sanctions from being placed on any problematic editor. If that's not what you mean, then any administrator still has the ability to impose sanctions for the behavior discussed at AE; which is the clarity I am looking for. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Newyorkbrad: At this moment, I would not impose a sanction, because the principle participants have walked away from the conflict. I am firmly of the opinion that at the time the AE discussion was closed, the proposed sanctions were necessary, and that any willingness to step back on the part of the participants was because of the unfavorable attention they received here and at ANI. This feud went on for months, despite several attempts by uninvolved participants to calm things down. I would be very unsurprised to see further disruption, and if that occurs, any sanctions would need to take the episode discussed at AE into account to be useful. As things stand, it seems as though any sanctions cannot be levied on the basis of the behavior examined at AE already. There is also the issue of precendent; going forward, I would be much less inclined to engage with a contentious AE report, knowing that even a consensus among me and my colleagues could be overruled by a single admin. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Newyorkbrad: I don't think that's obvious, based on the wording of previous rulings about AE; whether the closure applied to other editors or not was also not clarified until we came here (JzG have since discussed the matter and are no longer at loggerheads over this, but he didn't actually answer my request to clarify this before the ARCA request was filed). Other users on JzG's talk page also argued that an admin placing a sanction on the other users from AE would be in violation of an ARBCOM decision. So, I appreciate your clarification, but I do think it was necessary to come here for that clarification. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Barkeep49: I think I was disagreeing more with the second part of what NYB said, in that there did seem to be serious disagreement as to what the conclusion of the first AE meant, and it was not clarified till we got here. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Rather to my own surprise, I think a full case may not be the worst idea. A situation like this shouldn't need a full case. There's no substantively new behavioral issue here; AE can deal with it, but only if the discretionary sanctions are allowed to operate as they should. Unfortunately, as with many of our previous civility-related cases (GGTF; TRM) this has just exposed the deep-running rift among administrators with respect to how interactions between editors are perceived and responded to, and that has led to the enforcement of ARBCOM sanctions being hamstrung. If, in dealing with this sort of dispute, individual administrators face difficulties not only with the editors whose behavior is being investigated but also their fellow administrators, it's unsurprising that the dispute seems intractable, and is going to end up in ARBCOM's lap. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Neither SchroCat nor Cassianto meets the formal requirements for a RTV; SchroCat's actions were being discussed here, and Cassianto is under infobox probation. I would be fine with IAR RTV, if that is implemented with the understanding that they are truly leaving, and would explicitly not be eligible for a clean start. SchroCat's use of an IP suggests this isn't really the case, and that's unsurprising to me; if you've been invested in this community for as long as SC has, walking away isn't easy. And for the record, I do not want either of them to leave; they're fine writers, and will be missed. But we should not be letting them "walk away" in a manner that may make things worse in the future because they cannot resist the temptation to return, but aren't able to do so in a legitimate way; at the very least, we need to make it clear that if they were to return, they would have to create an account and disclose the connection publicly. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Guerillero

My only thought is that JzG's close ran in the face of the consensus of the admins there. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:57, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Bradv: I don't think this rises to the level of a whole case --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Maxim: there was also the review in 2016 --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 19:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333: this would be easier to believe if one of them wasn't editing as an IP within hours of vanishing. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
    Can one of the arbs collect the CU data for both SchroCat and Cassianto and either post it to ArbWiki or CUWiki so they can be identified in the future? SchroCat is already a double clean start and was IP socking. I CU blocked Cassianto about 5 years ago for editing while logged out to avoid scrutiny. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:34, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Sluzzelin

In my opinion (as a mere observer of info-box disagreements for more than a decade), any debate on info-boxes should be ignored by the entire community of editors. In most cases, the relevance of including or omitting an info-box is low. Good editors are wasting time and energy on something insignificant, but that doesn't mean they need to be punished for their exasperation. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:53, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

See also Wehwalt and Davey2010's comments. Was this really worth it? ---Sluzzelin talk 20:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Moneytrees

I'll wait for other statements before I get into deeper specifics, but this has been a rather aggressive, tense dispute with many noticeboard visits over the past few months. I highly encourage arbcom to look into it. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 23:03, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

  • @Bradv: I think this does rise to the level of a full case. This has been an issue that the community has not been able to resolve through discussion and AE, and I think these disputes will continue even if this one had died down a bit. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI! 15:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Kingofaces43

Barkeep49, it's not really clear from your initial comments, but what is the issue being presented here that needs ArbCom? JzG closed the AE because the main subject was blocked and made no other sanctions that would have to be "overridden". If any admin felt someone else involved needed to be sanctioned through DS, they simply just need to do so and do not need AE consensus to do that. If anyone felt more discussion was needed to fine-tune a specific sanction on another editor, there's nothing stopping you or anyone else from opening another AE focused on the editor(s), and that's probably a better more focused option anyways to piece apart multi-editor issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Barkeep49, to be more clear, I'm wondering why you feel that principle applies here (and hopefully give arbs something even more pointed to address)? That might apply if the close dealt with more than the named subject of the AE or if I-82-I wasn't sanctioned and you thought they should be. Right now, only I-82-I sanctions would fall under the dismissing principle if that had happened. No one else's behavior was the subject of the close. At least from my read of the comments, it looks like you inadvertently set yourself down a slippery slope thinking you couldn't act. JzG's close looked pretty standard in the sense of the named editor has been sanctioned, other issues in the subject can be dealt with separately if warranted. That's how AE has always worked when multi-party issues come up that don't get a sanction all at the same time, which is why I'm finding some logic presented here at odds with how AE normally works.
Simply because the behavior of others was mentioned (and how often is it not?) in an AE request, that does not mean a request being closed against the primary named editor gives immunity to those other potential problem editors in the subject that were not addressed in the close. Editors just need to a bring a separate case focused on the specific editor if they feel DS enforcement is warranted. The infobox drama is foreign to me, but I agree it looks like there are problems outside of I-82-I. If that is dismissed, then the principle applies there for reopening. Otherwise, this approach is setting up problem editors to say their behavior was already "dismissed" at AE citing an early tangential request not focused on them where they were discussed.
Also, none of the above matters if you personally feel as an admin DS should be enacted as AE isn't needed to do that. Even if a request was closed as no action, you can later look at the (assumedly) partial evidence on the other editor(s) there while taking in other background information to place a sanction. "No action" is the default of every admin the moment they are made aware of a potential issue, so there's nothing to really override there (kind of a null hypothesis problem). The dismissing principle seems to be focused on reopening requests rather than making a no action decision on periphery editors (relative to the AE request) prevent future placing of sanctions. If arbs really do intend the latter, especially when it's not the main subject of a request, then it would be good to clarify. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Gerda

