Page semi-protected

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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:

Contents

Requests for arbitration

Requests for clarification and amendment

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 17:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Special:Diff/850648652
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.


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
  • The above restrictions as amended on the 17th of July 2018.
  • Remove page creation and page move restrictions.


Statement by Crouch, Swale

Can I have my page creation and page move restrictions removed please. I have made more improvements to article as was pointed out in the previous review. I have expanded User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and also created User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. I realize that it is important to create articles which are notable and have a good amount of content. At User:Crouch, Swale/To do I have identified pages that need creating, although not all have been identified as being notable, thus I won't necessarily be creating them all. I therefore suggest that as I have had these restrictions for a year now, I should have them removed with the same conditions as the July removals (per WP:ROPE), that they can be reinstated if needed, although I don't think that will be needed. I have discussed with Euryalus (talk · contribs) this appeal to get advice, however unfortunately Nilfanion (talk · contribs) hasn't been active here since July. My priority is to finish of creating the missing civil parishes in England, of which I should (at least for the villages) be able to add location, distance, population, Domesday Book, name origin, surrounding parishes and church. I have contributed sensibly to naming discussions, although I have had a few disagreements, I haven't received any warnings about it and the main purpose of RM is to discuss controversial (or at least reasonably likely to be controversial moves). I have also contributed (and initiated) some non-geographical moves such as Talk:Attention Seeker (EP) and Red Meat.

  • (reply to AGK) Yes I frequently make move requests to move an article and DAB, usually this involves moving "Foo (disambiguation)" to "Foo" and "Foo" to "Foo, Location" (example). Moves to move to "Foo (city)" are less common. I don't understand what the point about my question of the existence of a place is, my existing restrictions don't relate to that. Obviously some of the RMs have involved disputes since that's the main purpose of RM (as noted above) If I was making RM proposals that were always being closed as clear consensus to move, then that would be a sign that I should be boldly making those moves myself, not using RM. In response to the last comment, I would quite happily have a 1RR or 0RR with page moves, although I have never edit warred over moves anyway and wouldn't have a problem with such restrictions on any edits, but I don't have restrictions elsewhere so that's unnecessary anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (reply to AGK) If I am questioning the existence of a place then isn't that a good sign, people have often complained about the lack of sources and notability in my articles. Most of the time the DAB page is at the base name, see WP:DABNAME. Talk:Rothesay is an example of a move the other way round and the Noss move is moving to a different name (in this case calling is "Isle of Noss" rather than "Noss") The usual rule of WP:BRD would apply to moves I make, if a move is objected to and there is no agreement with me and the other person, then I revert the move and start a formal WP:RM discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (reply to Swarm) Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia. I removed the PROD with the reason that it should be merged. A prod can be removed by anyone, even without explanation, but I always either explain or improve the article if removing. It is not a case of you are prohibited from removing unless you immediately resolve the issues (see WP:DEPROD). You're reason "Not remotely notable enough for a standalone article and full of indiscriminate miscellany. The short paragraph at University of the West of England, Bristol is more than sufficient." in its self indicates it should be merged and not deleted. Since the content was already covered at the proposed target then converting it to a redirect (to target the short paragraph) would have been entirely appropriate. I then made an !vote to merge and a reply to the fact that I had removed the PROD, hardly stonewalling. In any case the article couldn't have been deleted via PROD anyway since it was unanimously kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UWE Students' Union, even though that was a long time ago (2007). Per WP:BEFOREC4 merging as suggested would have been better since it had been around for more than a dozen years, its quite likely that it would break external links, linking to it, which a redirect would take care of. If you'd asked me on my talk page to list it at proposed merges or help with the merge, I would have done so, I understand that I maybe didn't make it entirely clear what I was doing but I think opposing to removing the restrictions is inappropriate. I shows that I understand that there are alternatives to deletion (and creating standalone articles). Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was saying that the title should be redirected (instead of deleted completely), thus merged, the opposite of a spinnoff. I don't know enough about the notability guidelines in that area to say if the articles was notable enough to have a standalone article, but I do know that assuming it isn't appropriate to have a separate article it should be merged, not deleted. Also linked from the 2007 AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southampton University Students' Union which was closed as merge. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Beyond My Ken) I was not intending on keeping it as a separate article, just that it should be merged assuming its not notable. Usually WP:Notability is only about standalone articles, not topics that are merged into another. In other words I was saying that while I don't object to Swarm's point that there shouldn't be an article, I do object to deletion (completely), since merging/redirection is available/reasonable in this case. We would probably only delete if the parent article (University of the West of England, Bristol) shouldn't contain the content per WP:V/WP:NOT. As long as content on "The Students' Union at UWE" exists at University of the West of England, Bristol its a valid merge candidate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 15:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Reply to Beyond My Ken/Swarm) Yes I hadn't made a distinction between "merge" and "redirect", but as pointed out if the appropriate content is already covered in the target article (and the other content at the source article is unsuitable) then the source article can just be changed into a redirect. I think that appeared to be the source of the confusion here, where I was arguing that the source article should be redirected to the target article, but the relevant content was already there. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:06, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (reply to Swarm) Well I have made reasonable efforts to explain to you why I did what I did and removing a PROD as noted can be done by anyone, it is not a you must immediately resolve the issue. No indication that I should remain topic banned from creating pages (and I've never been banned from removing PRODs anyway). My conduct was well within the spirit and letter of our PROD (anyone may contest) and deletion policy (merge/redirection should be used if possible). Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (reply to Swarm) The principal of BRD applies more with deletion that other actions (since deletion can't simply be "reverted" by anyone, stricter conditions are generally in place for getting a page deleted than making a change to a page). In this case you boldly suggested deletion of the article, I removed that suggestion with a "watered down" suggestion that it be merged/redirected. This would likewise apply to page moves and creation. If I preform a move that is opposed it can be reverted and then discussed and that I should take on that feedback for similar cases. Likewise if I create unsuitable articles then I should take the feedback that I should not create similar pages without discussion with the user who questions them. In the PROD case you have feedback that such cases where a merge/redirect is useful, it should be done instead of deletion. Anyway my suggestion of 1RR or 0RR would surely address the potentially controversial moves. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (reply to SilkTork) Well I have has an entire year with the restrictions, which is plenty long enough. But if only 1 can be removed then I'd strongly favour the page creation, not the page move restriction. A missing article in my books is far more of a problem that an incorrectly titled one. I usually only take pages to RM that are controversial/disruptive (or are uncontroversial but don't know the correct target etx) so the number of unsuccessful RMs is not necessarily a good indicator. Those that aren't controversial I have been waiting to have the restrictions removed to preform myself. For example it would be possible to send 100 blatant attack pages to AFD and have all of them successfully deleted but that would be inappropriate since such pages should be speedily deleted instead. I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved. As noted I would be happy with a 1RR or 0RR with moves and/or an expectation that I revert any moves that are reasonably challenged. That restriction would be workable. So yes the number of unsuccessful RMs is not a good indicator because they are probably not moves that I would be making myself, this is because we are talking about moves that I thought were problematic/controversial/disruptive enough to go through RM V those that I didn't think were controversial. In response to "It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests." I actually think I have already done my most controversial move requests since its like removing a cork from a bottle under pressure, I hadn't been able to make such requests for years and suddenly could, thus I don't expect I will be making a significant number of controversial requests in the foreseeable future, although there will probably still be a few from moves that I think are too controversial to make myself. Also note that I was only formerly banned from geographical naming convention, not non geographical naming conventions. However I decided to stay away from it entirely because I wasn't happy with excluding myself from geographical ones and it would be easy to "step on the edge" of the restriction.
  • So lets go to the page creation which there hasn't been much discussion here. If the move restriction continued but I could still create new pages, it would be a pain since disambiguation is often needed of existing titles and while creating, I will also find articles that are incorrectly names (when checking missing articles that are only redirects, sometimes this is because an article is named incorrectly rather than it doesn't have a standalone article). My priority is the missing civil parishes in England. Civil parishes are legally recognized census areas and thus clearly should have articles. In this case a ban that only allows me to create civil parishes (current and former and the handful of equivalent Welsh ones than need articles/redirects) may be workable since there are still a large number. The inability to create other articles would still be a bit of a roadblock but it may be the least bad option, particularly if there is a way I can create other pages such as by asking an admin that I know or through the AFC process (see User:Crouch, Swale/Risga for example). What opinion do you have on this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (reply to SilkTork) I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%). Its the number of controversial undiscussed moves that I preform. Making requests at RMT might be seen as evasion if I did many, see Special:Diff/837050534 for example of a user who was banned from making moves. However I did make a few (6) and all were completed. IMO that anyway suggests that there isn't a problem there and I would be more likely to make a request that I thought was marginly controversial at RMT that making it myself since RMT involves another pair of eyes. Consider for example, you're an admin doing NPP, you come across 3 articles, the 1st is a blatant attack page, you can see clearly that it meets G10 and delete it you're self and add {{Huggle/db-attack-notice}} to the author. The 2nd is an article that appears to meet A7 but you're not sure so you tag it with {{db-bio}} and add {{Db-bio-notice}} to the author for another admin to assess. The 3rd has a credible claim of significance so you do WP:BEFORE and WP:PRD it. The same applies with move requests, some are clear that you can do you're self, others may be considered controversial and some are likely (like Noss) and some are clearly. As a further point if the move but not page creation restrictions are removed then shouldn't I be allowed to create redirects and DAB pages since they fit in more along with page moves than page creation since if I move "Foo" to "Foo, Qualifier" then "Foo" needs to become a DAB page.
  • Indeed I have created drafts in my user space, another one is User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish. However I thought that waiting until I can create the pages myself was more suitable as long as I created a few good ones in my user space. The new articles on civil parishes may end up clogging up AFC with many new articles that are clearly suitable. I was mainly thinking that could be used for other topics that may not meet out inclusion guidelines. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • (Reply to SMcCandlish) Well as noted the few RMT requests I did make all were done so the point about the ~30% failure rate at RM is still pretty irrelveant. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:44, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Well I have produced the User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish which is an example of a CP. CPs are clearly notable and WP should have had them all created years ago, similar to municipalities. I think it is unreasonable to continue the restrictions as is. Can we at least allow creating new CPs in mainspace please with the same point as before that it can be reinstated. @Opabinia regalis: Hartwell, Buckinghamshire, Willingale, Essex and Throcking among others. I think the suggestion about AFC would be reasonable for topics other than CPs. See Talk:Pembrokeshire#Geography stubs where I have asked if there is more coverage for User:Crouch, Swale/Sheep Island, Pembrokeshire. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork, Opabinia regalis, and GorillaWarfare: Most of the "failed" RMs have been closed as non consensus, not many have been closed as "non moved". In any case this isn't much evidence for keeping the move ban. I'd say that if we were to only count those that were closed as clear consensus against, it would be more like 5%. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork and Opabinia regalis: I don't see how this is viable or fair, I have numerous pages to create and just taking into account the current missing civil parishes, this would mean it would take over 50 years to create them all! I have not {{subst:submit}} to my drafts since I was waiting until I could freely create them but I don't think the current restrictions specifically prevented that anyway. I deemed creating a few in my userspace as sufficient. Why at least can't we exclude civil parishes from this? Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • SilkTork I understand that in the past I had many problems but I have continued and continued to change my behavior and become much more accepting and agreeing with the points made by others but unfortunately it never seems to be good enough. Doesn't the drafts that I have created and some of my other statements show that I have improved my conduct greatly since 2011. Its incredibly frustrating to still be denied after all theses appeals over all these years. Would you say that my expectations are not viable and it would be better to just get rid of me from the project altogether (and reinstate the sit-ban), rather than continuously having this that fails? I don't want to continue to push for something that isn't going to happen or will take ridiculously long. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13 and AGK: Well the drafts that I have provided in my user space are already this step or creating suitable content. I didn't ask for review at AFC because I thought that the few drafts were sufficient in this step. I even asked here prior to this about what I would do. I feel I have been hugely let down yet again. I have tried and tried to do as others have asked and it seems that its never good enough and I get denied time and time again. Why can't we except civil parishes from the article creation restriction? Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @BU Rob13: Yes I am willing to take this step. The question however is why weren't those steps suggested after the previous appeal? Why wasn't it suggested that I should get a number of articles created that way before? Anyway wouldn't you agree that User:Crouch, Swale/South Huish and User:Crouch, Swale/Risga are suitable? and demonstrate the ability to create suitable content. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @SilkTork and BU Rob13: Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general? That was one of the points of creating those drafts. That's the kind of feedback that would be helpful in moving forward but I haven't received any since July (although some of that will probably come from AFC), if I don't have any feedback then its far more difficult in working with the community in finding a workable way of creating the missing articles without disruption. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks SilkTork, the AFC should help with that, maybe I should also ask some projects for advice, for example Wikipedia:WikiProject Devon for South Huish and Wikipedia:WikiProject Scottish Islands for Riaga. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Nilfanion

