Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

Arbitration​Committee

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

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

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

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

Requests for clarification and amendment

Use this section to request clarification or amendment of a closed Arbitration Committee case or decision.

• Requests for clarification are used to ask for further guidance or clarification about an existing completed Arbitration Committee case or decision.
• Requests for amendment are used to ask for an amendment or extension of existing sanctions (for instance, because the sanctions are ineffective, contain a loophole, or no longer cover a sufficiently wide topic); or appeal for the removal of sanctions (including bans).

To file a clarification or amendment request: (you must use this format!)

1. Choose one of the following options and open the page in a new tab or window:
   • Click here to file a request for clarification of an arbitration decision or procedure.
   • Click here to file a request for amendment of an arbitration decision or procedure (including an arbitration enforcement sanction issued by an administrator, such as through discretionary sanctions).
2. Save your request and check that it looks how you think it should and says what you intended.
3. If your request will affect or involve other users (including any users you have named as parties), you must notify these editors of your submission; you can use {{subst:Arbitration CA notice|SECTIONTITLE}} to do this.
4. Add the diffs of the talk page notifications under the applicable header of the request.

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

This is not a discussion. Please do not submit your request until it is ready for consideration; this is not a space for drafts, and incremental additions to a submission are disruptive.

Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment.

Requests from blocked or banned users should be made by e-mail directly to the Arbitration Committee.

Only Arbitrators and Clerks may remove requests from this page. Do not remove a request or any statements or comments unless you are in either of these groups. There must be no threaded discussion, so please comment only in your own section. Archived clarification and amendment requests are logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Clarification and Amendment requests. Numerous legacy and current shortcuts can be used to more quickly reach this page:

Clarification and Amendment archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122

Clarification request: Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.

Initiated by Ypatch at 03:49, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Case or decision affected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Iranian politics

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

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by Ypatch

Vanamonde93 (courtesy ping) sanctioned me with a topic ban for my involvement on the People’s Mujahedin of Iran page. I think Vanamonde is a good admin, and I do take responsibility for my flaws as an editor: I could have tried harder to put myself in the other’s shoes, could have tried harder to debate from a more objective perspective instead of nickpicking fallacies or flaws from counter arguments. I have since taken time off from Iranian politics, and really don’t plan to get involved with debating with anyone again or editing on this topic. I would just like to, from time to time, be able to comment on some talk page discussions. I do know a lot about this subject, and think I could help clarify some points citing the literature I’m familiar with, etc. That is what this request is about.

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.

Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.: Clerk notes

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

Indefinite Topic-ban from post-1978 Iranian politics, broadly construed.: Arbitrator views and discussion

• It has not even been three months since this sanction was levied, and the current convention is to wait at least six months before appealing indefinite topic bans; I am not seeing any compelling reason in the request to overrule or otherwise fast-track this. Primefac (talk) 08:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• I agree with Primefac. --BDD (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• What is our precedent about when a sanction has not been logged? Because that's the situation where in here - the sanction was clearly labeled as AE and the editor it applied to clearly understood it, but it wasn't put in the AELOG and I find the policy language confusing on the matter. My guess is that we just fix the missing log and proceed apace in this situation but want to ask that broader question first. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

  Since both the admin and affected user clearly understood, I'm fine fixing the log and reminding the admin. I'd like to think WP:NOTBURO can apply even to DS enforcement. (If either were party were not clear, however, this would be more than a bureaucratic matter.) -- BDD (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah BDD I think you have this right. I have been holding off further comment awaiting comment from Vandamonde. It looks like they were never formally notified, and the ping from Maxim below might be the first they're hearing of it though also their activity has been light recently. I am leaving them a talk page notice as that might generate some attention a ping did not. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

• I do want to note that Vanamonde93's original note did mention three months as a sort of cool-off period (for lack of a better term). In addition, as Ypatch's edits elsewhere seem productive and considerable, and the appeal is not bad, I'm willing to entertain this appeal, that is, not simply dismiss as too early. @Vanamonde93: I'm interested in any thoughts you may have on the appeal. Maxim_(talk) 19:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Requests for enforcement