Please offer a minute of silence, and think about if anything of this matters. Jerome and I were friends from 2010. We disagreed on infoboxes about composers (not about compositions), but always respectfully. Amendment request: let's forget about sanctions, and imagine any comment came from a friend who has good intentions. I believe that if we all did, these unholy wars were over. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I reinstate the comment. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

The AE report-in-question had morphed into something it wasn't suppose to be. The individual who was the topic of that report, was blocked. PS - Can't we get back to the ongoing RFC at old Blue Eyes? GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Am I being too bold in recommending that this ARCA request be rejected? GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, so now two editors have retired over this infobox stuff. I hope they return or un-vanish soon, which ever name they choose to reappear under. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf (re Infoboxes/AE)

With regards to the general issue of consensus at AE would be to establish a principle that while a consensus is not required to act, administrators may not unilaterally act contrary to a consensus if one does exist, nor close a discussion in a manner that prevents other administrators from acting in accordance with that consensus (e.g. closing as "no action" if there is a consensus for action, or closing as "action" when there is consensus that no action is required). This would not compel admins to act - if they disagree with a consensus they may express their view in the discussion or simply leave it for some other admin. (I am explicitly not opining here on how this relates to the specific discussion in question). Thryduulf (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Ritchie333

In case anyone is interested, I have been contacted off-wiki by SchroCat and Cassianto, who have both decided to quit the project and courtesy vanish, which I have enacted. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:56, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

I reject the suggestion that vanishing can be used to avoid scrutiny; to that end I have blocked the IP in the section below for blatant sockpuppetry. Furthermore, in my view Cassianto and SchroCat should now be considered de-facto banned, and I will support any admin who feels the need to enforce that view with blocks. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 05:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@MJL: I'm not sure I understand your concerns entirely, but I keep coming back to this seminal piece of work : "One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia." Specifically, while I have tried to work with Cassianto, I am utterly sick and tired of the way he dishes out personal attacks to other people yet complains vociferously when somebody does the same to him, and really wish he could just ignore people. Furthermore, I once blocked Cassianto for edit-warring and personal attacks; I got abuse heaped on my head and the block reversed by another admin about three hours later. So, you might think I haven't maybe taken as strong as action as I could have done in order to keep the peace and avoid being called an "abusive admin", but I feel in this instance, blocks and sanctions seem to cause more problems than they solve. As Vanamonde has said, and as you suggest here, increasing temperature and sanctions at WP:ARBINFOBOX2 doesn't seem to have done any good, and the community in general is at a complete loss for how to proceed. The RTV was a way of trying to remove them from the project with the minimum of fuss and with their full agreement; it was never intended to be a "get out of Arbcom free" card, and if they think this is a mechanism for them to "lie low" for a bit and come back editing as if nothing had happened without anyone's concerns being addressed, well more fool them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: As per User:Ritchie333#One revert guarantee : "Admins, if you think an administrative action (including, but not limited to protecting or deleting a page, or blocking a user) is not an improvement, just undo it." Do you want me to revert the RTVs? As I understand it, both Cassianto and SchroCat have scrambled their passwords and won't be using those accounts again (though I can't prove this). By "good standing" I simply mean they were not blocked or banned at the point the action was taken. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:38, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: I won’t be able to get to this until probably Tuesday; I’m away for a long weekend at the mo and need an hour in front of the computer with no distractions so I don’t mess up. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
@Joe Roe: I can't revert the vanishing of SchroCat, as it complains the name clashes with Schrocat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (note the lower case 'c'). Can you (or anyone else) offer further advice? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
@Maxim: Okay, thanks, I've reverted the RTV on SchroCat. I'm currently working on the assumption there is no consensus to RTV SchroCat (as two Arbs have objected) and there is a possible consensus to RTV Cassianto (as one Arb has objected but one has not). Before doing anything else, I think it would be helpful if more Arbs gave their opinion on this so the action taken has a more accurate reflection of what would be considered best for the encyclopedia. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by PackMecEng

I have to say I was surprised by the vanishing given they are named parties in this, with one being considered specifically for sanctions. Also I think the deletion of their talk pages are probably inappropriate as well. PackMecEng (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by OID

Ritchie I am going to quote parts of WP:RTV with some bolding and will leave it to you to justify the amazingly stupid decision to RTV two editors currently involved in an arbitration request.

"A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return"
"for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits"
"When there is no administrative need to retain the information, a permanently departing user"
"It is not a way to avoid scrutiny or sanctions."
"Vanishing is not a way to avoid criticism, sanctions, or other negative attention"

So you have extended vanishing to two people who RTV explicitly calls out as not being eligible for the courtesy. You have deliberately made it harder to identify their contributions in the middle of an arbitration request, which is nothing short of disruptive and a disgustingly offensive slap in the face to editors who have been on the recieving end of their past actions which led to this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by MJL

Am I the only one getting some weird Déjà vu here? It's kind of freaky. Either way...

Cassianto had a significant editing restriction placed against him. While SchroCat was also restricted, I can see a charitable interpretation may say he was in good standing as it was only a pretty weak account restriction which only requires him to disclose future accounts.
Cassianto, though?
In this economy?

Users here were actively looking at his behavoir. Whether that was justified or not is another story, but at the very least HAL333 made a somewhat substantial accusations against him here. Looking at the AE request, it would seem other accusations were made against a lot of people (including SchroCat).
At this point, I think it's pretty dang clear that Administrative response to this contentious area was utterly poor. You have:

  1. Richie333 warning SchroCat about incivility but admitting he wouldn't take any action because it'd help ensure a no consensus RFC close and if he blocked anyone else he'd also have to block SchroCat for the obvious incivility.
  2. Richie333 filing a report against I-82-I who was in a dispute with SchroCat and Cassianto.
  3. Richie333 making this comment clearly stating he didn't want to deal with the drama of blocking Cassianto again and that he is involved.
  4. Richie333 courtesy vanishing Cassianto and SchroCat despite being involved (thus inadvertently allowing them to avoid scrutiny).
  1. Guy commenting that he felt: [t]he trajectory of the dispute is towards sanctionable behaviour but it's not there yet
  2. Guy replying to Masem with a soft anti-infobox editorial position.
  3. Guy closing the AE report with a one-sided sanction over the concerns of the other commenting admins.