Statement by Euryalus

Statement by Swarm

I have serious concerns about this user's level of competence, clue and ability to communicate reasonably based on recent interactions, so I'd advise against lifting the restrictions based on that. The user has needlessly and irrationally obstructed reasonable, uncontentious editing on my part. I had PRODed The Students' Union at UWE with the rationale that the subject was not notable and was already sufficiently covered in the parent article. This was, by all accounts, an uncontentious situation, but the user stonewalled attempts to have the article deleted anyway, first via PROD, when they apparently wanted a merge but failed to state any rationale or follow the proposed merge process, and then subsequently at AfD, where they continued repeatedly insisting on a merge, yet failed to, in any way, to present any argument against, or understanding of, my assessment that a merge was unnecessary due to the relevant content already being in the parent article. As an admin I often encounter this kind of obstructionism in users with problems with collaboration or OWNership, and this kind of conduct thoroughly discourages users, and if I were just some random newbie just trying to contribute to the project in good faith, and then encountered this kind of bizarre obstructionism from someone who won't even acknowledge my arguments, I'd probably be thoroughly disillusioned. My experience suggests a lack of ability to communicate and/or resolve disputes reasonably and effectively, and those are essential in the areas the user is asking to be unrestricted from. Regards,  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  23:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Having reviewed CS’s replies to both myself and BMK, I’m simply stunned at the surreal detachment from simple editing concepts.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  05:29, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm still wholly unsatisfied with the "word soup" the user's spouting, which shows no reasonable understanding of why their conduct was disruptive and unreasonable. I have even less faith then I initially did that the user can effectively understand and communicate during simple incidents of contention and/or dispute.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  07:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The user's defense has fallen on the procedural point that anyone can contest a PROD for any reason, showing no indication of clue as to how they impeded uncontroversial bold editing, which is encouraged as a matter of policy. The user admits that they simply wanted the title to be redirected to the parent article, which makes their insistence on obstructing an uncontroversial deletion in favor of a non-needed "merge" all the more bizarre. I'm going to stop responding, so as to avoid derailing this request, but I think it's quite clear that this user struggles with straightforward editing concepts, procedures, and acceptable practices. This lack of competence is unacceptable from a user who's requesting to be allowed to perform potentially-controversial actions such as page moves. Frankly I'd be more inclined to argue in favor of a tightening of restrictions.  ~~Swarm~~  {talk}  08:20, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Question from Beyond My Ken

I would like to ask Crouch, Swale to explain their statement:

Deleting an article that is already covered in a parent article is inappropriate and degrades the encyclopedia.'

It would seem to me that if it's already adequately covered in a parent article, there is no necessity for a spin-off article, and if there is a modicum of additional information, it can be added to the parent article. The only situation I can see is if there is a great deal of relevant information to add, at which point the subsidiary subject is in danger of unbalancing the parent article. Under those circumstances, a spin-off article would be appropriate but only if the subject of the new article is notable. Being part of a parent article does not automatically confer notability on the subsidiary subjects within the article.

In any case, I would like additional explication from Crouch, Swale concerning their statement. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Incidentally, just an irrelevant side comment: even though I know that "Crouch, Swale" is the name of a place (because I looked it up), every time I see the username, my first thought is that it refers to a law firm. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@Crouch, Swale: Thanks for the explanation, that wasn't at all clear to me from your prior statement.
I would note that a merge an d a redirect are not quite the same thing. In a merge, the material from the subsidiary article is added to the primary article, and then the subsidiary article is replaced with a redirect; no (or little) information is lost in the process. In the case of a redirect without merge, the subsidiary article is simply blanked and replaced with a redirect; any information in the subsidiary article which is not already in the primary article is lost. Thus arguing for a merge is not the same as arguing for a redirect. In the argument for a merge, reasons have to be brought up for saving the information that would be lost in a redirect, and also for the merging not unbalancing the primary article with too much information about a subsidiary topic.
As for you claim about not being familiar with notability guidelines in the area of discussion: how can you argue the notability of the subsidiary article, or the need to save the information in it, if you don't know what is and is not considered notable? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish

Re "If the [WP:RMTR] page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area": Just for the record, contested RMTR requests are often (perhaps in the majority) contested by non-admins; anyone can contest a speedy rename, in which case it goes to full RM discussion. It's more of a consensus thing than an admin judgement thing.

As to the request, I agree that a ~30% failure rate at RM is iffy. (I don't have any particular opinion otherwise; I don't recall interacting with Crouch much, and while I'm frequently active in RM discussions, it's not often about placename disambiguation.)

I'll also add that I learned the hard way (with a three-month move ban several years ago) that returning to manual, one-editor's-judgement page moves in the same topic area in which one's moves have been deemed controversial is a poor idea. It is best to use full RM process (or RMTR when it seems very unlikely to provoke any objection from anyone) in such a case, not only for drama reduction, but to actually establish a solid consensus record for the pattern being proposed for those articles. Even if some of the opposition seems to be personal rather than fact- or policy-based.  — SMcCandlish ¢ 😼  02:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes

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

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • You contribute to Wikipedia predominately on articles about "places".  Accuracy and oversight in this topic area is low, and I would not grant an appeal unless it was free of risk that you would not need your contributions heavily monitored.
  • You frequently request moves (eg Noss[1]) so that (i) the title classifies the place, eg SometownSometown (city) and (ii) the disambiguation page takes over the bare title, eg Sometown (disambiguation)Sometown.  These requests are governed by extensive rules (cf WP:PLACE) because each case is unique.
  • You also make editorial judgments about whether places exist or do not (eg Gluibuil, Shetland), which are important to get right. Wikipedia has had "places" articles that are wildly divergent from reality, eg location, or indeed document places that simply don't exist.
Your passion for this area is clear, and I note you have patiently borne these restrictions for a year.  I also sympathise with your comment in late 2017 that your singular interests make these restrictions taxing.  However, I would not loosen the restrictions simply because another year has gone.  And I am not moved to agreement by your submission here.  Your edits are large in quantity, but seem to generate more dispute than I'd like to see. How can we be sure it's safe to permit you the ability of moving place-related pages?  AGK ■ 14:08, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
point about my question of the existence of a place is – I think it helps us to understand the quality of your judgment as an editor in this topic area.
Thank you; but I understand what contributions you are making (eg renaming articles so that the place is disambiguated in the title). The point is that, so far as I can see, these contributions are not always helpful. Granting your amendment request would involve giving licence to do more of that. Would you please comment on this? AGK ■ 13:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
  • In order to minimise potential problems, I think if we are to lift restrictions we should follow the example of the previous appeal, and lift just one of the restrictions to see how that goes. As the restriction previously lifted was involvement in page move discussions, it seems appropriate that the restriction we should consider this time would be making page moves. In order to help us decide if this is the right time to be lifting this restriction could you give us the figure of how many page move requests you have started in the past six months, and the percentage (or number) of those that have been successful and unsuccessful. As you note above, it is to be expected that a number of those would be unsuccessful, but if that number is too high that would be worrisome because those would be moves that with page move restriction lifted you'd be doing yourself with, as AGK points out, little oversight because of the low interest in place articles and in page moves. The problem with making inappropriate page moves is that they can set a precedent - users tend to follow what is already there, so one inappropriate move can result in a number of new articles with inappropriate names. Now, the exact percentage of unsuccessful move requests you have made that individual Committee members may find acceptable is going to vary, though in my mind I have a figure of less than 5%. It's a small figure because the past six months have been your probation period when you would be expected to be extra careful, so I would expect you to be avoiding any potentially controversial page move requests. SilkTork (talk) 13:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Given that around 30% of your RM have been unsuccessful, I wouldn't be comfortable lifting the restriction on page moves. I take on board that RM discussions are for potentially controversial moves, but you could use the Uncontroversial technical requests format, given that you are unable to complete the moves yourself. If the page move admins agree with your requests 95% of the time, that would be good evidence of your secure judgement in that area.
As regards page creation - again, I'd like to see some evidence of successful page creation requests before lifting that restriction. The rules on your page creation do allow you to create articles in your own userspace, as you have done with User:Crouch, Swale/Risga. What I'd like to see, in agreement with other Committee members, is you utilising Wikipedia:Articles for creation to have these articles moved into mainspace. If we can see a period of you having a series of articles successfully transferred into mainspace that would be encouragement to lift your article creation restriction. SilkTork (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis The figure comes from Crouch, Swale: "I don't know exactly but I'd guess that around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", later "I would still say that the number of unsuccessful RMs is irrelevant (and its probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%)". SilkTork (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Crouch, Swale Re: " I don't see how this is viable or fair". That's not an encouraging statement for you to be making, as it indicates you are not yet understanding the community's concerns with your behaviour. This motion is the best chance you're going to get of having restrictions lifted, and even then it's likely to be a close call. Indeed, that very statement of yours is giving me pause for thought as generally we lift restrictions for people who show some understanding of the concerns that led to them having restrictions imposed. There is this sense in you of wanting things to be done your way, and seeing it as unfair if things are not done the way you want them to be. SilkTork (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I will not vote to lift any restrictions on this user. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
  • On the positive side, no one felt the need to re-impose the topic ban during the suspension period. For page moves - I'd agree that there's been more dispute than I'd expect about some of these requests, but SilkTork, where did you get the 30% failure rate on RMs? For article creation - the draft articles in your userspace look OK to me (knowing nothing about their topics) but I don't see much substantive content editing in mainspace recently (if I'm wrong, can you point to examples?) I'd prefer to see some examples of content development on existing articles before letting you start new ones. AfC is overloaded as it is, but I could also see allowing one submission at a time to AfC, possibly with a size minimum to correct for the past issues with very short articles lacking in context and covering questionably notable topics. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • At the present time, I'm not comfortable with lifting the restrictions in place. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm also curious where the 30% number came from, SilkTork. GorillaWarfare (talk) 01:39, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
It came from Crouch, Swale himself in his comments above. Crouch, Swale said: "around 70% of my RMs are closed as moved", then he later clarified that to: "probably lower than 30% anyway, maybe more like 20%". SilkTork (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
Ah, thanks! GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I see the page moving sanction as very minimal, simply requiring this editor go to WP:RM due to their demonstrably poor judgement in this area in the past. I don't see the rather high percentage of failed requested moves to be a shining endorsement that this sanction should be removed. As for the page creation sanction, I'm more open to its removal but agree with my colleagues that I would want to see a substantial history of successful drafts going through WP:AFC first. Decline from me. ~ Rob13Talk 00:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Right now, I don't see a compelling reason to entirely remove the restrictions, given the history. I do like OR's suggestion of one AfC submission permitted at once as a compromise between zero creations permitted and a flood of one-line place stubs. ♠PMC(talk) 03:23, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I would also support OR's proposal for one AFC submission at a time. Mkdw talk 05:19, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks SilkTork, I thought you'd found some kind of cool tool :) I don't think I can judge the success rate of RM requests just based on CS's self-estimate, without knowing either how accurate it is or what the baseline rate is for other participants. In any case I'm more inclined to ease the page creation than moving restrictions - having to get your move proposals reviewed is, as Rob says, a very light sanction. In the interest of moving things along, motion below on the AfC idea. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion

For this motion there are 11 active arbitrators, not counting 1 who is inactive and 1 who has abstained or recused, so 6 support or oppose votes are a majority.

The restriction on new article creations imposed on Crouch, Swale (talk · contribs) as part of their unban conditions in January 2018 is modified as follows:
  • Crouch, Swale is permitted to create new articles only by creating them in his userspace or in the draft namespace and then submitting them to the Articles for Creation process for review. He is permitted to have no more than one article at a time under consideration by AfC. He is permitted to submit no more than one article every seven days. This restriction includes the creation of new content at a title that is a redirect or disambiguation page.
  • The one-account restriction and prohibition on moving or renaming pages outside of userspace remain in force.
Support
  1. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. One per seven days seems reasonable. We can always readjust if it causes problems down the line. ♠PMC(talk) 00:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    ~ Rob13Talk 02:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. – Joe (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    This is a good offer, and I'd like to see Crouch, Swale take full advantage. I wouldn't be concerned at the occasional rejection by AfC, this can happen, especially as AfC are very precise in what they accept. SilkTork (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. AGK ■ 10:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  5. WormTT(talk) 10:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'm just going to re-affirm my support here. I'm willing to allow Crouch, Swale the opportunity to create articles and I believe the motion is a good option of 1 per week. However, I'm not willing to endorse, now or in the near future, large creations of articles by Crouch, Swale - in other words, I do not see me voting for a wholesale removal of restrictions in the next few years. @Crouch, Swale: to be clear, if your end goal is the creation of significant numbers of articles, I think you should find another hobby. WormTT(talk) 11:28, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  6. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose
  1. Letting this user back at all was a colossal mistake, one I will not vote to relax any restrictions on. Courcelles (talk) 20:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  2. The recent comments by this editor have convinced me to oppose. I don't believe the attitude displayed is consistent with a return to productive editing in this area. I'm very worried that it sounds like the desired "endgame" of this editor appears to be the rapid creation of about 1,000 articles in a narrow topic area. I don't think there's a true understanding here of why past behavior was problematic and why this Committee and the community are understandably hesitant to roll back these sanctions. ~ Rob13Talk 21:20, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  3. I too am concerned @Crouch, Swale:'s continued protests, particularly as the latest outbursts have come after I cautioned him regarding his attitude. I feel that BU Rob13's concern that Crouch, Swale is mainly interested in rapidly creating hundreds of civil parish stubs is correct. If we had evidence that Crouch, Swale could be relied upon to follow our inclusion criteria and find and read reliable sources appropriately and intelligently, that would ease our concerns, but he seems unwilling to do this (and a handful of draft articles and a note to a former arb are far from sufficient evidence); and I am reminded of the errors he made in this move request, in which he was relying on a distorted search of his own invention on a user-generated website to establish notability for a page title. SilkTork (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  4. I feel like doing this would be a huge net negative for the project, and a lot more work for our already overworked AfC volunteers. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Abstain
  1. The same issue arose in July 2018 where an easement process to lift sanctions in an incremental process was not willingly accepted by the individual. Editing is a privilege, not an entitlement or inherent right. When an individual's past actions have resulted in several blocks and sanctions as a result of disruptive editing, additional care and precaution must be taken to protect the project and limit the risk of further disruption. While undoubtedly frustrating for the individual, it is without question a situation of their own making. Comments like this one seem to undermine the willingness required to take responsibility for their past actions and adhere to the rules and policies that govern Wikipedia, including patience to try lighter restrictions in place of blocks and more severe sanctions. Mkdw talk 20:15, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    I am moving my oppose to abstain as the motion is currently held up by a procedural issue relating to the exact number of active-voting Arbitrators. Rather than waiting days for an activity measure to kick in, this will effectively allow the motion to pass by inevitable majority vote. Mkdw talk 15:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment
  • I was considering a motion along these lines, but with a restriction of one submission a month because the speed at which AfC moves we might be waiting for years before Crouch, Swale has enough submissions considered for us to make any kind of assessment if he's only allowed one at a time. At one a month the odds are better that in 12 months there'd be enough submissions either accepted or rejected for us to make a meaningful decision. SilkTork (talk) 10:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    That's not a bad idea. GorillaWarfare (talk) 15:51, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    I'd go even more frequent than that. At least seven days between submissions does what we want (avoid a flood at AfC) while being a minimal restriction on the activity of an editor creating high-quality articles. ~ Rob13Talk 18:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
    Well, if the concern is about the slow rate of progress through AfC due to their long backlog, we need a balance between CS getting some articles through and not overloading the queue. There are currently 1209 articles in the queue, and I don't see stats on average-time-to-review, but it looks like the oldest ones still waiting are about 5 weeks old. So once a month is closer to steady-state, but could actually be slower than "one at a time", guesstimating from the submission-time distribution on the AfC page that most articles are reviewed by 3-4 weeks. (In looking into this, not for the first time I find myself really wishing that AfC would start categorizing drafts by topic, but never mind...) I suspect that whatever rate we specify, articles will be submitted at close to the maximum (that's what I'd do). Given that 7-14 days seems reasonable, with no prejudice against another ARCA (or a community action) in the hopefully-unlikely event that the articles do end up failing repeatedly. Edited as above. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Crouch, Swale: It's important to acknowledge that these restrictions exist due to substantial disruption in the past. I understand you're trying to move past that, and I commend you for it. This isn't a permanent solution. It's a temporary one to give you an opportunity to show us that we no longer have anything to worry about. The alternative would likely be a declined appeal, since we don't really have a basis on which to remove the sanctions at this time. If all goes well for a period of time (6 months, say), I would certainly invite an appeal of this loosened restriction, at which point we could further roll this back. ~ Rob13Talk 06:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Crouch, Swale: Because passing articles through AfC isn't that extreme of a restriction and allows you to show there will not be disruption when we allow you to create articles freely. The fact that you seem unwilling to accept steps toward reducing your sanctions less than a full allowance to create as many articles as you wish is giving me pause. Your intransigent attitude here is starting to feel similar to the attitude that led to the initial ban, and I'm especially unimpressed with the victim mentality evident in your latest comment. Are you willing to try this as a step toward removing this sanction, or is this an exercise in futility? ~ Rob13Talk 19:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Crouch, Swale: I sympathise with your frustration, but agree with BU Rob13 above. The committee is cautious when peeling back sanctions. As I said to you at the beginning of this appeal, sanctions are not terminated merely because some time has passed. Please treat this motion as an opportunity to contribute in more ways than before – rather than as a set of extra restrictions or the granting of less relief from restrictions than you requested. AGK ■ 10:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Crouch, Swale: Rather like Boris Johnson just before the Brexit referendum, I am veering about in all directions like a supermarket trolley on this issue. On the one hand there is the possibility that you are just biding your time in order to unleash hundreds of civil parish stubs on Wikipedia which will need to be examined by someone to check if they are worthwhile; on the other is the possibility that you will be able to produce articles of merit rather than meaningless stubs. What is lacking here is solid evidence either way. At the previous request it was pointed out that simply waiting 6 months is not enough, that you would need to be providing evidence (such as that you understand article creation criteria and that you understand article titles). It is highly likely that you are a good faith editor who is not quite grasping what has already been asked of you, and you are truly bemused by this process. You were told last time that two examples would not be enough ("An appeal from you won't succeed if it's merely one or two examples of good conduct in each area. You will need to show that you have evidence of this over a number of months; not just amount but also consistency".) And yet that is what you are falling back on here. If you had a body of those civil parish articles in your sandbox to show us, all of which were securely cited to reliable sources and consisted of several paragraphs, then I wouldn't be hesitating. What you have to show us isn't enough, though, which is why I suggested we consider asking you to go via AfC. Given the lack of evidence it seemed a reasonable offer, but you have resisted the offer, as though we were in effect imposing more restrictions on you rather than allowing you to create an article a week. Now, my first impulse in response to your question ("Do you have any advice on the 2 drafts or my page creation in general?") was to suggest that you take them through AfC, and then I realised that by doing so you would be infringing your restriction. Which gave me pause for thought. We are caught at this point where we lack the evidence required to comfortably lift your restriction. But the reason we lack the evidence is that you haven't taken on board the advice from last time. If we do allow you to create articles via AfC, will you just submit the two you keep offering us, and then return in six months and request (or expect) your article creation restriction be lifted? Really, I'm not seeing a huge difference between allowing you to submit via AfC or you creating those articles in your sandbox, as both ways we'll end up with the evidence we need, except that by allowing you to submit via AfC you might feel more motivated, but an overworked community has to deal with your submissions. I'm still not entirely sure where I am with this because I am in favour of helping you contribute positively to the project, but hesitant about allowing you to waste the community's time. I am reflecting that by allowing this we are not allowing you to create hundreds of stubs, but giving you the motivation (and possibly enough WP:ROPE) to provide for us one way or the other enough evidence to make a more meaningful decision down the road. On the other I'm thinking this is another step towards edging off the lid of Pandora's box without you having done anything significant since your last request. My supermarket trolley is still pointing toward opposing this, but only slightly, and only with the notion that it is in your hands to provide us with the evidence we need to make a secure decision. SilkTork (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Race and intelligence