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

SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

User who is submitting this request for enforcement

Mhawk10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 02:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

User against whom enforcement is requested

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

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

Sanction or remedy to be enforced

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)

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

2. 8 May 2022 Baseless accusations of "meatpuppetry"
3. 8 May 2022 Reiterating baseless accusations of "meatpupperty" and falsely accusing me of violating discretionary sanctions
4. 9 May 2022 Using an article talk page to falsely and baselessly accuse me of violating discretionary sanctions

Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any

1. 14 September 2014 User:SPECIFICO is warned that any such anti-community behaviour may lead to a site ban
2. 3 June 2018 SPECIFICO knows very well that rewording or attempting to summarize what may be existing content can be quite contentious and edit warring to retain this rewording or new summary is in no way "reverting to longstanding stable content". This was the second time in just over two days where SPECIFICO incorrectly claimed to be reverting to longstanding content or content that had consensus. That's two strikes. A third strike involving an article covered by discretionary sanctions will likely mean sanctions will be imposed (internal links transformed to notes for template reasons).
3. Previously given a logged warning for conduct in the area of conflict on 9 April 2020 by Seraphimblade (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) with the note that SPECIFICO is reminded that talk pages are for discussing article content, not contributors, and warned that continuing to make personal comments about other editors on article talk pages may result in sanctions.

Notes

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

• The user issued a discretionary sanction warning on the topic within the past twelve months on 17 August 2021

Additional comments by editor filing complaint

To provide context to the above, I have repeatedly asked the user to retract their accusations of meatpuppetry and they've refused to do so. This all spurred from my response to a request on WP:RFCLOSE in which I closed a discussion on the article talk page. SPECIFICO has repeatedly made false allegations that I am acting as a meatpuppet of Iamreallygoodatcheckers, refused to strike that characterization or apologize, and then baselessly made allegations on an article talk page that I violated discretionary sanctions by editing a page to which they clearly do not apply. It's frankly uncivil at this point and, while I am someone who generally enjoys wading through discussions and writing closing summaries of complex RfCs, this sort of uncivil behavior towards an uninvolved closer that stems from a content dispute in which SPECIFICO is a party has driven me here to request that the user be given a final warning on civility and casting aspersions in the WP:AP2 topic area.

@Space4Time3Continuum2x: I don't know how you are meatpuppeting the agenda of X user is to be read except to be an accusation that I am meatpuppeting. While I agree that an indef T-ban is excessive, I would still like an apology from the SPECIFICO for casting this aspersion against me and I would also like the user to be either given a final warning or to be put on civility parole. The rate at which these sorts of interactions occur in the AMPOL area are part of the reason that I have more hesitation when deciding to make RfC closures in the that area, even though I generally enjoy closing complex discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I accept your apology. I agree that creating #58 was not optimal its initial phrasing, though as I've explained on the article talk page, the close was written in a way that made it clear that there was no affirmative consensus for Iamreallygoodatcheckers's sentence to be included as written. I am happy to see that editors were able to come to an agreement on the content dispute following the closure of the discussion. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

To echo Nableezy, I don't think that an AmPol topic ban is the most narrowly tailored solution here. Out of the top twenty pages Specifico has made edits to, the majority have involved edits related to American Politics. If the issue that administrators see is a civility issue, then I re-emphasize that the user should be given a final warning and placed on civility parole. This would allow for the editor to continue to make productive edits in the topic area, while also allowing for a mechanism to deter future issues with civility with clear enforcement mechanisms should civility remain an issue. A topic ban, however, seems to be a bit much at this point, especially given the editor's lack of any sort of sanction or logged warning in this topic area since 2020. The editor has made a good-faith apology here and I think the editor would be willing to make a good-faith effort to remain civil going forward. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 01:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested

02:49, 10 May 2022

Discussion concerning SPECIFICO

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 SPECIFICO

As I've said elsewhere, I stupidly misused the term "meatpuppeting", which I later looked up and learned did not apply to this situation. However, I explained in some detail the concerns I had about what I feel was OP's undue endorsement of Chex' viewpoint on this issue both in the RfC close and in OP's subsequent creation at Chex' request of a redundant "consensus 58" incorporating the (IMO) flaws of OP's close, when there was no new consensus. So if an apology will resolove this, Hawk you have my apology for using that term "meatpuppeting". SPECIFICO talk 15:14, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Aside from reading that Ernie says, w/o evidence that I'm "sneaky" and that North remembers something unspecified from a decade back, as does G, I am not seeing anything sanction-worthy or anything regrettable aside from my misuse of MEATPUPPET, for which I've abjectly apologized. Frankly, the closer and Chex were rather unresponsive to a direct concern about the content and their editing of it and I thought trying to identify my concern (which I bungled after Hawk doubled down) was a better move than tying up editor resources by requesting a close review on a minor matter. SPECIFICO talk 23:21, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I hope everyone here actually follows the links and reviews the threads that show the content dispute referenced by @CutePeach: so as to properly evaluate its relevance to this complaint. (BTW, yes, WSJ is a corporate affiliate of the NY Post and yes that is a matter of mainstream concern, e.g. [1] [2]. Thank you, SpaceX, for providing context to some of the other discussion here. It's good example of why the context needs to be independently researched by all of us reading noticeboard postings, and I hope all assertions in this thread will be similarly scrutinized by all who care. SPECIFICO talk 14:52, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@Seraphimbade and El C: With due respect for your volunteer efforts, I am at a loss to see any documented basis for your repeated assertions that I am habitiually uncivil let alone that my contuing participation at AP articles is or would be disruptive to article content or talk page collaboration. We all presume you are not merely counting heads on this thread or taking at face value various assertions without thoroughly investigating the context. Checkers self-describes a young and inexperienced editor, so nobody should be surprised that he has at times been overly insistent on talk page threads in ways that have been pointed out to him by various editors, not just by me. I've given him some good advice on other modes of pursuing his views, and he has adopted some of what I'v'e told him in the past. In the present case, I would have hoped that you Admins looked on his talk page when he commented here. His misunderstanding of WP:TE and the confusion between Sealion and WP:Sealion that led to him mistakenly accusing me of attacking him have been fully hashed out. Yes when he was starting out here,he was IMO sealioning and tendentiously repeating views after they'd failed to achieve consusus. I advised him on that on at least two occasions and explained to him how he could use sitewide noticeboards like BLPN and Close Review to ensure that his views were fully considered. On the occasion he As I told him, I had no intention of reporting that for enforcement. I would be disappointed if either of you Admins, in light of the context, would conclude that going to his user talk to raise that issue away from the article pages was unusual or outside of WP norms or agree with his feeling that I was threatening him when I made a point of telling him I was not going to seek enforcement. Looking at that TE thread he cites in his comment below, please consider, Admins, whether you agree with his asssertion that I did not identify the TE, when I twice stated that it was due to his having gone to the article as soon as the RfC ended, to reintroduce the text for which his RfC sought and failed to get approval. It turned out later, evidently, that Checkers was not aware of the full text of [WP:TE which I then quoted to him on his talk page and for which he thanked me.

At any rate, after Hawk's complaint was amicably resolved between the two of us, this thread now appears to be turning to undocumented assertions of a serious ongoing problem. The two most active and experienced AP content editors who've commented have disagreed with that view. Of course Admins have the authority to sanction in the DS areas without waiting for an AE filing, but the community expects such actions to be based on documentation and reasoned evaluation. AE has been an acknowledged work in progress for the community, with Arbcom well into the second year of working on improvements. Along with the necessary sanctions on clearly bad actors, there have also been too many questionable decisions that have led to the retirement of some of our best content editors in the AP area after overly aggressive and poorly reasoned applications of DS.