Unsurprisingly, I don't think these two are the only ones at fault. While Guy and Richie are well known exceptional admins on this project, I'm not a fan of this kind of thing. Clearly if even our best admins are capable of messing up this poorly, then Arbcom needs to rethink its approach to Civility in the infobox disputes and arbitration enforcement. –MJLTalk 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I disagree with Richie's conclusion they are de facto banned. I find that would be incredibly unfair to both Cassianto and SchroCat and against the spirit of our banning policy. –MJLTalk 20:53, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: I think what you describe is a problem systematic on Wiki and that it wasn't right for a user to essentially complain and bully his way towards forcing you into unfortunate positions. I hope that makes more sense? –MJLTalk 18:15, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
Guy's proposed addition to WP:AE seems like a good way forward. –MJLTalk 00:27, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by isaacl

I disagree that an editor who has chosen to vanish can be considered to be de-facto banned, even if they return. A request to vanish is a voluntary request to superficially disassociate the requestor's edits from their user name. The remedy for returning is to reassociate their edits. Sanctions may or may not be warranted for other reasons, such as evasion of scrutiny or previously imposed restrictions, but this has to be determined by community consensus or through its delegated authority (such as via enacted policy). isaacl (talk) 14:52, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

@Levivich: what you're describing is a clean start. Vanishing is about disassociating oneself from all previous edits, and isn't necessary to perform a clean start. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by We hope

The last 2 infobox cases really only scratched the surface of the issues. They did nothing permanent (restrictions lifted) about those who believe infoboxes are necessary to respiration, leaving those who believe life without them is possible to fend for themselves. The pressure produced pushback but it seems as though those who need to push back are viewed as the villians most of the time; those who instigate the issues don't seem to receive their rightful designation.

I began cutting back work here in 2016 because of the disruptive nature of the disputes. At the time of the last case, I no longer did text work and dumped hundreds of bookmarks for expanding & beginning articles. My only mainspace work since 2018 has been as favors to editor friends since I have no interest in working in an environment where only one side holds sway.

Two of those friends have now vanished. One was unjustly accused of editing thereafter (an apology would be nice). The other has been revived for some obscure reason; no longer here ought to be enough.

The infobox problem can be solved in one of two ways-the editors can leave-in ways other than being blocked or banned-saying "to hell with this place"-or enough decision-making people can obtain sufficient backbone to come up with a ruling which fully recognizes more than the pro-box side. We hope (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Levivich

To take one example, one of my complaints about SchroCat was the (ab)use of OneClickArchiver to shut down a thread. Cassianto's last edit was using OneClickArchiver in this manner. While vanishing might be out of process because both editors are parties to this ARCA, I think I agree with Ritchie and WP:OWB: vanishing resolves the issue. As new accounts, if they use OneClickArchiver in this manner, they will be sanctioned quickly; no one will defend them or ignore it. So if they come back as new users and are disruptive, that'll be easily dispatched; if they come back as new users and are not disruptive, then it's win-win. Either way, problem solved, with little or no further editor time needed from arbs, admin, or anyone else. Lev!vich 17:35, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dave

We've lost 2 fantastic editors who have done nothing but put hard work into our articles, Wikipedia will now be worse off without them. –Davey2010Talk 18:34, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment by Wehwalt

As usual staying out of the merits of any infobox discussion, but I will say this. SchroCat and Cassianto have earned the right to leave in the way that they desire, if that is how it is going to be. People casting around for reasons to deny them this, when one doesn't pan out going to another, doesn't have the best appearance.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:56, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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

Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • *sigh* I'll do my best to refresh myself with the situation and respond presently, but I will just note that one thing does stand out to me and that is Guerillero's "Ok, Boomer" comment. That was not Ok, especially for an admin who is dealing with a case as uninvolved, in an area that has a specific Arbcom case titled "Civility in [the area]". WormTT(talk) 09:19, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    I am sorry that I simply haven't had the time for Wikipedia recently and so have let a few things slide. I just want to note publicly the unpopular opinion that I agree with RTV being offered to these editors. I can extol for a while about why RTV is such an important part of any online community, it is a fundamental right to be able to leave something that is not good for you. However, invoking "RTV" and then instantly returning as an IP address is not vanishing and only goes to erode people's confidence in such an important right. I would fully support undoing the vanishing in such cases.
    As for the underlying dispute, it does appear to be a bit of a storm in a teacup, with some explicitly problematic features. I'm not sure that a full case per bradv is needed, and I'm sick to the back teeth of infoboxes - but I'm certainly willing to consider it. WormTT(talk) 14:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I understand why this request has been filed, and I suppose that in principle it is possible to appeal from an AE closure that didn't sanction one or more editors. That being said, I can't recall any time when we've granted that type of appeal, and I'm not sure this is a sensible place to start. I followed the discussion on the collapsed Sinatra infobox, and one thing that seems to have collapsed there, hopefully temporarily, is the level of civility. However, the logical remedy if this appeal were to be granted would be to direct that the AE thread be reopened. With the temperature on Talk:Frank Sinatra having cooled, and several of the disputants having stepped away, I think that could be counterproductive. If problematic infobox-discussion-related behavior resumes, on that page or elsewhere, a new AE request can be filed and the past behavior can be considered in the context of any ongoing issues. I hope this will not be necessary—and I hope that this hope is not ... hopeless. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Barkeep49 and Vanamonde93: I note JzG's comment above, which I read to mean that he wouldn't object to someone imposing sanctions against one or more of the other editors who were being discussed before the AE thread was closed. But, if you felt authorized to do so, what sanctions would you seek to impose at this point and against whom? In considering this with respect to any specific editor, you might wish to consider, among other things, whether the editor promised to step away from the dispute several days ago, and whether the editor has kept that promise. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Barkeep49 and Vanamonde93: To be clear about one thing, the fact that an editor isn't sanctioned in one AE discussion doesn't mean that that behavior can't be taken into account as part of a pattern if there is a later discussion. Maybe that would be true if the discussion concluded "these editors are absolutely innocent," but that was hardly the conclusion anyone reached here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • AE is intended as a place to request intervention from an uninvolved administrator. While consensus discussions certainly happen on that page, it is not a forum designed to settle disputes between administrators, and so it is appropriate that this matter has been brought here. With regards to the underlying dispute, I am considering whether to propose a new case to investigate the conduct which led to the AE request, the conduct at the AE thread, as well as this related ANI thread, or whether we can solve this with a couple of motions. Given the level of disagreement that exists between enforcing administrators on how best to handle this, I am leaning toward the former. – bradv🍁 15:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ritchie333: I'll second Joe's request that these two accounts be unvanished, as they have both been caught editing logged out after their disappearance. I'm also disappointed that their requests to vanish were granted unilaterally, given that they both have active ArbCom sanctions and were being discussed here. As for my ideas above about opening another case or set of motions, we can probably put them on hold at this time. – bradv🍁 15:14, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
      • @Ritchie333: I appear to have been mistaken about Cassianto. Technical evidence has revealed that Cassianto has not been caught editing logged out, and that the edits in question actually belong to a different logged-out editor. Please just reverse the vanish of SchroCat, not Cassianto. – bradv🍁 01:23, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Newyorkbrad that it would be perhaps odd to grant an appeal on whether to overturn a lack of sanctions. I'm uncertain on whether we need a case. My first reading of the request and surrounding pages was that there was a lot of disagreement between enforcing admins and overall an atmosphere that could charitably be described as trainwreck. That said, should we open a case, it would be third (or fourth if counting review) on infoboxes since 2013, and I'm not sure if that would do much good. I have a few questions:
    • Both infoboxes cases (1,2) each recommended a community wide discussion on infoboxes. Did this happen? (I'm unable to find anything, but perhaps it's because I'm trying to search for something on the scale of WP:AHRFC.)
    • Are the current remedies effective and/or readily enforceable at AE? From the 2013 case, the restrictions, which were only individual editors, have been rescinded. From 2018, we generally have infobox probation and a DS regime.
  • If a case were to be opened, I'm not sure what alternatives we would have if "bespoke"-type sanctions are ineffective or difficult to enforce. While I can only speak for myself, the best alternative I can thinking of is a modified infobox probation but more as a topic ban from any infobox-related (no discussions, no adding/removing, only exception is to add an infobox when first creating an article), imposed on named parties to such a third case. Maxim(talk) 19:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
    • I would suggest that if this continues to be disruptive, and the community declines a discussion, that we reopen the case, and see if one of the other suggested remedies can get a majority. The panel of arbs is different, and I can imagine a few possible alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
  • In the context of an enforcement request that covers the behaviour of multiple parties, a "no action taken" result for one or more parties, where deliberate, should be explicitly mentioned in the closure rather than remaining silent on others mentioned. This is to make it clearer that the closer adequately reviewed the behaviour those parties and specifically chose not to take an action, while also signalling the closer felt sufficiently uninvolved to decide not to take a action against any given party. Alternatively, they may have not taken an action because they felt involved with respect to any given party (that should be particularly noted as well). The proposed handling changes to make it clearer when an enforcement request extends to look into the behaviour of other parties, or to allow an administrator to implement a partial action (severed from the discussion of other parties) look appropriate as well. –xenotalk 18:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
  • Ritchie333 I don't think those vanishing were a good idea. Apart from this ARCA, both SchroCat and Cassianto have active editing restrictions and a long history of blocks for disruption. I don't see how either can be considered "users in good standing". SchroCat's should definitely be reversed per WP:RTV, since they haven't actually left the project. But I would also suggest Cassianto's is too. These are accounts and talk pages that the community needs unobfuscated access to, even if they have ostensibly stopped editing, to monitor further disruption. It will be unnecessarily difficult to enforce your de facto ban otherwise. – Joe (talk) 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333: If you don't mind reversing both, yes I think we should, since Cassianto has also now returned to editing as an IP and invalidated the good faith assumption behind WP:RTV. I can also do it myself, but I've never done a vanishing before so might mess up some of the technicalities. As you prefer. – Joe (talk) 08:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
    It seems the apparent Cassianto IP-sock was someone else. I still think his RTV should be reversed, though, on the basis that he really wasn't eligible for it to begin with @Ritchie333:. – Joe (talk) 06:25, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333: Thanks. I agree that what we have here is a lack of consensus about Cassianto's vanishing. But I also don't think it's particularly an ArbCom matter, so maybe the best thing to do is to ask for outside opinions at WP:AN? – Joe (talk) 15:44, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I'm not really opposed to the RTVs of either user; if this is what helps them disengage, particularly from conflict areas, then the vanishing does more good than harm. Ritchie333, if you do intend to reverse a vanishing, you need to override AntiSpoof, which you should be able to do as a global renamer. If you still intend to reverse either vanishing, let me know which one(s) and I can attempt it myself. Maxim(talk) 12:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)