Initiated by Ferahgo the Assassin at 22:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
Race and intelligence arbitration case (t) (ev / t) (w / t) (pd / t)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Motion: Ferahgo the Assassin editing restrictions modified (September 2016)


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



Information about amendment request
  • Requesting lift of race and intelligence topic ban.


Statement by Ferahgo the Assassin

I would like to formally appeal my topic ban from the “race and intelligence” topic area. I believe it is appropriate for this ban to be lifted for three main reasons: 1) The topic ban is quite old now, and I have engaged in no contentious or otherwise inappropriate behavior since I returned to editing four years ago; 2) I am now acquiring professional expertise in an area adjacent to this topic, which has been considered under the ban, and 3) I have fulfilled the requirements given to me by the arbitration committee when I first appealed the topic ban about nine months ago. Details below:

Last April, I made a request for clarification about the bounds of my topic ban. I made this request in order to understand whether I could use my professional expertise in behavioral genetics—as I am now more than halfway through a Ph.D. in this area—to improve the encyclopedia. ArbCom concluded that I should not be editing articles about intelligence or behavioral genetics in general, even if they don’t involve race, as long as I'm under a "race and intelligence" topic ban. They also weren't willing to lift my topic ban at that time, but said they would reconsider the request after six months of productive and issue-free editing in unrelated topics.

I have now met these requirements: It is over eight months hence, and during this time I have made over 500 edits, mostly to topics related to paleoartists and especially to the Paleoart article, which I have recently raised to "Good Article" status.

It has been quite difficult to research and improve these articles while simultaneously studying an unrelated topic in graduate school. My graduate work has involved doing research, attending conferences, and publishing papers related to behavior genetics and intelligence research, with others in press (please let me know if you’d like to see examples of my research privately). I humbly submit that with my topic ban removed, I could help to improve many articles in these areas that have been off-limits to me since before I began my Ph.D.

For example, one of my projects, just completed after 2 years of data collection, relates to mental chronometry. Wikipedia’s mental chronometry article is one of the articles that I was told last April not to edit as long as I’m topic banned. I wrote the first half of it in 2010, beginning with the early history of MC, and left the article in an unfinished state when I was topic banned in October 2010. In the time since then other editors have made minor additions, but the article is still in substantially the same state that I left it in more than eight years ago, because no one else has had the ability and motivation to add a complete summary of modern MC research. For a long time, the article was tagged as being in need of being updated.

I think that when considering the necessity of a topic ban, ArbCom should take into account the effect that an editor’s absence has on encyclopedic coverage of topics that only a few people are both motivated and knowledgable enough to write about here. Other examples I provided last April of articles in great need of improvement include gene–environment correlation and polygenic score, both of which are also topics on which I’ve done research.

Happy to answer questions, provide detail of my history in this area, and further credentials if requested. Thank you for your consideration.

@ Beyond My Ken: When this came up last April/May, you suggested a sort of probation period, which I thought (and still do) would be fair. [2]: “On lifting the ban, I think that would be OK, as long as FtA was made aware that she was on a very short leash, and that the topic ban would be restored at the first sign of a problem in her editing.” The only things that've changed between now and then is that I've edited productively in other areas and that I've published a bit more research, none of which borders on fringe theories. As stated, if the arbitrators would like to see some of my research privately or evidence of my enrollment in a Ph.D. program, I am happy to provide it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ SilkTork: No, we haven't shared an IP since I returned to editing in 2014. I've lived in several different states since then. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@ Opabinia regalis: Just sent email to the mailing list. Please let me know if there's anything you'd like clarified. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
@ AGK: Here are some specific changes I'm hoping to make to articles in this area. As you'll note from my email, these all relate to research I've participated in (though of course I will abstain from citing myself!).
  • Mental chronometry: When I last worked on this article substantially in 2010, I was relying heavily on Clocking the Mind for structure and organization, as it was the only recent overview I was aware of. Now, however, I own what I believe to be every major, modern secondary/tertiary source that overviews mental chronometry research, including Posner, Luce, Vernon, and others. The article as it stands has little information about modern models and applications of response time data. It only has one citation to the Posner book and two short paragraphs about Posnerian methods, when he is one of the most famous researchers in this area. It has a motley, random collection of paradigms. It needs to be organized, and it needs detail and citations on topics covered by Posner, e.g., attention, orienting, and code coordination. Luce, by contrast, takes a technical and mathematical approach to mental chronometry. The article needs to explain core concepts addressed in depth by Luce such as stochastic accumulation of information, model differences in discrete vs. continuous time, random variables and mixture models. Vernon's overview includes chapters by different researchers in different areas. Some of these authors disagree with each other; e.g., Robert Sternberg on a triarchic perspective on MC's relationship to cognitive ability stands in contrast to a more one-sided view the article currently takes. The article should report such differing views. Some modern models that have become very influential, such as Ratcliff's diffusion model, are entirely absent from the article. Diffusion modeling is what I'm using for the MC study I reference in my email. This term as it relates to mental chronometry is likely notable enough to warrant its own Wikipedia article. I would be happy to expand this article with all of this, based on my collection of well-known overviews and textbooks on MC (none of which mention race or group differences).
  • Gene–environment correlation: Note that the majority of this article refers to things we've learned about this phenomenon from quantitative (twin, adoption, and so on) studies, many of which were conducted in the '70s, but very little on molecular genetic studies. The most recent sources cited in this article are from 2007. Since then, there has been an important and promising burst in molecular genetic studies that have had a huge impact on this field in just the past year. This "genetic nurture" effect has been reported on by Kong et al., Bates et al., and others in press. This clearly important topic is completely absent from this article. I would update this article with explanations and rationale for this exciting new area, including criticism and limitations where sources mention these.
  • Polygenic score: This is a short article with motley redlinks and more "further readings" than article text. It has two sections, one of which is a somewhat random collection of correlations. I would expand this article by explaining in greater depth how polygenic scores are mathematically calculated, the history of regression models and predictive improvements over the years, how these scores can be practically beneficial, and published criticisms/limitations of these scores and their usage.
  • Articles on a variety of software and techniques used for polygenic score construction, biological annotation of GWASes, and the handling of linkage disequilibrium. For example, Linkage disequilibrium score regression is now a promising stub that needs a lot of expansion. Its lede paragraph quotes descriptions of the technique directly from articles, such as Here, the "linkage disequilibrium score" for a SNP "is the sum of LD r2 measured with all other SNPs", without explaining what any of this means. Most of these concepts in statistical genetics are technical and complex, and—if they have articles at all—often written in a way that is inaccessible to laymen. I could help a great deal in clarifying many of these topics. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

The OP's basic case is that the topic ban is old, but indefinite topic bans are not generally lifted because of their age. The OP has -- and apparently still has -- a strong personal POV concerning the topic, and in the past has shown that she is unable to edit without bias because of this. There is no reason to think that anything would be different now. The awarding of a PhD in a subject is no guarantee that an editor's contributions will not continue to be WP:FRINGE -- after all, most scientific fringe theories are promulgated by subject experts who happen to disagree with the consensus view of their colleagues. Whether or not this is the case -- or even whether the OP has in actual fact earned a legitimate PhD in the subject area -- is unknown to us.

I strongly urge that the topic ban be left in place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ferahgo the Assassin: The April/May clarification request was about whether you could edit in the narrow subject of "heritability of psychological traits", and was not a request for the lifting of your topic ban. Thee's a significant difference with being OK with a probationary period of editing in a fairly restricted area that was at the edge of your topic ban (but still inside of it), and being OK with a probationary period of editing in a broad subject area (which encompasses the entirety of your topic ban) in which your were sufficiently biased and disruptive to be first site banned, and then allowed back with a topic ban instead. Because of that categorical difference, I remain strongly opposed to lifting your topic ban. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
For the convenience of the committee:
Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:16, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the list of potential edits you posted above: what about your current topic ban -- in your understanding of it -- prevents you from making those edits right now? Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to ping. @Ferahgo the Assassin: Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Race and intelligence: Clerk notes

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

Race and intelligence: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • User:Ferahgo the Assassin, do you still share an IP with User:Captain Occam? SilkTork (talk) 00:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I said at the last clarification that I would support lifting the topic ban (with perhaps a 6 month probationary period), and I can't say I've changed my opinion. I'll wait until more community members have commented, but I am heartened to see Ferahgo has done good work in a different area. WormTT(talk) 11:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ferahgo the Assassin: yes, I'd be interested in examples of the research you're referring to, thanks for offering to pass it along. (FYI the arbcom email has changed, it's now arbcom-en@wikimedia.org.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: Ferhago, what are some examples of content changes you would make, if unbanned from the topic? The appeal only specifies what sub-topics you would edit. Without a more compelling submission, I would deny this appeal. AGK ■ 13:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Amendment request: Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months