Reflecting on the valid portion of the concerns raised here, I think it's clear that (due to IRL reasons and time pressures beyond the scope of this discussion) I have been too careless in my use of links as shorthand for specific complex issues. I misused WP:Sealion instead of Sealion. I referred to WP:TE to an editor who apparently was not fully aware of its text, and I misapplied WP:meatpuppet intending the incorrect meaning that's already been explained and now resolved. So If I were an Admin closing this thread, I would warn SPECIFICO not to rely on links on another user's talk page without also giving a detailed explanation of the issues and why I feel they apply. In my opinion that would be constructive advice worth giving and following. I don't expect to comment further unless I'm asked to respond to a question.. SPECIFICO talk 14:43, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick further comment concerning the participation of Mr Ernie here. Ernie was banned from participating at AE by @Sandstein: in this diff due to behavior similar to what he's done in this thread. Sandstein later granted Ernie's appeal based on Ernie's statements that he would not repeat such behavior and further that he did not even intend to participate at AE, here. Ernie regularly appears at various pages to support sanctions against me, but given the above, I was surprised to see him appear on this thread at AE, with off-topic disparagement ("sneaky") and the several comments about me and Assange. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers

I have been interacting with SPECIFICO for some time now (mainly at Talk:Donald Trump), and while much of it has been fine, I have definitely experienced some of SPECIFCO's uncivil behavior. I've usually tried to give them the benefit of the doubt and just ignore it, but their uncivil behavior has in fact caused me some deal of anxiety and frustration, which has created a toxic environment in areas surrounding American politics.

The following comments concern this discussion: User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers/Archive 2#WP:NPA at Trump talk. On March 4th they left an accusation on my talk page with no sort of evidence, such as diffs, accusing me of violation WP:NPA. I responded saying that I had done not such thing. In that same thread, Mr Ernie warned them about providing unevidenced allegations. SPECIFICO made no response to mine or Ernies comments. On March 6th, SPECFICO accused me of WP:Casting aspersions, this time providing this diff. [3] Now this is a response I had made on the Trump talk page after SPECIFICO had accused me of WP:SEALION, a redirect to WP:Civil POV pushing, here. [4] With this diff SPECIFICO, says that I casted aspersions and assuring the links (WP:SEALION and WP:Civil POV pushing) are not the same. Now these links very much are the same, just click them if you don't believe me. I and Mr. Ernie again told them to stop with the behavior and that SEALION is the same as Civil POV pushing. SPECIFICO only admitted they were wrong about SEALION and Civil POV pushing after Valjean explained to them that they did in fact cite WP:SEALION against me. However, SPECICIO continued to say that "the problem remained," and that I was sealioning from their understanding. They did not provide any evidence to back these allegations, a fact that is pointed out by Ernie in the discussion. I never have received any form of apology or comment striking (after my request) for SPECICO's false allegations against me of NPA. Relevant diffs: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

SPECICO has done this to me again just this week on my talk page (see User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers#WP:TE at Donald Trump). They accuse me with no evidence of any kind with WP:TE and "overly-insistent and POV editing at AP and BLP articles." They say they are "unlikely to do the work to document" my behavior, which I see as justification on their behalf of providing zero evidence. They also say my behavior is "worthy of a topic ban" in their view. I tell them to please stop with their behavior and that it's caused me stress and created a toxic environment. I have yet to receive any response from them. As detailed above by Mhawk, they have also accused me and Mhawk of meatpuppetting together, an allegation with no evidence. All this is WP:Casting aspersions and potentially WP:HOUND. Relevant diffs: [11] [12]

Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:54, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

At SPECIFICO's request, I'm linking this discussion that provides further context on some of concerns above. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie

SPECIFICO violated DS at Julian Assange, another politically charged article, a few weeks ago. There is a section on their talk page with the details of that here. What I want to highlight is one of the reverts ([13]), removed content that was decided by RFC consensus just a few weeks ago, with SPECIFICO's participation. Note the RFC was required in part due to SPECIFICO's removal of the content before the RFC. Read the edit summary in the removal after RFC consensus - "NOTNEWS - not a significant fact about Assange No ongoing coverage in his life story." This is a sneaky move to remove content they simply just don't like, and SPECIFICO didn't seem interested to explain it in the linked discussion on their talk page. I don't think another final warning will do any good here - just check the sanction log. In addition to what the OP linked, SPECIFICO received a short topic ban from Joe Biden in 2020, a short topic ban from Julian Assange in 2020, a reminder and a warning in 2018, "Anti-Filibuster, Courtesy in reporting, No personal comments, and Thicker skin sanctions" in 2018, a restriction in 2017, and a warning in 2017. A standard AmPol2 topic ban should do, and I'll support the removal of it when SPECIFICO simply agrees to edit more collaboratively. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:46, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