Amendment to arbitration procedures: prohibition of multiple roles

Motion adopted Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Based on the outcome of the community discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, the Arbitration Committee procedures are amended by adding a new Section 1.6, providing:

To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators.

For this motion there are 14 active arbitrators, so 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted - Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 16:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


  1. This amendment would implement the outcome of the recent RfC, in which there was a community consensus that arbitrators should not concurrently hold these additional roles. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  2. per RfC WormTT(talk) 17:55, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  3. Per the RfC. Katietalk 18:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  5. bradv🍁 19:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  6. xenotalk 19:40, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  7. Maxim(talk) 20:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  8. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 23:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  9. per RfC Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
  10. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
  11. – Joe (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)



Arbitrator discussion and comments

Community discussion and comments

Requests for enforcement

Alexiod Palaiologos

User is blocked per WP:SOCK and per WP:NOTHERE as a normal admin action by User:Guerillero. EdJohnston (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
FDW777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Alexiod Palaiologos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff) :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 16:56, 14 September 2020 Reverts to replace referenced total with unreferenced total
  2. 16:51, 14 September 2020 Reverts to restore information with no verifiable connection to George Floyd protests. The killing of Rayshard Brooks is a separate event to the killing of George Floyd, the references provided make no mention of George Floyd, they do however say The fatal shooting occurred across the street from the Wendy's where Rayshard Brooks was killed by an Atlanta police officer last month
  3. 14:55, 14 September 2020. Reverts to restore unreferenced death toll of 40
  4. 13:30, 14 September 2020. Reverts to remove addition of " with a slave kneeling to him"
  5. 08:05, 14 September 2020 Reverts to restore "perceived" to the lead, removed in this edit
  6. 07:02, 14 September 2020. Reverts to restore unreferenced death toll of 40, claiming amending to a referenced total is blatant revisionism
  7. 09:29, 13 September 2020 Reverts to restore weasel wording, removed in this edit
  8. 20:52, 12 September 2020 Adds unreferenced claim regarding number of deaths
  9. 13:59, 10 September 2020 Adds weasel wording to lead
  10. 12:58, 14 September 2020 At Talk:2020 United States racial unrest in response to requests for references alleges but the actual number is correct without providing references
  11. 13:21, 14 September 2020 In response to a further request for references links to a Wikipedia article
  12. 14:47, 14 September 2020 In response to yet another request for references copies and pastes from a previous version (since Secoriea Turner and Michael Forest Reinoehl are included it's definitely not from the version of the article at the time of posting, since they were removed at 22:44, 13 September 2020) of the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests article.
  13. 14:58, 14 September 2020 In response to yet another request for references alleges The citations are clearly in THIS article, if that was the case there should have been no problem providing them, or adding them to the infobox when restoring the disputed, unreferenced, content
  14. 19:00, 9 September 2020 Adds unreferenced claim of 31 deaths to infobox at Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, despite the 31 claim being tagged as unreferenced in the article.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive270#Alexiod_Palaiologos. Technically was supposed to have been warned regarding referencing as a result of that complaint, however nothing appeared to have been done. That doesn't change the fact they were clearly aware their editing has been identified as problematic.