Initiated by FkpCascais at 00:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
AN
Notification of Sanction
Note: This appeal is of an enforcement action under Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions. AGK ■ 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Clauses to which an amendment is requested
  1. Diff
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
  • Suspension of the topic ban or at least allowing me to edit football, an area I am highly active and productive and that had nothing to do with the cause of this problem,

Statement by FkpCascais

Dear Wikipedians, for the ones that don´t know me, allow me to shortly introduce myself. I am 39 years old proud Wikipedian from Portugal, with Serbian and Czech parents who grow up in Mexico. As only child, encyclopedias were my company since I remember. When I discouvered Wikipedia it was love at first sight. I have been around for more than a decade and I have created over 900 articles. Although I work on something completelly different, my main hobbie has been editing football here on Wikipedia. My passion for football has nothing to do with hooliganism or tendentious editing towards teams I support, but rather about history of football, specially in Yugoslavia and Austro-Hungary, with lists and statistics, and with migration of footballers. I also edit history, aviation and automotive industry, ammong others. I got involved in a content dispute at Talk:Skanderbeg#Skanderbeg_origin,_sources. I presented numerous sources to back my point. My intention was just that the view expressed in those sources was properly added in the article, not even highlighted, but just not dismissed as obscure theory as it was pretended by the other editors. When the other editors decided to dismiss my concerns, I tried to ask for help at ANI (diff of the end). User:Deb had an extremelly constructive approach, however User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, with which I had several disputes in the past, made a total turn and sugested boomerang, which was imposed by Sandstein. I can admit I could had been more patient, I could have dropped it earlier, I even troughout the ANI showed regreat. It was a content dispute, I had numerous reliable sources, it was just needed someone to help us solve it. I believe I was punished too severily. I asked several times Sandstein to at least allow me to edit football during the 6 months, an area I never had problems and had nothing to do with the issue in hand here, he denied me that as well. This was a content dispute basically solved by punishing me for not giving up. And the punishment is way too excessive, 6 months in which I am forbiden to work on the numerous projects I am working at. I ask please the community to reconsider what happened here.

May I just say that the sandbox text is not mine neither reflects my views. I found that text oarticularly interesting cause highlightes how the myth of "centuries long Serbian-Albanian conflict" is a modern-times fabrication. It is a text from a different oeriod with some views which may differ from nowadays ones, but regarding the history of Albanian-Serbian relationshios is correct. It uses unfortunate language from the time it was writen, as saying as "unfortunate" the choice of crating a Muslim country in Europe, or giving Istabul/C9stantinople to Turkey. Those were all matters that at certain poiint were being discussed. I found the texyt interesting and brought it to a sandbox. It doesnt reflect my personal views neither I have forced them at any article. It is not fair that I have a 6 months ban based on on some sandbox of mine that users just guess what I use them for. I am actually a very much peacefull editor with good collsbotation with many nationalities as seen by my barnstars and talk-page.. Presenting me as nationalist is extremelly unfair. FkpCascais (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
I want to thank User:SportingFlyer for having tryied to help. After all, this was all a content dispute in which I presented numerous reliable sources and once opposing editors started restoring their prefered version which ignored my concerns, I went to ANI to ask for help. Certain admins interfered directly in the dispute by punishing me with a 6 month topic ban which they perfectly know unables me to work in all projects I am involved to. Since the content dispute was no reason enough for a sanction, they came up with this brilliant idea of digging in my sandboxes a text I have there, which is not mine by the way. The text is simply a text ammong many I have and doesnt represent my view. I just found interesting certain aspects in it. Presenting it as if that was my political belief was a brilliant strategy to get me punished. Nevermind. I will not edit eating habits of chinchillas despite likeing them. I will abandon this project for at least the next 6 months. Thank you all. FkpCascais (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you SportingFlyer, you are a testimony of how absurd the occusations of me being Serb thus being biased are. You followed my edits, you followed the numerous creations of articles on Croatian footballers, my contribution to historical Croatian clubs, despite being Serbian I made all those contibutions with pure passion. The insinuation some here are making without even knowing my editing historial are really insulting for me, and hurt a lot my feelings and leave me sad. FkpCascais (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I have sockpuppets making fun of the situation at my talk page because I was the editor who fought against their insertion of POV edits. Wikipedia cannot deal with socks of indef-banned users, but decides to ban me for 6 months. Thank you for showing how litte serious this project is. I will not edit chinchillas. Good bye. FkpCascais (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein

I recommend declining this appeal.

Insofar as the topic ban as a whole is contested, the comments by FkpCascais in the original AN discussion and in the appeals to me (I remember several, but can now only find this one) and to AN leave me with the impression of a person who is more emotional and impulsive than most other editors, and who is set on portraying Balkans history from a particular point of view. As such, they are not well-suited to edit in this tension-laden topic area.

Insofar as an exception for football-related edits is sought, I am of the view that it should not be granted, at least not initially, because football in the Balkans is often a focal point for political tensions. As I wrote in the ban message, I would like to see a relatively long period of collegial, productive editing by FkpCascais in other topic areas before I am open to relaxing the topic ban, first as relating to football and then entirely. Sandstein 11:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken

Just to note, an appeal of this ban was filed by FkpCascais at WP:AN on 22 December. [4] It was archived without being closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@SportingFlyer - Some of the commenters on the AN thread supported allowing editing in the football subject area, but changed their minds when FkpCascais made edits in that area while the lifting of the topic ban was being considered. When the appeal was archived without being closed, only two people had made formal bolded !votes, and both of them opposed lifting the ban in toto, without an exception for football. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by SportingFlyer

It's difficult to defend this editor based on those sandbox posts, but they have contributed positively to the football WikiProject over the years, and I see no reason to extend the ban that far. As many of the users on the ANI thread supported not blocking football articles, I would modify the TBAN to any Balkan-related topics (any topic relating to: Slovenia; Croatia; Albania; Bosnia & Herzegovina; Serbia; Montenegro; Albania; Macedonia; Kosovo; Bulgaria; Greece; Turkey; and Romania - and if I missed anything obvious, my lack of listing that country is not an excuse) with the exception of any Serbian-related football article for an arbitrary amount of time, possibly shorter than the six-month TBAN (in which case any football article would be fair game for editing.) Historical Yugoslavian articles would be okay as long as the player or team is Serbian; edits on Yugoslavian leagues or cups would be okay; edits on any non-Balkan league, player, or cup would be okay. as they would be currently. Any violation of this restriction during the time frame would result in a full ban for disruptive editing. SportingFlyer T·C 06:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken - I saw that. It's a terrible look. That being said, I'm satisfied the week long block handled the situation properly. I see this as a situation where we either lose an editor, or give the editor one final chance to comply. That's why I'm setting the restrictions to be crystal clear and proposing a total site ban if there's any non-compliance. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Just as an aside to some comments above regarding the politicalisation of football in the area, I edit primarily football articles, especially Croatian football articles, and am familiar with the region. I see absolutely no problem with what I've proposed above with regards to politics. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}

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

Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Clerk notes

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • Updated notifications so they are Permalinks/Diffs, and included both the AN implantation and the --Cameron11598 (Talk) 17:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban on Balkans-related articles for 6 months: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • My default position for this sort of thing is that "decline where an uninvolved administrator has acted within the bounds of their discretion". Simply, I do not see that Sandstein has acted incorrectly here, and I am not willing to overturn his decision. Although I am willing to consider further, at present, I'm a decline WormTT(talk) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Seeing as Sandstein said, that football related articles can be a flashpoint for Balkans related issues, I do not feel it's wise to lift the topic ban for this area. Therefore I must decline this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline as within administrator discretion. ~ Rob13Talk 19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline both requests. The ban was within Sandstein's discretion and has community consensus behind it to boot. FkpCascais has given us no good reason to lift it and indeed seems to have little understanding of why it was placed in the first place. I see no pressing need to make an exception for football. – Joe (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline Mkdw talk 23:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline as above, this is within normal admin discretion. As a piece of advice, FkpCascais, the idea behind topic bans like this is to encourage editors to direct their efforts to other, less contentious topic areas, and to appeal the topic ban after accumulating a history of unproblematic editing elsewhere. Not editing at all for six months is unlikely to result in a successful appeal at that time. But if you like chinchillas, editing about chinchillas would be perfect :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Decline. Amongst the misconduct that led to sanctions, FkpCascais even adopted a nickname (mosqueteers) for the opposing disputants. Clearly, this topic ban was necessary and proportionate. AGK ■ 13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Clarification request: The Troubles

Initiated by Thryduulf at 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Case or decision affected
The Troubles 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
As there are no specific other people involved, I have left notifications at:


Statement by Thryduulf

In The Troubles arbitration case the committee authorised a remedy that was effectively discretionary sanctions (this was before standardised discretionary sanctions as we know them today had evolved) and as part of that a general 1RR restriction was imposed. Later, the old remedy was replaced by discretionary sanctions, incorporating the 1RR restriction. However, because of the way these sanctions have evolved the scope of the DS topic area is stated differently in different places and this is causing confusion (see for example [[Talk:#DS notice]]). What I believe to be the full history of the scope(s) and where I found them is detailed at User:Thryduulf/Troubles scope but what I understand to be the differing scopes presently in force are (numbered for ease of reference only):

  1. Pages relating to The Troubles, as well as the Ulster banner, broadly interpreted
  2. [A]ll articles could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland
  3. Pages relating to The Troubles and the Ulster banner (The Troubles)
  4. [Page template:ArbCom Troubles restriction is transcluded on] along with other articles relating to The Troubles.
  5. All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

British Baronets were formerly part of some of the scopes, but that was unambiguously removed by a previous committee.

I am asking the committee to:

  1. Clarify this whole mess by defining a single scope for the discretionary sanctions and sanctions placed under its authority (the general 1RR is the only one I know that will be affected).
  2. Formally and explicitly end the restrictions imposed in the related Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine as superceded by the discretionary sanctions authorised in The Troubles case. This is de facto the case anyway, but while tidying we might as well spend another 2 minutes to tidy this as well. (note that the Great Irish Famine article was moved to Great Famine (Ireland) after the case concluded)

Request 1 does lead to the need to determine what the scope should be. In my view, formed following some discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland and Talk:Great Famine (Ireland) and looking at various articles and talk pages is that there are only two that need considering:

A "Pages related to The Troubles, broadly interpreted."
B "Pages related to The Troubles, Irish Nationalism and British Nationalism in relation to Ireland." with both geographical and political meanings of "Ireland" being within scope.