A few months ago SPECIFICO disputed content at Assange ([14], [15], [16]). There was a lengthy talk discussion which resulted in consensus for inclusion ([17]), but SPECIFICO insisted on an RFC in this section [18]. The RFC ran and concluded with consensus for inclusion, despite SPECIFICO canvassing noticeboards ([19] [20]) with a note disparaging participating editors. You can see the same type of behavior in my original post, with SPECIFICO forcing an RFC for content they don't like, and a few weeks after it closes with consensus SPECIFICO removes the content, again, ([21]) with a misleading edit summary. There are no reminders or warnings that have lead to any change in editing behavior in at least the last 8 years (noting NYB was on the Committee in the 2 cases linked below where SPECIFICO was sanctioned.) We've seen it over and over and over and over, disagreements on content that lead to personalizations of disputes. I don't understand why a preventative topic ban should not be imposed, which can easily be removed after an appeal by SPECIFICO addressing the issues that have been brought up. Another warning is easily ignored and requires no change of behavior. I urge consideration of a topic ban at least at Assange if there is no appetite for an overall AP one. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Is more time needed before this can be closed? Or more diffs, or what? It's been more than a week, with 5 admins in favor of a sanction of some sorts and 2 who are not. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Sideswipe9th (SPECIFICO)

I don't have much to add, only that I believe this ds/alert issued by SPECIFICO could be construed as reactive to the content dispute between SPECIFICO and Mhawk10. Also from what I can tell, the 1RR/24-hour BRD page restriction point is erroneous with respect to Talk:Donald Trump, as having checked the enforcement log entry that sanction only applies (as far as I can see) to the main article and not the associated article talk pages. From what I've seen elsewhere in the enforcement log, when an article and its talk page is subject to sanctions there is usually some text like Article Name and its associated talk page which is absent in this log entry. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Space4Time3Continuum2x

Seems like a spat arising from a content dispute between two of the most active editors on Donald Trump that could and should be settled among the editors involved. (The content dispute appears to have been solved for now, with none of us getting our preferred versions.) Meatpuppeting — I don’t think that applies, but the term seems to be directed more against Iamreallygoodatcheckers than Mhawk10 who got caught in the middle of the dispute. The suggested indefinite topic ban from American politics seems over the top. I don’t see the relevance of two sanctions in other areas eight years ago, or how this is worse than this incident of disruptive behavior which resulted in zero action. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Adding context to the warning on June 3, 2018, FWIW. I doubt that any editor other than Winkelvi would have taken that interaction to the noticeboard after a discussion lasting exactly one hour (well, maybe D. Creish, banned from all Wikimedia sites since March 2019 and one of the other editors involved in the edits from this one to this one, would have). Winkelvi racked up 13 blocks between 2014 and 2018, including an indefinite one in November 2018. Their request to unblock was denied in 2019. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 13:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: FYI: The Wall Street Journal, through its parent company Dow Jones & Co., and the NY Post, through its parent company NYP Holdings, are owned by the same third party, Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. That makes them affiliates. A few sources explaining "affiliates": [22], [23], [24], [25]. Whether or not that needed to go into the article and whether or not it was sourced or needed to be sourced is a different matter but that's been taken care of through normal editing by several editors at least eight months ago. Apropos bias, this, really? Three sketchy sources reporting on a story in the Daily Mail (it's on WP's deprecated sources list) and a misquoted fourth source. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@CutePeach: If I had been involved in that article, I would have immediately challenged, i.e., removed, the section on not one, but two opinion pieces written by a member of the WSJ editorial board, citing WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:NPOV. The WSJ editorial board is well-known for its right-wing political stance, and their news side has been upset about it for years (CJR, NYM). The statement that the WSJ is a NY Post affiliate was unsourced but challenged material is removed from WP all the time through normal editing. Hushed-up — seems to me that there was plenty of coverage, just not the 2016-kind hoped for by Bannon researcher Maxey, Giuliani, and the NY Post, the immensely reliable parties involved in the lack of a "clean chain of custody" (WaPo). Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 12:17, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Valjean