If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 20:16, 27 August 2020 .
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

The claim in 2020 United States racial unrest that 30 people have died during the George Floyd protest, and 40 people in total have died is unreferenced, so I removed one claim and tagged the other in this edit, explained on the talk page, both the edit summary and the talk page post explicity mentioning WP:BURDEN. Following an unjustified reversion by another editor in violation of WP:BURDEN, I amended the George Floyd total to a referenced figure here. They ignored this and reverted, can be seen above at diff dated 07:02, 14 September 2020. At Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed they constantly refuse to provide references while continuing to edit war their unreferenced total into the article. Objections to the total have been made by @Aquillion: here, @Slatersteven: here, @Dlthewave: here and here. We never get any references, instead we get directed to other articles (where the inclusion of certain incidents is disputed to begin with, or told to check references in the article, despite the fact that many references (small sample, others available) don't even mention George Floyd so can't be used to claim those deaths were part of the George Floyd protests, as Aquillion states Whether an individual death qualifies as part of this unrest is obviously a judgment call involving interpretation and analysis, so editors cannot simply add up what they personally consider deaths related to the topic and then list the total as a fact - it is original research. That was said before Alexiod Palaiologos even posted in the section, yet has been repeatedly ignored. FDW777 (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: the specific problem is the editor consistently adds unreferenced information, or uses references that don't mention George Floyd protests. It is not simply a case of adding together, it's adding apples to organges. FDW777 (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest anyone believing the figure of 31 is a referenced total for deaths during George Floyd protests looks at the references provided at 2020 United States racial unrest and Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests, and see just how many of them don't mention George Floyd (answer: LOTS). I suggest they also read Talk:2020 United States racial unrest#Unreferenced breakdown of deaths removed and the repeated failure to list the references that would confirm all 31 deaths were during George Floyd protests. FDW777 (talk) 20:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
@Alexiod Palaiologos: that you are still attempting to use Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests as a reference demonstrates you don't get it, and probably never will. You cannot use policy violating content from one article to prop up content in another article, especially when you and other disruptive editors continually edit war to add back policy violating content to the first article. FDW777 (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested


Discussion concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

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 Alexiod Palaiologos

Seems to be just a problem with the death toll. The death toll, of the George Floyd protests, is very clearly listed as 31, in the article Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests. The user in question who is trying to report me, is simply going onto that article, deleting information, then claiming that my edits (on 2020 United States racial unrest) are unsourced, (which they aren't, there is VERY clear sourcing in the article, 2020 United States racial unrest, which gives a complete breakdown of every death]]. The user in question has simply kept on removing my edits, claiming they are unsourced (which they are not, as I explained), and then wants me banned for edit warring? To be honest I am very confused, he seems to not understand that by reverting my edits, he is the one starting an edit war, not me.
I would like to add that this involves the death toll of the 2020 United States racial unrest, of which the George Floyd protests are a part of, so any deaths in the George Floyd protests are naturally included in the 2020 United States unrest, hence why it is so crucial to note that he is editing the Violence and controversies during the George Floyd protests with false information (claiming the death toll is 19, when it is clearly 31, another user there has cleared that one up) then using that as basis to claim my edits are incorrect. But a quick look at will show all the sources you need, meaning that the claim that my edits are unsourced, simply doesn't hold up. -User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I will stay in my section. User:Guerillero not a single bit of evidence as to why any kind of ban is needed, has been provided. If you actually look at the edits he's trying to get me banned over, it's simply me reverting edits where he randomly deletes stuff without explanation ([46] other users agree with me), or worse, where he randomly deletes my edits, then when I revert my own edits he accuses me of edit warring, which just makes no sense. This user is harassing me, constantly deleting my edits, refuses to talk in the talk section and is now trying to get me banned.
Also the only reason behind deleting my edits, that he ever gives, is there is not enough sources, which is completely false because all the sources are in the article, and have been provided by me. So I really fail to understand this user at all. On top of this, I can see that none of the people providing statements here are actually looking at the edits, just supporting banning me without any reason. If you look at the history of the 2020 United States racial unrest [47] you will see that at least half of the work in the article has been written by me. What exactly do you want to ban me over? This is getting ridiculous. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 09:28, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Also he mentions me removing an edit about the slave kneeling statue. In the very next edit after that I changed it from simply, statue with a slave kneeling, to the actual name of the statue (Emancipation Memorial). So that is a very misleading summary by him. [48], which of course this user fails to mention. So as far as I can tell, none of his lists of edits are legitimate concerns, except for the death toll, which I have explained with citations, and he simply replies with I'm not going to read that. Yes, the [[49]] does list 31 deaths, he removed the 31 deaths but another user added them back, so once again it's the same story of him randomly deleting information from an article and then wanting to get me banned over it. 31 deaths is clearly listed in the [[50]] article, as such 31 people have died, and the death toll is 31. SO WHAT DOES HE WANT ME BANNED OVER? He has gotten into edit wars with atleast four other users over this very same issue, can't he realise that he is clearly in the wrong? User:Alexiod Palaiologos 09:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (slatersteven)

This has been argued about repeatedly. At issue is whether or not you can add up separate sources to come up with an authoritative figure for an ongoing event. I do not believe this is complaint with either wp:or or wp:notnews.Slatersteven (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Note this also applies to deciding to add deaths that RS do not say are part of the protests.Slatersteven (talk) 17:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Socking at an AE should be an indef.Slatersteven (talk) 12:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Dlthewave

In my opinion, the problem is more about how this editor handles conflict in general than the WP:OR issue itself. I've interacted with Alexiod Palaiologos several times over the past few days in the 2020 protests topic area and their responses to legitimate concerns often devolve into personal attacks. In the death toll discussion mentioned above (permalink), they refuse to engage with the argument that we can't do our own calculations to arrive at the total. Instead, they state with apparently increasing frustration that "the citations are there" (none of the citations mention a total of 31) along with a personal attack Please learn to read before going on Wikipedia and deciding your own opinion dictates fact.