The Ulster Banner does not need to be separately mentioned - the Ulster Banner article is quiet and is not even tagged and while the Flag of Northern Ireland article would benefit from continued inclusion in the discretionary sanctions regime it is firmly within either scope suggested above.

The Easter Rising topic area is unquestionably within the scope of suggestion B and is reasonably interpreted as also being within the scope of suggestion A as crucial background to it.

Whether the Great Famine (Ireland) is within the scope of either A or B is less clear, nor is there clear consensus whether it should be - more input than I was able to attract prior to the request is needed here. Thryduulf (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Black Kite: It's been a while since I've been involved with any disputes regarding the term "British Isles" but I can't imagine anything serious that wouldn't be covered by a reasonable interpretation of B. Whether it would be covered by A would be more dependent on the exact nature of the disruption, but if it is completely unrelated I don't think we should be using the sanctions of this case to solve that problem. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: While the topic area is relatively quiet at the moment discretionary sanctions are still desirable for at least as long as Brexit is an active political issue as any changes to the status of Northern Ireland or the Irish border could get quite messy quite quickly (history shows that the heat of conflicts on Wikipedia related to real-world geopolitical issues correlates pretty well with the heat of those issues in the real-world). Whether the specific 1RR restriction is still needed is a different question that's independent of what the scope of the DS authorisation is. It could be made narrower, but what that narrower scope should be is not clear (it's tricky to predict what the flashpoints will be), although when this ARCA is resolved I will be (proposing) removing the notification template from the talk pages of most of the few Northern Irish footballer articles it is currently transcluded on (from memory only one of those articles even gave any indication of any political or nationalist activity by the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: You are conflating two separate issues here (1) the scope of the topic area discretionary sanctions are authorised for, (2) the scope of the 1RR restriction imposed under that authorisation. The aim of this clarification request is solely to clarify what the scope of (1) actually is, not whether the DS regime is still required: it is, and because Brexit is on the horizon now is a good time to clarify it. (2) is a question that cannot be usefully answered until after (1) has been clarified (because the scope of any restrictions imposed under DS must be equal to or wholly contained by the scope of the DS authorisation) and in any case is not a question that requires arbcom - the purpose of discretionary sanctions is to allow administrators additional flexibility to make, adjust and remove remedies without needing to consult the committee each time. Thryduulf (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
@BU Rob13: While a review might be useful it cannot sensibly happen until after the scope of the DS is clarified, and it doesn't require the Committee to do it - it can be done at AE or even a relevant WikiProject page, while the DS scope clarification does need to happen here. FWIW though I think it would be silly to remove the 1RR at the current time and that setting the scope to A or B above (to match the DS authorisation) would be about right. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@Opabinia regalis: The most recent confusion I'm aware of is at talk:Great Famine (Ireland)#DS notice (this is where I intended to link above but I see now I forgot to include the page name, sorry!), and I've seen other confusion previously but cannot immediately recall where. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Indeed, I'm not proposing to remove the 1RR at all (that's BU Rob13's confusion), simply clarifying the scope of the discretionary sanctions it's authorised under and, if necessary, adjusting the scope of the 1RR to match it. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Black Kite

(B) would be better, in my opinion ... one could argue for the second section to specifically include the use of the term "British Isles", but that will probably be sufficient.

If I remember correctly, the issues with the Ulster Banner weren't particularly on that article itself, but edit-warring to include the Banner instead of the Irish flag / Union Jack (depending on context) and vice-versa on BLPs and other articles that included flags and flagicons. Black Kite (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay

I would caution that 1RR may need to be kept in place, during the Brexit process which effects the British/Irish border & thus related articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by EdJohnston

Per a motion passed this year, the 1RR which is currently in place for Troubles articles is due to the decision by an administrator to impose it under discretionary sanctions. (Most likely it is due to this log entry by User:Timotheus Canens in the fall of 2011. The idea of a blanket Troubles 1RR didn't originate with him, it used to be a community sanction before that). So, if anybody thinks that the blanket 1RR should be adjusted they could (in theory) appeal it at AE. Personally, I can see the advantages of single-page 1RRs that could be applied by individual administrators.

According to Canens, the scope of the case is "..reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland.." In my view, this is an adequate description of the scope and I wouldn't advise the committee to get really specific as to which articles are in or out. Admins shouldn't take action unless the nature of the edits suggests that nationalism is at work in the minds of at least some of the editors. Modern nationalism can cause problems with articles that seem tangential, as when editors who are warned about WP:ARBMAC get into wars about Alexander the Great, since the word 'Macedonia' occurs there. Yet the ARBMAC decision did not mention our article on Alexander the Great, nor should it. Even so, the ARBMAC sanctions would reasonably apply to any nationally-motivated editing of that article. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


Statement by {other-editor}

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

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

  • Before we do anything here, I would invite views on whether the 1RR in this topic area remains necessary. Is there still active disruption that warrants applying 1RR to an entire topic area indefinitely? Can that be reduced to just those pages actively undergoing disruption, as is typical? ~ Rob13Talk 19:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
    • @Thryduulf: That is an excellent point about Brexit. It may be worth holding on this request for a couple weeks to see if that situation changes in light of May's defeat in Parliament. In the meantime, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on fully overturning the topic area wide 1RR (rather than providing it with a new scope) in favor of encouraging uninvolved administrators to apply 1RR to specific pages at their discretion as disruption occurs. I think that would be the preferred route so long as the number of articles facing frequent edit wars is relatively small, say, no more than a few dozen. Could you comment a bit on that? I'm not set in that view right now; just trying to understand exactly what's going on to form a comprehensive opinion. ~ Rob13Talk 19:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
      • To be clear, I'm not misunderstanding your request. I just think a review of the 1RR is worthwhile at the same time as we're reviewing the discretionary sanctions. To my knowledge, it's the broadest sanction ever imposed under DS, and it's persisted for quite some time. ~ Rob13Talk 14:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This case played out while I was inactive on Wikipedia, so I'm not familiar with the history. Thryduulf, can you point to an example or two of the confusion? (Your link isn't working, and probably I'm being unobservant but I can't find which discussion you meant to refer to.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Motions

Requests for enforcement


Snooganssnoogans

Rajulbat (talk · contribs) is topic-banned from everything related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people for three months. Sandstein 12:47, 12 January 2019 (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 Snooganssnoogans

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Rajulbat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 13:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Snooganssnoogans (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. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans: Contains many diffs following a similar pattern of conduct as the one complained of here. Previous AE brought by User:TParis and resulting in the following sanction implemented by User:Dennis Brown on 24 May 2017: Snooganssnoogans is banned from mass editing in the area of American Politics post-1932 for an indefinite period of time. This means adding (more or less) the same material to more than two articles.
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive215#Snooganssnoogans (5/24/2017)
  2. 12/1/2018 - Inserted ", a pseudoscience," after "Creationism" in violation of WP:SYNTH;
  3. Edit-warred over biased content 12/2/2018 - Edit warred over biased content.
  4. 12/2/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV phrasing improved by another editor.
  5. 12/11/2018 - Edit-warred over removing opinion framed in Wikipedia's voice, saying "No need to attribute."
  6. 12/2/2018 - Introduced blatantly non-NPOV language framed in Wikipedia's voice.
  7. 12/3/2018 - Agressive instance of WP:OWN.
  8. 12/3/2018 - Reverted sourced information added to article with the justification of "...cant access the book but it doesn look like a rs]
  9. 12/3/2018 - Insists on non-NPOV language like "X falsely claimed that...." in violation of WP:SYNTH
  10. 12/18/2018 - Edit-warred over "white supremacy" language.
  11. 12/9/2018 - Inserted non-NPOV language in violation of WP:SYNTH ("falsely claimed...")
  12. 12/26/2018 - Edit-warred over clearly non-NPOV language -- calling org "amateur website" as opposed to "fact-checking organization." See article history generally, exercised WP:OWNership.
  13. 12/4/2018 - Introduced patently non-NPOV language "alleged reports" -> falsehoods; "reporting false stories"; "false claim"... in violation of WP:SYNTH.
  14. 12/6/2018 - Reverted another user's improvement to an article because the sources cited "are by clowns."
  15. 12/4/2018 - edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
  16. 12/8-12/10/2018 - Edit-warred over non-NPOV content.
  17. 12/8/2018 - Introduced 'falsely claimed' in violation of WP:SYNTH
  18. 12/9/2018 - Edit-warred, called other user's addition "self-serving nonsense."
  19. 12/17-12/17/2018 - Edit-warring over POV.
  20. 12/17-12/18/2018 - 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 

Snooganssnoogans primary purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to overload articles concerning conservative U.S. political figures or topics (examples: Mitch McConnell, Brigitte Gabriel, Mark Levin, Sean Hannity, Sebastian Gorka, Liberty University, etc.) with a negative slant. I ran into this user at the Mitch McConnell page. I looked up that congressman's article by chance when he was mentioned in the news. In subsequent discussion it became clear that he was only interested in reflecting one point of view. This led me to review his contributions in other articles, which led me to file a complaint at the ANI, where it was suggested that the appropriate venue is here. There have been over 11,000 edits since the last time his conduct was up for review here. His chronic NPOV issue has not been corrected.