I agree with Space4Time3Continuum2x that an indef topic ban is way over the top, and such old incidents should not be entered as evidence. The real issue is civility, and a warning is justified. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:48, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I support the concerns from Mhawk10 and Nableezy. An AmPol topic ban is over-the-top, whereas a civility parole would deal with the real problem. Considering the apology has been accepted, we're in a situation that amounts to the police dropping all charges, but the judge still issuing a death sentence, rather than a fine (a civility parole). One should also keep in mind that previous accusations made by one of the most tendentious editors we've seen in the AmPol area, who has been banned, should not be counted against SPECIFICO. We should never side with the bad faith accusations from such people. Being attacked by such a person is a badge of honor that shows that SPECIFICO must have been doing something right, rather than wrong. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by North8000

I've not had interactions since many many years ago. But back then was similar to the above. Including IMO false accusations as a tactic in AP debates. Something to lessen the grief for other editors and help SPECIFICO Wiki-evolve would be good. North8000 (talk) 21:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

A statement to sincerely work towards a goal of always wearing a wiki-hat (not pov-hat) first when working at articles, and being sure to only make firmly justified complaints about editors (never ginned up as a tactic in debates) would be cool and maybe set a course for a more fun future. With no implication that those negative things occurred, and just a goal so that it doesn't create a minefield for SPECIFICO. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment by GoodDay

FWIW what exactly is an AP topic ban? I assuming it's American politics. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by Nableezy

Theres been an apology, the apology has been accepted, the person who requested sanctions says an indef topic ban is over the top, but thats what is seriously being discussed below. That is the cause of this complaint has been resolved according to the person who opened it, and they say the proposed sanction even prior to the apology was overkill, and yet that appears to be what yall going to settle on. Seems a bit extreme. Just a wee bit. nableezy - 20:41, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Statement by CutePeach

I encountered SPECIFICO when I created Hunter Biden laptop controversy to separate the issue from the Biden–Ukraine conspiracy theory article, and I was less than impressed with this editor's deletion of WP:DUE content [26] [27] [28] - while an AFD was ongoing [29]. I found SPECIFICO's interpretation of WP:BLP and WP:NOR to be highly egregious in the TP discussions [30], and they led to the deletion of the page, which has since been restored. Furthermore, their repeated attempts to call WSJ an "affiliate" of NY Post and TP arguments to put this unsourced allegation in wikivoice - was not only a violation of WP:NOR, but also WP:RS. I refuse to believe that an editor as experienced as SPECIFICO was unaware then, as he seemingly is now, of such core policies and how they are applied. As harsh as the topic ban may seem, I think this incident and those mentioned by Mhawk10 and Mr Ernie, show that this editor is unable to leave their POV at the door when editing AP articles. I think an indef topic ban from AP may be what is required to communicate to experienced editors that such conduct can and will be sanctioned. As a valued member of the community, I'm sure SPECIFICO's appeal will be accepted after six months. CutePeach (talk) 10:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

• I do hope everyone here does reads the links I referenced, as SPECIFICO advises, since they show a flagrant violation of WP:NOR in order to WP:PUSH a POV about the Wall Street Journal. The Washington Post article SPECIFICO now references to justify the allegation they put in Wikivoice - that the WSJ is an affiliate of the New York Post [31] - is not only a violation of WP:NOR, but also WP:SYNTH. I completely agree with the WaPo article about the WSJ pushing the letters-to-the-editor boundary, but it has nothing to do with the Hunter Biden laptop saga,and it does not call into question the WSJ's editorial independence. SPECIFICO's position on Hunter Biden laptop controversy page, just like their position on the Julian Assange page, was widely opposed, yet they went against it - and continue to justify it. As I previously stated, this demonstrates that the editor is unable to edit without including their unsourced POV, and this warrants sanctions, or at least a logged warning - to prevent this from happening again. If admins Newyorkbrad, Bishonen and Seraphimblade are just going to let this slide, then this is evidence of administrators enabling the Ideological bias on Wikipedia through selective enforcement of WP:PAGs, which can be cited in a WP:ARBCOM case request on this matter. I will be interested to observe how administrators enforce policy with editors from the other side of the aisle facing the same charges. CutePeach (talk) 04:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