Just before this disagreement, I had warned them about uncivil comments at Talk:Kenosha protests. A few examples:

  1. [51] - Sarcastic comment about protesters, accuses editor of political bias
  2. [52] - Comparison to the Holocaust
  3. [53] - Accusation of "rewriting history", another Holocaust comparison
  4. [54] - Accusation of edit warring, going against consensus, spinning words and ignoring facts with no evidence whatsoever
  5. [55] - Accusation of using "own personal opinion" as consensus, along with yet another Holocaust comparison
  6. [56][57][58] - !Votes three times in the same discussion

Taken as a whole, we're looking at a pattern of refusal to engage in collaborative discussion along with a massive failure to assume good faith. This editor continues to demonstrate an inability to work with others in this topic area after multiple warnings. –dlthewave 17:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

No, put quite simply, I was countering your stance sounded by giving comparisons, as to how it is not a useful one. You suggested a random map of Kenosha as a useful image, and it was clearly opposed by several editors. There is no failure to assume good faith there, not a single bit, let alone this massive failure as you claim. And on another note, a talk section has no relation to edits I make on a separate article. User:Alexiod Palaiologos 20:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Alexiod Palaiologos: You've mistaken someone else's suggestion for mine; I was not the one who proposed the map nor have I voiced an opinion on it. Regardless, if you think that invoking Nazi Germany is in any way useful here, I rest my case. –dlthewave 21:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Alright, my bad in that case. The comparison to Nazi Germany was not chosen specifically, but as a look how ridiculous this guy's arguments are type of thing. And here the discussion here is not about a talk page but about edits in an article, where I can quite safely say that the user (who is reporting me) has no actual reason to report me and is simply deleting stuff from Wikipedia and getting mad at me for reverting it, then making false accusations against me (claiming that I have no sources when they are clearly stated, replacing actual sources with outdated sources which are no longer relevant). User:Alexiod Palaiologos 21:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (Fredericus Rex mein konig und herr)

Having read through the edits and talk section, I don't understand what the need is to ban the other user. Have a discussion on the talk section, and if you find that 5 other people are going against what you say, you are probably wrong in what you are trying to do. Note that Wikipedia policy does not require you to provide evidence for deleting unsourced material, but in this case material was clearly sourced. From what I can tell, attempts to ban user Alexiod, are due to user FDW777 being angry that he could not provide ground for deleting information from an article. Alexiod also seems to have a poor attitude when it comes to discussion, so my solution is to reach a consensus with other users on the talk page, not trying to ban each other.

  • User:Fredericus Rex mein konig und herr is CU-blocked as a sock of Alexiod Palaiologos. Guerillero, I think we're in indef-territory here, if you combine blatant socking with edit warring, a battleground attitude, a failure to write material based on reliable sources, and non-neutral editing. If the latter two claims are found credible, an indef-block, rather than a topic ban, is appropriate. Drmies (talk) 12:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Result concerning Alexiod Palaiologos

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


Cjbaiget partially blocked from New chronology (Fomenko) as a disruptive single-purpose account. Access to talk:New chronology (Fomenko) is not blocked at this time, as comments indicate that at least some additions have the potential to be turned into usable content albeit perhaps with better sourcing. Non-AE action, not logged. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Request concerning Cjbaiget

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Cjbaiget (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 12 March 2020 Example of an incorrect statement at the talk page of the article, see below
  2. 13 March 2020 After being shown that the above statement is incorrect based on a RS, stated that the source is wrong, see below.
  3. 18 September 2020 Addition of doubtful material based on a blog
  4. 18 September 2020 Restoration of the above material
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 16 September 2020 partial block from Talk:New chronology (Fomenko) for personal attacks in the course of discussion of New Chronology
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Ds alert
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Cjbaiget is a user with less than 100 edits at the time of filing this request. All these edits are related to New chronology (Fomenko), which is a fringe pseudoscientific theory. All their edits try to promote the theory, to show that its adepts have academic credentials, and its critics were cited incorrectly and in fact did not claim what the article states they did, or at least that the New chronology is not universally rejected by the academic community, but only by some scholars (this is a very indicative edit). They started by posting wall of texts at the talk page; currently the whole talk page is filled by these walls of texts. Where other users could check them, these walls of texts contained incorrect statements, for example this edit said they believe that Fomenko never claimed that Rome was founded in 1380. In 15 minutes, I was able to provide a reliable secondary source saying Fomenko claimed this [59]. Then they said they believe [60] that the date was taken by the source from Wikipedia. Most of the walls of text remain unanswered, because other users can not be expected to read all of them. Tho days ago, the user was partially blocked by Doug Weller from the talk page for (I believe) this personal attack. Having bludgeoned the talk page, they started to bludgeon the article. When today they added a material added on a blog [61] "to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication", I removed the addition citing WP:RS. After they have readded it [62] I felt we need a break from this user, hence we are here.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning Cjbaiget

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 Cjbaiget

Hello all, please excuse my brevity.

I am not directed at promoting Fomenko in any way. This wikipedia article is just the first place I came to learn about it in the first place, about three years ago.

Anyway, and having great interest in the application of Astronomy, Computing, and Mathematics to chronological questions, and after having read almost the whole opus, I became aware of several, blatant mistakes that this article contains from the point of view of these sciences, which I am able to discuss in the talk page, a thing that I tried with my best dedication, but failed to open any rational scientific debate.

As contender says, I have very few contributions, but more in the talk page than in the article, whose structure I have never tried to change.

Beign so few, my only defence are my contributions to both article and talk page, which I beg to be read an placed to scientific and objective examination.

I have been sanctioned two times: the first as a newcomer, I committed the blunder of naming another editor as responsible for deep errors that I understood as lies. The second, yesterday, after a veiled, non-offensive response to a demonstration of contempt to a length and elaborated explanation I tried to make in the talk page to another editor. Please check also.

I'm available at any time to answer about any and every of my conscious words placed in this encyclopedia, on which I log on with my real initials and surname. Cjbaiget (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

About 'incorrect' statement about Rome foundation please understand that both dates can be taken as correct: As Rome (according Fomenko) was founded in 1380, on a *previously existing city*, which of course, had a previous date. Which date refers to "foundation of the city of Rome?", to resolve ambiguity will be necessary a longer explanation which was not going to be welcome in any way. (This same remark was made in the talk page then, but ignored.)

Regarding first concern made by Doug Weller about "the sauce issue": When I reduced Sheikos' claim to singular, I had previously *checked* than he was the only author in his source. When I allowed plural to Martin, I had previously *checked* that he represented the view of two other "dendro-dissidents", as is quite obvious from his article.

Regarding first concern made by Eggishorn: Please don't attribute your perception of my actions to my own *already stated* motivation, clearly expressed in the edit summary: Relevant opinion from an *actual active scientist and archeologist* about the reliability of current dendrochronology, to put contrast to some wikipedist's opinion based on a 13 year old publication on the paragraph above, for which I have tried an amend accordingly.

Btw, Mr Eggishorn has accused me in another thread of "intellectual dishonesty". I have never been accused of any kind of dishonesty by a pseudonym, so I'm not going to answer there. I feel that it IS intellectual dishonesty to grab some cryptic recommendation about valid sources to actually propose from a pseudonym the CENSORSHIP of relevant information to the reader.