  • @Salvio giuliano: As a means of showing it's not a content dispute, I'm perfectly happy to accept a ban on interacting with this user. His edits are an issue. I'm not going to comb through 11,000 diffs to point out which ones, especially because someone before me had already done that. The issue has been raised. If no one else sees an issue, then I'll just crawl back into my little corner and edit Wikipedia here and there when I get the chance. School's starting back up anyway. I was just horrified by what I saw as a drawn out attack on Wikipedia's neutrality in this particular domain.--Rajulbat (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
    • I'm fine with you guys closing this. @Beyond My Ken: Um, that's not true. Congress is bicameral. But this is not the place to talk about it.--Rajulbat (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
      • @Black Kite: I share your opinion regarding time wasted.--Rajulbat (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
        • Under protest, I have provided 20 or so diffs. His anti-neutral editing practices are readily discernible from his list of contributions, but I'm jumping through the hoops here in the hopes that someone takes action. As for "open[ing] up proceedings investigating [my] edits," @Drmies, go right ahead. I have nothing to hide.--Rajulbat (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2019 (UTC).
          • On the punitive measures you guys are considering (short- to mid-term topic ban or warning on vexatious complaints), my input is that all three would have the same effect. My takeaway from this experience is that you don't consider Snoo's civil POV-pushing a problem here. I thought for sure it would be. I'm not active enough on Wikipedia for a temporary topic ban to have any effect. You see, I will have no time to edit (except for correcting a typo here and there or rescuing a dead link) during the semester that starts on Monday and ends in May. I think Snoo is civilly wiki-campaigning (the opposite of NPOV) on a schedule that outpaces a 40-hr workweek; he seems to think that's OK; I think it's antithetical to the noble purpose and lofty pillars of Wikipedia; you guys seem to think it's OK, or at least, "not sanctionable."--Rajulbat (talk) 14:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC).
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 

[9]


Discussion concerning Snooganssnoogans

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 Snooganssnoogans

I'd just like to point out that in #14, I'm defending Tim Scott, the sole African-American Republican Senator, from poorly sourced attacks on his intellect and competence.[10] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the editor Rajulbat should be sanctioned. His/Her history of contributions look like valuable contributions to the project before the editor ventured into American politics a couple of days ago. The editor just seems to misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Editing in American politics, and understanding how Wikipedia policy is applied on controversial, contested and high-profile topics, is complicated and confusing (which is something that I've experienced myself - I was rightly sanctioned by admins for violations of Wikipedia policy when I was inexperienced). Provided that the editor demonstrates an understanding of NPOV and RS (i.e. why saying "false" in a Wikipedia article is OK when reliable sources say it), as well as a promise to not stalk me, I would suggest the admins just warn him/her. A few days ago, I asked the editor to show me reliable sources that contradicted content that I added to the Mitch McConnell page - I would like that the editor be allowed to send me those reliable sources if and when he/she finds them. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MrX

No evidence of sanctionable conduct has been presented. This seems to be an attempt to win a content dispute by dredging up a previous AE filing, casting aspersions, forum shopping and pinging a couple of sympathetic admins. - MrX 🖋 13:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Note by Beyond My Ken

@Rajulbat: Please note that Mitch McConnell is not a "Congressman", he is a United States Senator. (Only members of the House of Representatives are called "Congressman", "Congresswoman" or "Congressperson".) Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ummm,...yes, it is true. Congress does indeed have two houses, but Senators are never referred to as "Congressmen" or "Congresswomen". Let me repeat that: NEVER
And, yes, this is the place to talk about it, because the fact that you don't know this is a strong indication that you really don't know much of anything about American politics, and that this report is, indeed, simply an attempt to squash an adversary. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
And what's this malarkey about providing diffs "under protest"? You expected people to make a decision about another editor's behavior based on your say-so alone? Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
I would concur with Sandstein's comment that a topic ban from American politics for Rajulbat would appear to be in order. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • We are all responsible for our own actions, no matter who gave us what advice. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • So, if the OP is going to be so busy that any kind of temporary topic ban in American politics isn't going to have any effect on them, the obvious answer is to make it an indef topic ban, and the OP can come around knocking when they have the time and interest to edit in that area again? Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Cullen 328

Since no evidence of any misconduct has been presented, this should be declined promptly. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 17:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

The diffs provided since my initial comment do not include any evidence of misconduct so this complaint is without merit. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Davey2010

I know the 24 hour wait was suggested in good faith but IMHO evidence should be provided with the case not 24 hours later, This should be closed now and if the OP wants to return then fine. –Davey2010Talk 17:47, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by RandomGnome

I can't see how Snoogans has specifically violated the terms of the sanctions currently in place. The OP has additionally failed to provide evidence of other applicable misconduct. In the OP's defense however, I would concur with others who have stated that Snoogans is an editor who walks a very thin line between acceptable behavior and agenda activism. My own opinion is that when that line crossed, any editor needs to be reigned reined in from pushing POV, and the appropriate policy is applied consistently, no matter where the editor's apparent political sympathies may lie. RandomGnome (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Before invoking the boomerang, I would ask admins to take into account that an administrator, TP, commented on the ANI that Perhaps a new AE case is warranted. While I obviously cannot comment on the merits of the theoretical AE case TP had in mind, or if they would ever have filed it, the comment could be seen as good faith counseling from a senior editor. I think this needs to be taken into account before handing down overly-prohibitive sanctions to a relatively new user. RandomGnome (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Galobtter

The filer has indicated they're not going to be providing the evidence requested, so I'd think this could be closed now. Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:59, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Hah, does the OP define "non-NPOV" as anything that he personally thinks isn't neutral?...that would explain a lot; this not understanding that NPOV cannot be defined without looking at the sources would justify a WP:TBAN from AmPol. Diff 11 refers to a vile, oft-repeated conspiracy theory/smear that definitely should be referred to as "false" and considering "falsely claimed" to be SYNTH says more about Rajulbat than Snoogansnoogans - it'd be nice if people actually read policies when referring to them. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by MONGO

Lack of diffs to prove the point makes this mute even though such diffs are readily available. Note to OP: don't go to court armed only with an opinion, even if the opinion is based on facts, as we need evidence in the form of diffs that will ensure a sanction can be determined.--MONGO (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Objective3000

Taking a very brief look, most of the “edit wars” look like minor skirmishes. #20 was clearly an edit war. But, two other experienced editors took Snoog’s “side” in the war against a new user, and then another brand new user joined against the experienced editors and was blocked. Not a good example for a case against Snoog. The claims of SYNTH don’t look very SYNTHy to me. They appear to be sourced either in the respective articles or a linked article. Perhaps Snoog could use a bit more patience with new users at times. But, this looks like a lot of disagreement over content. I’d suggest that the filer withdraw this complaint as it may not go as planned. O3000 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Editing articles under DS is fraught with varieties of discomfort. A place where some admins fear to tread. (OK, just too intelligent to partake.) Abuses of the drama boards over content disputes, IMHO, need be taken seriously. If I understand correctly, Awilley has suggested a one week TBan and Sandstein three month. I’d suggest something in between, on the side of Awilley’s direction due to the small number of edits; but taking into account the damage of bringing editors to AE for content disagreements. A geometric mean would be 25 days. O3000 (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by JzG

The diffs presented do not indicate any problem rising to the level of sanctions. In fat in several cases a barnstar would be a more appropriate response. When sources call people alt-right, white supremacists or whatever, so do we. The fact that some folks don't like it is not our problem to fix. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

TParis How we represent sources is a matter of editorial judgment, but to state that a Wikipedian is engaging in BLP violations when they cite entirely mainstream sources for a characterisation that partisans dislike is simply wrong. Guy (Help!) 08:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by TParis

  • OP shouldn't be sanctioned for acting on my opinion. I wish they'd have taken more time to do this properly, though.--v/r - TP 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @JzG: It depends on the source. Some sources are very prone to make a huge stretch to cast wide nets.--v/r - TP 00:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki

There's nothing here. Snoogans is an editor who clearly is not a Trump supporter, which if you squint hard enough could be an NPOV concern; we might not have any editors left with that test. I also strongly dislike content additions like [11]; Varney did not address Gohmert's slurs, which were characterized as anti-Semitic, moving the segment on. seems to be implying more than it should about Stuart Varney. None of that is going to result in any action here.

A boomerang may not be necessary (as I doubt Rajulbat knew what they were getting into), but a short one (as either an AP2 TBAN or a ban on filing administrative complaints) wouldn't be harmful. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by (username)

Result concerning Snooganssnoogans

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • There is going to be no action here unless you provide evidence, in the forms of diffs to sanctionable conduct. Otherwise, this is casting aspersions and bordering on boomerang territory. GoldenRing (talk) 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with GoldenRing; if no evidence is provided within the next 24 hours, I'll be closing this AE with no action. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Now that diffs have been provided, I agree with my colleagues that there is nothing sanctionable in there. I don't support a topic ban on OP, however: personally, I'd rather start off with a warning. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I concur. Sandstein 15:29, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • +1. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 16:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As far as I can see here, the filer opened a complaint at WP:ANI during which at least six admins commented that their editing was more of an issue than Snoogans ... so he then opens an AE with no evidence on the same subject? The phrase "complete waste of everyone's time" springs to mind here. Black Kite (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • What Black Kite says. Plus, I'm waiting for someone to open up proceedings investigating their edits. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    • I object to the phrase "including but not limited to". Drmies (talk) 00:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've got as far as diff six of the laundry list the OP has posted. My approach to many of those issues have have been slightly different, but I have yet to find anything sanctionable. Diff 1 is the old AE request. Snoogan's edit summary in diff 2 actually points to a discussion where a relevant consensus is evident. Diff 3 involved a reinstatement of sourced content removed by a newbie who didn't discuss the relevant content either before or after their removal; as such, the revert was appropriate. Diff 4 involves two reverts over 36 hours; not nearly enough, by itself, to concern me. Diff 5 concerns a removal of attribution, but that isn't actually prohibited, per YESPOV; the question is only about the degree of support for a given view in reliable sources. The content introduced in diff 6 is explicitly supported by the source. And really that's as far down the list as I'm willing to go, because this is entering WP:BOOMERANG territory, and I for one would be willing to consider a topic-ban on the OP. Vanamonde (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
    I would be amenable to an American Politics t-ban for the OP here, per Black Kite. If that doesn't have support, we definitely need a logged warning about forum-shopping and frivolous requests. Vanamonde (talk) 04:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree that adding diffs (which in many cases aren't even diffs) hasn't improved the complaint. Looking at the first few items, I too see a mixture of content disputes and insufficiently substantiated allegations of edit-warring. You can't prove edit-warring with a single diff; you'd need several showing repeated reverts. Examining one diff at random in more detail, this edit is alleged by Rajulbat to "introduce blatantly non-NPOV language framed in Wikipedia's voice." However, I see nothing objectionable (at least from a conduct perspective) with this edit. One could perhaps quibble about whether the persons mentioned there should properly be described as "white nationalists" (as they are in the cited CNN source) rather than "white supremacists", but this seems to be a content rather than conduct issue to me, and certainly not non-neutral editing to a degree that would warrant sanctions. This complaint is abusive. I am in favor of a American politics topic ban of Rajulbat for three months. Sandstein 22:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Is this some sort of joke? These "diffs" mostly don't show any issues apart from being "edits the OP didn't like". Some of the "edit-warring" is actually fixing issues introduced by others (in one case by a sock). Also, the OP needs to go and read what WP:SYNTH actually means - hint, it doesn't mean "describing something or someone in a way I don't like". Examples: Inserting the wording "was false", "falsely" or similar in an article is absolutely fine when the sources show that thing was false. Or go and read the Young Earth creationism article and see what it says about pseudoscientific beliefs. Sigh ... I think we need a sanction here. Black Kite (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
@Snooganssnoogans: - hence the suggestion of a topic ban from American politics. Stops the problems, lets them carry on editing elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm not at all familiar with the OP but I skimmed the AN/I discussion that led to this and I don't think this request was intended to be the forum shopping that it appears to be, and the initial lack of diffs could be written off as unfamiliarity with AE. I do think a warning about frivolous requests would be appropriate, perhaps even something with set consequences like User:Awilley/Discretionary_sanctions#Auto-boomerang_sanction. ~Awilley (talk) 00:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Awilley. And to respond to @Rajulbat:'s latest comment, the problem is not that we don't think civil POV-pushing is a problem (it is) it is that you haven't demonstrated that this is what is happening. GoldenRing (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Based on this discussion, there is substantial concern about Rajulbat's competence in editing in the American politics topic area, i.e., not being able to distinguish between non-neutral and other editing. Rajulbat is accordingly topic-banned for three monts. Sandstein 12:46, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

