Arbitration Committee proceedings

Request name	Motions	Initiated	Votes
Ongoing problems surrounding Yasuke		16 September 2024	4/0/0

[edit]

Open cases

Currently, no arbitration cases are open.

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

Case name	Closed
Historical elections	13 Sep 2024

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander\|Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander]]	none	none	27 April 2011

Arbitrator motions

No arbitrator motions are currently open.

Requests for clarification

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification/Header

Request for clarification: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Noleander

Initiated by Tijfo098 (talk) at 13:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tijfo098 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)

Statement by Tijfo098

I find the discretionary sanctions passed in this case quite muddy. Do they apply for instance to someone who persistently edits with, say, anti-Palestinian or anti-Serbian bias? I can think of a number of users who don't break 1RR and similar technical rules (like outright misusing sources) but edit in this fashion overall, by adding solely negative information about some peoples. Assuming my impression is correct, may I bring them to WP:AE under the discretionary sanctioned passed in this case? 13:35, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Casliber, did you change your mind since the vote? Or was the remedy poorly worded? The discretionary sanction/remedy linked says "its terms are applicable to other disputes similar to those arising in this current case." It seems to me that NYB's thought experiment, although not part of the decision itself, is how that remedy is to be interpreted, at least by him. 14:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, Casliber, what do you mean by "opening the floodgate"? Do you think there are many editors like Noleander active, but editing in different anti-people-X areas? 17:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish, Noleander has been indef topic banned as a separate remedy in the case, so I doubt the discretionary sanctions were meant for him alone (the 2nd / discretionary remedy doesn't contain such wording or even name Noleander), but who knows... 16:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the clarification. 03:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I had thought that the decision was clear and settled, but seeing Casliber's comment below makes me feel a need to come back with a question. It seems clear to me that the Noleander case was about articles pertaining to Judaism and the Jewish people, so the discretionary sanctions do not automatically extend to other religions or peoples, as Casliber says. However, Casliber's answer sounds to me like the sanctions might only apply to Noleander, individually, and not to other editors who might engage in the kinds of conduct addressed in the sanction, in content pertaining to to Judaism and the Jewish people. If so, that does not make sense to me. Noleander is topic banned from that subject area, so surely the sanctions apply to other editors. Furthermore, it seemed clear to me during the case that the purpose of the discretionary sanctions was to address conduct by editors other than Noleander, that did not rise to the level of requiring ArbCom sanctions in this case, but which was nonetheless recognized as being unhelpful. Could the Committee please clarify that? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad: Sorry, but now I'm even more confused. That no new discretionary sanctions were adopted in the case: yes, I understand that. That the "thought experiment" was not anything official: yes, of course, I understand that too. Remedy 2 explains how the decision in the earlier case applies here: yes, I understand that too, insofar as it goes. But the question that all three editors are asking here has not been answered. Remedy 2 draws readers' attention to the earlier case, and quotes a passage from it. In the earlier case, the quoted passage is followed immediately by the following:

"To enforce the foregoing, Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for any editor making any edit relating to the area of conflict anywhere on Wikipedia."

It would appear on the face of it that the Committee was declaring that editors, other than Noleander, who make edits "relating to the area of conflict", can potentially be brought to Arbitration Enforcement in relation to the Noleander case. It now sounds as though both Casliber and Newyorkbrad are saying that this is not so. Three editors here are asking if users, other than Noleander, who make edits "relating to Judaism, the Jewish people, Jewish history or culture, or individual Jewish persons identified as such, broadly but reasonably construed," or perhaps even in other subject areas, are subject to Arbitration Enforcement as a result of this case. When Roger Davies proposed the remedy (please see his vote at the Proposed Decision), he seemed to be saying so. Please understand that the community appears not to understand what the Committee intended in this regard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to the Arbs for clearing that up. Roger's explanation makes very good sense to me, and fully answers any questions that I had. Agreeing with what Griswaldo said, it occurs to me that some of the confusion arises from placing that part of the decision in the Remedies section, as opposed to Principles or Findings of fact, because it implied that this was a description of actions to be taken as a result of this ruling, when it now appears that it was actually a reminder of something that already exists. (I will also point out that I am disappointed that the actual remedies do not really address the kinds of conduct that occurred in response to Noleander's edits, but I accept that the Committee's decision was a fair one, and leaves those matters, should they occur again, to the existing dispute resolution process.) Thanks again, --Tryptofish (talk) 18:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Griswaldo