About my role in Wikipedia I'm forced to explain that: Negative feelings about my contributions can be traced back to *my very first non anonymous edit* "First Edit".. , which I had to make after having "*anonymously tried*". "not Spain, but Greece". to finally reflect the *previously unknown HISTORICAL FACT to editors* that war *was in Greece, not in Spain* , and that *I had to explain that thoroughly*, so them can be called later "walls of text" *to editor Doug_Weller in the talk page*: ""Simple Explanation"". . and later *this FACT was forced by evidence* to make its path into the article, being my edit immediately obfuscated by him, but retaining the core word: Greece instead of *WRONG* Spain. Talk page testifies also the fact that, after this fact was explained, Doug Weller suggested it could make sense to omit it from the article.

Bwt, what is the difference between a "text wall" and a fruitful scientific debate? Just that the former has remained ignored by some irresponsible editor.

This error had been present for more than 8 years in the article, and several 'serious critiques' outside wikipedia have replicated it. Is only thanks to yours truly, accussed of being some kind of "Fomenko Pusher" now at the stake, that this is not the case anymore. Wikipedia has a responsibility. All errors residing in this article *have been already documented outside wikipedia*, but I was not going to betray this project I still believe by not trying to raise awareness of them at the same time.

This is just the tip of the Iceberg. This article is unmaintained and tries too hard to explain *a parody* of an actual serious research, which can be true or false, but doesn't compare in anyway with what the article draws. I want to insist that, *this is not a controversy regarding historical matters*, but *a controversy regarding scientific matters*. This article needs urgent scientific supervision. My points are already explained in the talk page. This article contradicts several *scientific critiques of topic "New_Chronology:Fomenko"*. I'm not even interested in editing the article, something that I'm trying to do from a sense of scientific duty.

Having said that, I've to call the attention again to *urgent mature scientific supervision* to force *another systematically rejected edition of mine* which irremediably will have to be made in the end, the sooner the better *for Wikipedia*: ""Robert Newton had NOT explained"".Cjbaiget (talk) 21:19, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Testamentary reflections on Salvio's resolution:
1. My *very first contribution* is a counterexample to both accusations made to me: First perceived as tendentious, heavily opposed, then accepted as fact, after a now considered "NOTHERE" explanation on the talk page. Result: Wikipedia can correctly inform now to the world, after at least 8 years, the fact that war was in Greece, not in Spain. Contributions should be checked against facts prior them being accused of tendentious, to avoid themselves being tendentious.
2. How many savage indefinite blocks after NOTHERE considerations come after more than a year of supposed misbehaving? After admin Doug Weller knowing I was a newcomer from the beginning, why I didn't receive almost a warning when I was at time to avoid it? Isn't this part of his duties?. NOTHERE accusations come from the fact that contributions remained ignored, not for being irrelevant or abusive. Lack of previous warning is just symptom of me having swallowed a hooked bait.
3. Insistence of accusing me of tendentious edition should give a detailed list of those tagged as that (or perhaps a shortest list of those no tagged as that), so I can use them in the future to appeal the resolution of this trial. Also, as I only have 100 of contributions, list length is exactly the percentage of such editions, which is also informative to this end.

Cjbaiget (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by Doug Weller

My issue with this edit[64] is not that it is a blog (by an expert however), but that it is written in a way that appears to support Fomenko, or at least a missing 200 years which is, according to the source, used by amateurs to prove that the Roman Empire fell 200 years later than is claimed by mainstream historians and archaeologists. In fact the article specifically states "A common idea about why this should be so is that the Church of Rome added a couple of centuries to its age to gain legitimacy: in other words, a conspiracy of early historians." And "a conspiracy of early historians" links to our article on the Phantom time hypothesis, not a million miles from Fomenko's arguments.

Also, he wrote :"Nowithstanding this, some relevant figures from both the professional and academic archeological circles like Swedish archeology professor from University of Łódź, Martin Rundkvist, claim that "professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not a great science".[1]" Note the use of the plural in the same edit, "some relevant figures from both the professional and academic circles..." But then Cjbaiget's next edit has the edit summary "Source has a single author and doesn't claim to represent any syndicate of critics, nor has the credentials to do so. Erroneous and misleading use of the plural form amended." It's hard not to immediately wonder why the sauce for the goose isn't good for the gander. Doug Weller talk 18:50, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Dendro Dissidents" [1]

Statement by Eggishorn

Coming here due to discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#New_chronology_(Fomenko) and repeating some of what I said there. The Rundkvist quote was presented dishonestly in that Cjbaiget is using a only part of it to say something that is almost the exact opposite of what the original author meant. The full quote from that blog post is: Professional dendrochronology is still almost entirely a black-box in-house endeavour, that is, it is still not great science. Field archaeologists: when you saw your wood samples for dendro, get two samples and send one to the amateur community! They practice open data sharing." The "black box" Sundkvist objects to isn't scientific quality but data sharing. The rest of the blog post makes this difference even clearer: I mentioned published dendro curves. The rub here is that most dendro data are never published. They are kept as in-house secrets in dendro labs in order for these to be able to sell their services to archaeologists. So when the amateurs challenge the professionals’ opinion, all the latter can reply is “We know we’re right but we can’t show you how we know”. And that is of course an unscientific approach to the issue. . Cjbaiget used this source to support the idea that an expert in the field is saying dendrochronology is "not science". The very next sentence in the original quoted statement makes it clear that the expert is saying the exact opposite thing. There is no conceivable way that this truncation was accidental -- it was a specific decision of Cjbaiget. This use of a source to say something other than what the source actually says is a violation of, among other things, the WP:NPOV and WP:OR policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Cjbaiget

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I have to say I'm not sure AE was necessary here... In my opinion, what I'm seeing (basically, tendentious editing) is enough to justify a standard indefinite block per NOTHERE without the need for discretionary sanctions. Salvio 08:40, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Salvio. This looks like a bog standard POV-pushing WP:SPA. Block, or partial block, and move on. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

IP blocked as a non-AE action by Guerillero. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

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

Request concerning

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Ymblanter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Eastern Europe :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 19 September Commonting on a contributor (me), no on the substance (and making a false statement)
  2. 19 September Casting aspersions
  3. 19 September Casting aspersions, making an irrelevant argument
  4. 19 Septembe Casting aspersions
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 9 September 3 weeks block from Talk:Kyiv
  2. 31 August 1 month block from Talk:Kyiv, later lifted
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
two AE blocks, see above
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

After being partially blocked by Barkeep from Talk:Kyiv for massive disruption, the user continued disrupting discussions on talk pages, without making relevant argument and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me. This is currently a hot topic now, with a long of strong opinions from both sides, but contributions of this IP are really outstanding in this respect. I have provided only four diffs, mainly related to me, but most of the user's recent contribution are similar. I apologize for coming to AE twice in two days, usually I try to not overburden fellow admins with these issues.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Discussion concerning