  @Space4Time3Continuum2x: I am well aware that The Wall Street Journal and The New York Post both belong to Newcorp, making them affiliates by any dictionary definition, but that is not the issue. The WP:OR and WP:SYNTH problems were in the way SPECIFICO presented their unsourced claim to discredit a WSJ editorial board member criticizing the media's lacklustre coverage of the controversy. SPECIFICO violated WP:OR and WP:SYNTH in three ways: 1) claiming in Wikivoice that what the WSJ editorial alleged was but a Fox News allegation, [32], 2) injecting the insourced affiliation claim in Wikivoice to temper the Jenkins criticism [33], and 3) deleting the section entirely [34]. As I've said before, I personally don't believe there to be anything very nefarious in the Hunter Biden's laptop/s, but the way the media hushed it up only fanned the flames of controversy, and efforts like SPECIFICO's attempts to confound this controversy with the conspiracy theory have damaged Wikipedia's credibility on the subject. The VanityFair article they rely on for the affiliate claim cannot be used for any statements of fact in our voice, [35] and it had no bearing on the Jenkins oped, which came out months later. To claim that WSJ editorial board isn't independent of its proprietorship is an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim that needs very robust sourcing, and SPECIFICO should have known better. If they persist with these shenanigans, we are going to be right back here, and very soon. CutePeach (talk) 00:29, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Result concerning SPECIFICO

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

• Beyond what Mr Ernie and Mhawk10 mentioned, SPECIFICO was sanctioned in Austrian economics and mentioned in Interactions at GGTF (both in 2014). It is clear to me that the only path forward is an indef topic ban from AP. --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 17:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

  We can move forward without any action, but I have a strong feeling that we will be back here having this very same discussion in a few months -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:36, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Topic ban isn't the cure. In fact, since DS should only be used when regular sanctions aren't sufficient, I don't see a need for DS sanctions at all, since civility is the issue, and it is an ongoing issue everywhere, not just in AP2. It's not a daily thing, but the civility issue has cropped up a few times over the last year. I think something needs to happen, but in a general way, as the issue transcends AP2 and is wiki-wide. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  I see the long-term pattern being around things that can be connected to AP in one way or another -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  If you are confident it does tie to AP and a tban is warranted, I understand, however, I still think starting with an indef is a bit harsh for a pattern of incivility issues that (individually) has been insufficient to warrant a block. I DO agree that something needs to be done, not for this single incident, but for the pattern that has evolved over the last year. Frankly, I was thinking a 30 day block, but a 6 month tban may work. SPECIFICO has been here awhile, long enough to know better, but has also done some worthwhile work. I'm willing to defer here, but prefer something shorter than indef. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

  • I'm still of the mind that a short block could be warranted, but I still can't see an indef tban as the best solution. Arguably, it is already settled and no sanction is required, but if the consensus is to sanction, a block is the only thing that really makes sense to me. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

• I admit I'm not terribly active on AP so it's taken me several days to dig through the background here, however, insofar as I read the history I'm inclined to agree with Guerillero on the utility and justifiability of an indef TBAN. Working our way up from 30- to 90- to 180-days, etc., would be punitive in my estimation by meting out a "sentence" in the absence an objective reason to believe a specific time period is necessary. An indefinite ban merely acknowledges this is a protective, not a judicial, measure and the editor can freely request to have it lifted at any time in the future, whether that's next week or next year. Chetsford (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• Concur with @Guerillero and Chetsford: indef AP TBAN is probably best at this point. Dennis Brown, similarly to Guerillero, in my experience, AP has been the nexus behind most problems concerning SPECIFICO. But I could also see myself supporting a well thought out appeal in, say, 6 months. Also, similarly to Chetsford (and for similar reasoning), I am generally opposed to TBANs that have a precise expiration, which of course has nothing to do with SPECIFICO themselves. El_C 19:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
• I think we've about reached the point here where we can say that warnings have not been ineffective, and so some action is needed. It seems the general consensus is for an AP topic ban, and I would agree to that. I do not generally like time-limited topic bans for the reason given above, though in this case I would certainly be willing to consider an appeal after some time has passed; "indefinite" need not mean "permanent". I do not agree with the above that, since other editors are uncivil, we should not do anything about individual editors who are being uncivil—indeed, perhaps if enforcement were more frequently done, we would start seeing that practice curbed. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