I too am confused by Calisber's response. I was under the impression that Arbitration Enforcement of discretionary sanctions was available as a remedy once someone was notified by an admin that their edits in a certain area fall under the purview of an arbitration case. Is that not correct? Thanks for any clarification.Griswaldo (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the arbs for their clarifications. It makes sense to me now, but perhaps the confusion is a good indication that the manner in which people were bing reminded about other descritionary sanctions wasn't completely clear. Maybe it will be done differently in the future to avoid confusion. Thanks again.Griswaldo (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Thryduulf

Roger and Brad, are you saying that discretionary sanctions may not be imposed anywhere on the authority of the Noleander case, but they could be imposed for most examples of racist editing, if the racism is regarding or alluding to the intelligence or other human attributes (specifically including kindness, typical behaviour and/or impartiality, but presumably excluding things like height, physical strength and similar non-personality attributes) of the denigrated race on the authority of the Race and intelligence case? If so,

Can you confirm that this is the case regardless of what race or nationality the editor(s) in question disparage (i.e. it would apply equally to someone denigrating Arabs, Jews, Serbs and Namibians)?
Where should clarification be sought if one is in doubt whether the racism in question falls within the included intersections of race and interlligence/personality or not
If discretionary sanctions are applied due to editor(s) making comments that are both within the scope and without the scope noted above, what should the course of action be if the editor(s) (a) ceased making the within-scope accusations but not the without-scope ones; or (b) continued to make both sorts of problem editsStandard dispute resolution? RfC? AE? Requests to ammend the Race and intelligence case? A new arbitration request? Thryduulf (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all, particularly Roger, as I'm now happy I understand everything. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by other user

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

The sanctions as such under AE refer to this case (i.e. Noleander). Other editors whose actions had not otherwise been scrutinised to date should pass through the standard procedures and noticeboards, which could include Wikipedia:Content noticeboard, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard, before moving to such venues as Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Otherwise we'd be opening a veritable floodgate...(although then again if it did act as a strong deterrent...) . Anyway, this is my impression of how it would work, others may have a different idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:58, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No discretionary sanctions were adopted in the Noleander case; the only actual sanction (remedy 1) was the topic-ban against Noleander himself or herself. Remedy 2 is a reminder that recently, the Committee voted to expand the scope of the topic-area subject to discretionary sanctions in the Race and intelligence case, to now include "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed." Editors may refer to the discussion of that motion for some background of why it was adopted (basically, to curb extensive wikilawyering that had ensued from the original remedy in the case); the expanded sanction addresses issues that I consider separate from, though somewhat related to, those we addressed in Noleander. (See my vote comments on the proposed decision page in Noleander.) Finally, my "thought experiment" on the workshop talkpage was an attempt by me individually to follow up on some of the dialog on the workshop proposals; it was intended to frame some issues for thoughtful discussion rather than to conclusively resolve them, it was not reviewed or commented on by any of the other arbitrators, and it does not form any part of the decision in the case. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:15, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Per my colleagues. Noleander does not itself authorise discretionary sanctions but does draw attention to another case which authorises discretionary sanctions for edits which may be characterised as essentially racist. An anti-Palestinian and anti-Serbian bias would only be covered if the edits sought to link human conduct to racial characteristics. This typically arises when sweeping generalisations are applied to races/ethinc groups.
Crude examples: "Because Blue people are thieves, they looted and plundered after the battle in 1358", which ignores the fact that it was standard practice in 1358 for all armies to loot and plunder after battles. "Saladin was admired by the Crusaders because he was a good and honourable man for an Arab": which (apart from the Arab/Kurd controversy) strongly implies that as a ethnic group Arabs are neither good nor honourable (remarkably this comes from a 1930s history textbook). "Because you are Blue, it's typical that you run to support other Blue people, no matter whether they're right or wrong": which implies that Blue people place kinship above intellectual honesty. Roger Davies ^talk 06:54, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Thryduulf

It applies regardless of race/ethnicity but not to nationality. (Namibian looks like a nationality not a race/ethnicity.)
Arbitration enforcement ("AE") is the best venue.
AE would cover the in-scope ones. The out-of-scope stuff needs to go through the usual dispute resolution venues that Casliber has talked about.

I hope this helps, Roger Davies ^talk 09:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions were not adopted in the Noleander case. The discretionary sanctions you've mentioned are from the Race and intelligence case. These discretionary sanctions can be applied to editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process in regard to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed. In general, editors who are anti-Palestinian, or anti-Serbian wouldn't be covered by these discretionary sanctions, however such editors probably could be sanctioned under WP:ARBPIA or WP:DIGWUREN. I notice that Roger has listed some examples that would be sanctionable under the Race and intelligence discretionary sanctions, and I agree with his analysis. PhilKnight (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]