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

My only statement is diff-- (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

p.s. Upon further thought, I think I will add this: I guess f an admin says the user continued disrupting discussions on [other] talk pages, without making relevant argument, it must be true (although my conversation, for instance with Leschnei on Talk:Kyiv (disambiguation), did seem constructive to me (<sarcasm> although probably I shouldn't have done any edits on Wikipedia:Lamest edit wars/Names and Wikipedia_talk:Lamest_edit_wars#Request_an_edit_on_semi-protected_page, because humor is a touchy subject for many</sarcasm>). When Ymblanter says and instead making comments on the motives of other users, mainly me - I guess he means my comments on Talk:Odessa, Talk:Territorial evolution of Russia and Talk:Kievan Rus' - I am sorry Ymblanter that you felt, i.e., that all my all comments were primarily about you (I did not wish to Wikipedia:WIKISTALK you in any way, and if you felt that way - I apologize to you). Looking at the diffs you provided, I do see that I was perhaps went too far in discussing your views/opinions, rather than your edits (and this is certainly not in the spirit of discussing content, and not the contributor, and for that I apologize to you Ymblanter and will strike those out). I also see how my comments might have cast an unfounded aspersions on you - and for that I also apologize, and, again, will strike them out.
pps. I think emotions might have been flying around on many sides after the tumultuous Kyiv/Kiev RM that I initiated couple of months ago, and as a result of those emotions, Ymblanter, you might have inadvertently also cast some unfounded aspersions against me that are blatantly not true (and honestly I wish you did not cast them), specifically I am referring to where you said stop making assumptions about my motives and views, including my political views. diff and therefore accused me of casting some aspersions about your political views - I have never said anything about your political views anywhere (because I myself find that totally inappropriate, i.e., everyone is entitled to their own political views and I never look down (or comment) on people for just being democrat/republican etc.). If you have a proof that I discussed your political views anywhere - please provide diffs. Otherwise, please strike those accusations out (I have already stricken my comments that you felt were casting aspersions against you, see diff, diff, diff, diff, because, as I said above, I do not want you Ymblanter to feel that i am wikistalking you or have any animosity whatsoever against you (because i do not)+.-- (talk) 21:46, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you-- (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • The IP has been CU blocked for editing while logged out to avoid sanctions and scrutiny --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 00:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


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 Shenqijing

User who is submitting this request for enforcement
Girth Summit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested
Shenqijing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced
Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture#Standard_discretionary_sanctions :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it
  1. 22 September 2020 Attempt to remove mention of pseudoscience from lead
  2. 22 September 2020 First revert to push through removal
  3. 22 September 2020 Second revert to push through removal
  4. 22 September 2020 Addition of unsourced OR / POV editorialising
  5. 22 September 2020 Third revert to reinsert OR/ / POV editorialising
  6. 22 September 2020 Fourth revert to reinsert a link (this is quite minor, but still a technical breech of 3RR)
  7. 22 September 2020 Indication that they have 'other editors coming to look at the page', suggestive of off-wiki canvassing.
  8. 23 September 2020 Moving conflict to another article with the addition of the same unsourced POV editorialising.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any
  1. 26June 2020 Partial block by RexxS from Brumby for edit warring.
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
Additional comments by editor filing complaint

Worth also looking at the discussion on my talk page, and at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. GirthSummit (blether) 05:33, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

  • Note that the edit warring against two other editors has started up again today at Traditional Chinese medicine. I believe this user is attempting to understand our processes, but their long, repetitive and difficult-to-parse talk page contributions (I suspect a language barrier), their apparent inability/reluctance to respond meaningfully to other people's talk page comments, their kneejerk willingness to revert, and what I suspect is a strong POV, mean that they should not be editing in this area. I would favour a topic ban from TCM (or perhaps alt med in general), and if they learn how to edit constructively elsewhere this could be appealed in six months. GirthSummit (blether) 12:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

Diff of notification

Discussion concerning Shenqijing

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 Shenqijing

Hello, I am trying to get a impartial opinion and seeing how to get someone with experience to come and mediate this page, before I do this I am looking at Wikipedia process to make sure that it is within the guidelines. I feel that there is a narrative on this page that needs to be balanced that is all. At no stage have I deleted the inclusion of the statement from Nature Magazine only included it's subject and why it was added to the Global Diagnostic Compendium,(ICD) by the World Health Organisation, please see this reference, Here is the citation from the document, "WHO has been avidly supporting traditional medicines, above all TCM, as a step towards its long-term goal of universal health care. According to the agency, traditional treatments are less costly and more accessible than Western medicine in some countries" and here is my eddits including the original Wikipedia article text, "TCM Recently has been added by the World Health Organisation to the global diagnostic compendium making this medicine more accessible and affordable to many people in need of alternative health care around the world. On the same token, it has been described as "fraught with pseudoscience", and the majority of its treatments as having no logical mechanism of action.[2] by many occidental eurocentric thinking medical practitioners and supporters". As you can see that the only thing that I am guilty of is pointing out how the article had three links to Pseudoscience enforcing a unbalanced narrative 2. requesting that the Critique section be moved to a more appropriate position rather than being in pole position in reference. 3, also adding a link for Chinese food therapy that was counted as a revert, 4 recording major edditing on the talk page, sumerising the article that I have supplied a link to, 4, telling the truth and being told that I have a extreme view and what I had to say was not well written, If you look at the history of the page one revert is actually the addition of the link to the Chinese food therapy wiki page. There was also another editor coming on to the page and rivirting the page without talking on the page. Have a look at the Talk on the page. . I would like to say that it is not hard in this case to look biased in this case and that I am not, as to bring Ballance back to this article I need to lean heavily to the opposite side to straighten it up to make it True. Amituofo🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼

Statement by Alexbrn

Noticed this editor at Functional medicine pushing for inclusion of TCM material (huh?).

The filing shows a strong pattern of disruptive editing which appears not to be abating. So yes, a WP:NOTHERE block or maybe a TBAN from TCM if it's thought they might be productive in other areas? Alexbrn (talk) 05:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC); Amended 12:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC) after experiencing a bit more of this editor: I think there's no hope.

Statement by Cullen328

The POV pushing in the 4th diff is so blatant and extreme that it calls the editor's acceptance of the neutral point of view into question. This was not a one time slip as the POV pushing continued. Editors who will not or cannot accept our core content policies must be restricted. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Shenqijing

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • Shenqijing, could you please clarify what you mean by "we have more eddtitors comming to have a look at this page" in Special:Diff/979815273? Who are these editors, how are you related to them, and how do you know that they are coming "to have a look at this page"? — Newslinger talk 08:09, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
  • The socking, partial block from Brumby, and now this leas me to believe that we really need a WP:NOTHERE block --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:59, 23 September 2020 (UTC)