  I will, with some reluctance, agree to not imposing a topic ban at this point, given that the issue has been resolved. However, I will entirely endorse what Newyorkbrad had to say regarding the future. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 19:02, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

• Although SPECIFICO should be more cautious about her use of wiki-speak in making accusations, and better still should just stop making accusations against other editors period, I cannot agree that a topic-ban is warranted resulting from this incident, which has been resolved to the satisfaction of the editor who filed the report. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @SPECIFICO: If you are not topic-banned at this time (the outcome is not yet determined), please conduct yourself going-forward in a way that doesn't lead to your being well-groundedly brought back here, because the result next time might well be different. We have several experienced administrators above opining that you should be excused from the American politics topic-area based on the accumulation of prior incidents, and while I currently disagree with them, it's understandable why they might feel that way. Please do your best from now on to stay away from even the borderline of what might be considered personal attacks or accusations. At times this is best achieved by stepping away from the keyboard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
• I agree completely with Newyorkbrad. Bishonen | tålk 21:38, 15 May 2022 (UTC).

Nableezy

Withdrawn by filer. Bishonen | tålk 07:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC).
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This request may be declined without further action if insufficient or unclear information is provided in the "Request" section below. Requests may not exceed 500 words and 20 diffs (not counting required information), except by permission of a reviewing administrator. Request concerning Nableezy User who is submitting this request for enforcement Triggerhippie4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 19:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC) User against whom enforcement is requested Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Search DS alerts: in user talk history • in system log Sanction or remedy to be enforced 1RR: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Palestine-Israel articles 4, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Palestine-Israel articles Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it [36] First edit [37] 1RR Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any [38] If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts) Previously blocked as a discretionary sanction for conduct in the area of conflict, see the block log linked to above. Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, WP:AELOG/2021. Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 15 May 2022 Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months, on 11 May 2022. Additional comments by editor filing complaint Turns out I made a mistake starting this. I didn't fully understand what 1RR means. Thanks for explaining, hope I will not forget it again. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested [39] Discussion concerning Nableezy 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 Nableezy I have made one revert. Triggerhippie4 has made one revert. One of us has discussed their edit on the talk page. I leave as an exercise to the reader to find out which one of us that is. nableezy - 20:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Mhawk10 The one revert rule allows for no more than one revert to be made to an article within 24 hours. The above diffs appear to show one revert, and my scrolling through the page history only shows one revert. I don’t see a bright-line 1RR issue. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by Selfstudier Apparently a frivolous (or else pointy) filing. Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC) Statement by (username) Result concerning Nableezy This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above. No violation. Triggerhippie seems to have misunderstood the 1RR restriction to mean that not even one revert may be made. No; such a restriction would be called 0RR. Nableezy has made one revert, which does not violate the restriction. I'm not going to recommend a boomerang, but I'll point out that Triggerhippie filed this case about an hour after Nableezy posted a discretionary sanctions alert for the PIA area on their page. Was there any connection, Triggerhippie? Also, I'm not sure that a 4-month topic ban from 2010 is what I'd call a "previous relevant sanction", though YMMV. Bishonen | tålk 21:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC). I note that Triggerhippie has to all intents and purposes withdrawn this report, though without answering my question about Nableezy's DS alert. Never mind, it was pretty rhetorical anyway; IMO, it's obvious that Triggerhippie was inspired by the DS alert. Bishonen | tålk 07:38, 16 May 2022 (UTC).