User who is submitting this request for enforcement 
Alextiffin88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 07:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
User against whom enforcement is requested 
Philip Cross (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
[Philip Cross topic banned ruling] :
Diffs of edits that violate this sanction or remedy, and an explanation how these edits violate it 
  1. 08/01/19 It was well known that Riley had entered the political debate prior to this editing. As you can see from the page now there is a significant amount on politics.
  2. 08/01/19
  3. 23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place.
  4. 29 November 2018 Explanation: Editing Monica Sims BBC Radio producer, Controller of Radio 4, Editor of Woman's Hour.
  5. 2 December 2018 Editing The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear BBC documentary by a British documentary film-maker. The Wikipedia article contains: "...where Tony Blair uses the threat of terrorism to give him a new moral authority."
  6. 31 December 2018 Editing Geeta Guru-Murthy Journalist "with regular work for BBC World, BBC News 24, and BBC Breakfast, and by 2005 presenting the news on BBC Radio 4."
Diffs of previous relevant sanctions, if any 
  1. Date Explanation
  2. Date Explanation
If discretionary sanctions are requested, supply evidence that the user is aware of them (see WP:AC/DS#Awareness and alerts)
  • Mentioned by name in the Arbitration Committee's Final Decision linked to above.
  • Alerted about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months, see the system log linked to above.
  • Gave an alert about discretionary sanctions in the area of conflict in the last twelve months in May 2018 see link above.
  • Participated in an arbitration request or enforcement procedure about the area of conflict in the last twelve months in August 2018.
Additional comments by editor filing complaint 

Whilst Riley is new to the political debate, her connection to George Galloway for which PC has been warned on before is clear. She had been in various news and media following her public spat with Galloway. See link

Riley News Article

A warning may be sufficient but it should at the very least be looked at. As you can see from Rachel Riley's page it is now highly political.

I have added new information links above which I ask be looked at too. May I specifically bring your attention to #23 November 2018 Posting a link to Oliver Kamm's article. The article mentions George Galloway, Tim Hayward, Piers Robinson all involved in post-1978 British politics. Cross's hostile editing of these pages was what led to the arbitration case in the first place. Is this not something that should be considered
Notification of the user against whom enforcement is requested 
Explained on Philip Cross (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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


Discussion concerning Philip Cross

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 Philip Cross

Statement by (Alextiffin88)

Cross intentionally edited an article on Rachel Riley despite knowing her entry into UK Political debate. Whilst it may seem minor it is still a breach of the ruling on post 1978 political articles.

Whilst it may be on the fringe I believe that the connection to George Galloway is what is relevant in this case.

The anti-Semitism debate which is well founded is currently a highly political event that PC would know Riley was involved in from the outset.

I'll add that I added the reference to the tweet in the belief that it was relevant. She used "Ayran" which is highly inappropriate.
The "stepping into the political arena" was an appropriate phrase which has now been resolved in talk. My bad I'm new.
If I was trying to disruptively edit her page, I wouldn't have requested it be protected as, I'd then be blocked from editing myself as I'm not an admin.
Instead I got a warning template for reverting what I believed to be a fair interpretation of the facts.
Indeed she is now attending Parliament with the home secretary next week and is in the political arena.
This was a genuine arbitration request due to the George Galloway connection. I'd rather her page be protected as soon as possible.
I even said to PC on his talk this is to clarify things.
Her page has turned into edit wars between certain users. You ask a question you get snapped at.

I have added further difflinks please see above. They show Cross editing articles related to UK politics. The reason I raised the request this way is so that it is public and fair. If I'm wrong so be it but it will be a learning experience regardless.

Statement by Icewhiz

At the time of Cross's edits - Rachel Riley (on Cross's last edit) had nothing about UK politics or antisemitism. The subject is primarily known for being a TV presenter (e.g. Countdown (game show)). Riley, who is Jewish, also recently spoke out against antisemitism and has been trolled by elements in the fringes of UK politics. It is far than obvious this makes her related to " post-1978 British politics" - it is even less obvious Cross should have known about this on 9 Jan, and Cross's edits (combined diff) had nothing to do with politics - being copy edits, game show related stuff, marriage, veganism, being Jewish, etc. Icewhiz (talk) 07:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I'll further note that the filer's edits to Rachel Riley may merit attention - diff - using twitter to suggest - "show that although fighting antisemitism she inadvertently or not used an antsemitic trope. Then included reference to 2012 tweet showing use of Ayran." (on what was quite obviously said ironically - an ironic self-use), as well as the somewhat unsourced assertion she "stepped into the political arena in 2019" in the lede - reverted twice - diff, diff (first added by an IP diff - 20 minuts prior). Icewhiz (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Note - I sent a message to the Arbcom mailing list with private evidence pertaining to this filing. Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The new diffs, above, besides being stale are on a radio producer/children programming person, US necon / Islamism, and a journalist/actress (who covered the Clinton–Lewinsky scandal in the 90s) - these are not related to post 1978 UK politics. Icewhiz (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by NSH001

Philip Cross added a quote from Oliver Kamm 23 November 2018 to Wikipedia:Press coverage 2018. As Kamm, and the controversy about the relationship between Kamm and Cross was right at the heart of the Arbcom case, this is unquestionably a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 10:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The Arbcom case, inter alia, was about Cross adding negative material to the wiki bios of people he disapproved of, while adding favourable material to the bios of those whom he approved, among which Kamm was prominent. I cannot understand how anyone can fail to see that this is a breach of his topic ban. --NSH001 (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The first remedy in the Arbcom decision states that Cross "is warned to avoid editing topics with which he has a conflict of interest", which clearly applies to this diff. The second remedy states that he is banned from "post-1978 British politics, broadly construed". I suppose that a lot depends how one interprets "broadly construed", but I contend that posting a quote from Kamm falls into that category, especially when the article linked to unequivocally is about British politics. I agree with Vannamonde's point that it is really not possible to separate news media and journalists from politics, when that is what they're discussing. Cross should, at the least, be warned against testing the boundaries in this way. --NSH001 (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm the 2017 Complainant from the original Philip Cross arbitration case and the earlier, ignored complaint over Luke Harding's page. This particular breach, the link to the Oliver Kamm article, is the most egregious. It is a conflict of interest (as acknowledged by Philip Cross) and also an attempt to put on record at Wikipedia an article from Cross's special friend, Oliver Kamm, attacking those who had complained about Philip Cross and calling them conspiracy theorists. Yes, attacking the very same people that Philip Cross obsessively worked against over years, turning their pages into attack pages which, very eventually, led to his topic ban. Kamm's attacks on his political enemies over the Philip Cross case are 100% post-1978 British politics. I note that Cross has already been found to have broken his ban and yet here he is again, seemingly unable to help himself. And why would he worry? There are plenty of people here to say, “Nothing to see here, move along please.” Wikipedia, if it once again does nothing for such a blatant breach, or simply punishes the complainant, will add to the public disrepute that the mishandling of the case has already brought on it. 121.72.171.202 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf

[posting here as although I'm not involved with Phillip Cross at all, I do not regard myself as impartial with regards British Politics]
The diffs presented by Alextiffin88 are not violations. The single diff provided by NSH001 is closer to a violation but the edit is only tangentially about British politics (Kamm is someone who is not a politician but is known for strong views about British politics, but this story is not about politics or their political views) on a page that is not about British politics and it is also stale (getting on for 3 months old). We can only take action regarding what sanctions were actually placed, not violations of unwritten restrictions based on what we think the case was actually about (regardless of whether our thoughts are right or wrong). In this case that means Cross is banned from the topic of Post-1978 British Politics, not from "adding positive material to bios of people he approves of or adding negative material to bios of people he disapproves of" - and it's also worth noting that the edit in question was not to a biography.
In summary I would advise Cross not to get any closer to his topic ban than this, but absent a clear pattern of boundary-pushing or crossing I do not see the need for even a formal warning. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Statement by {other editor}

Result concerning Philip Cross

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the sections above.
  • I see no violation here. While the restriction is broadly construed, it is not a ban from editing any biography of anyone who has ever made a public comment on politics. Unless something much more substantial comes up in the next few hours, I'll close this. GoldenRing (talk) 09:14, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • As an aside, while the edits of Alextiffin88 are perhaps not the most wonderful ever, they do appear to be engaging on talk and co-operating with others. And since this is not an area under discretionary sanctions, there is not so much we can do here, even if we thought action was needed. The committee will deal with any private evidence as they see fit without our help. GoldenRing (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing a violation here. None of the new diffs are either edits about UK politics or edits to pages primarily about UK politics. I am therefore going to close this. GoldenRing (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I have undone my close because NSH001 has asked me to. I still don't think the edit linked is a violation of the ban, though I do think it is not a million miles away from a violation. If any other admin feels inclined to act on it, they are welcome. I will not. GoldenRing (talk) 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not too happy about some of these diffs, but I wouldn't be willing to apply a sanction here. All but the first and last diff are to pages and content falling outside the scope of the sanction. The first diff is to a page that later came under the scope of the topic ban. It can be argued that PC should have known that when he edited it, but I can't see anything to suggest the connection was obvious. The link to the news story was a bad idea; it's not related to parliamentary politics, but certainly related to the broader scope of British politics. For that, I would consider a warning at most; but really what we need here is for Philip Cross to realize that continued editing of topics relating to British news media is equivalent to testing the boundaries of his ban, whether he intends it that way or not; it's nearly impossible to separate the news media from the politics of any country. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • The request is meritless. These edits and pages are not about British politics. I would take no action. Sandstein 21:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the filer because he was abusing multiple accounts, for what that's worth. ~ Rob13Talk 01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)