Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment

Arbitration Committee proceedings

• recent changes
• purge this page
• view or discuss this template

Case requests

Currently, there are no requests for arbitration.

[edit]

Open cases

Case name	Links	Evidence due	Prop. Dec. due
Palestine-Israel articles 5	(t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t)	21 Dec 2024	11 Jan 2025

[edit]

Recently closed cases (Past cases)

No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).

Clarification and Amendment requests

Request name	Motions	Case	Posted
[[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley|Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley]]	none	none	28 April 2011
[[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

Motion name	Date posted
Arbitrator workflow motions	1 December 2024

Requests for clarification

Request for clarification: Abd-William M. Connolley

Initiated by Abd (talk) at 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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

• Abd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Georgewilliamherbert (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified.
• JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) Notified.
• Pcarbonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Notified.

Statement by Abd

I apologize for the length of this; however there are complex issues, and I already spent a day boiling it down. I believe that what remains is worth reading. If not, I really shouldn't bother any more with Wikipedia, indeed, this is my letting go, my effort to ensure that I did what I could.

This is a request to lift a ban under general sanctions, [1], based on AN discussion, report filed by JzG. Ban was based on alleged "re-engagement in prior disruptive behavior that caused ArbComm to issue the sanction a little over a year ago." Asked for specifics, GWH provided

detailed reasons, and I comment specifically, for anyone wanting detail

1. Continued combative editing on Talk: Cold fusion [2] [3] [4]. By themselves, not necessarily actionable. As part of an overall picture of you continuing problematic behavior that caused Guy's initial report, however, a component. This assumed that the cause of JzG's report was my "combative editing." As can be shown if needed, JzG had taken every occasion to attack me and other editors who interfered with his agenda re cold fusion. The first recent JzG report was over editing of my Sandbox, where I'd been studying edit ratios per claims of page domination at Talk:Cold fusion. JzG similarly, early last year, initiated and obtained a topic ban for User:Pcarbonn, linked below, and in neither case did he disclose his prior involvement or ArbComm sanctions on this topic. As a COI editor, I carefully refrained from tendentious editing of the article, and confined myself to Talk, hopefully civilly and focused on what was relevant. Having become expert on the topic, and knowing policies and guidelines well, I often had substantial comment to make! Further, I'd responded to concerns and had largely abandoned editing because current conditions with article ownership, as can be shown if needed, made it mostly useless. Those three edits were proper responses, where I had made edits expecting them to be non-controversial, and was reverted, and the sense of what I stated in them would be sustained at RfC, I believe. They were not lengthy. In particular, the arguments over lenr-canr.org were long ago settled, with consensus, when carefully addressed, and the placement of interwiki links is standard practice, and the only reason it was opposed here was an opinion about me. (If the argument "self-published" were true, it would be true of every WP article as to See Also, which is what this amounted to.) v:Cold fusion is covered by the same overall neutrality policy as Wikipedia, but implements it differently, not being subject to the restrictions of an encyclopedia, and any WP editor is invited to help with resources at Wikiversity. Readers would want this WV link, I believe, as a place to discuss cold fusion or ask questions. Otherwise they do it at Talk:Cold fusion and are often troutslapped for it. 2. Your behavior on meta [5] taken in totality. By itself, not necessarily actionable. As part of an overall picture, however, a component. permanent link to what GWH would have seen at the time, supplied in place of live link he used. Final discussion as closed linked below. In order to judge my behavior at meta, one must indeed have an overall, "total," perspective. Notice that the original request at meta was short and simple, and was an attempt to clean up damage covered by RfAr/Abd and JzG. Because of tendentious argument against delisting there, beginning with JzG's personal attack, it was necessary to answer prior and repeated claims in detail. I know that is irritating, but I knew from experience what was necessary at meta, with the blacklist admins. The result of my meta request was delisting, finally undoing damage done by JzG or at his request, more than a year earlier, see RfAr/Abd and JzG. As a side-effect, and without further request, lyrikline.org, also problematically blacklisted (JzG not involved), was delisted a few days later, attention having been called to it. GWH did not see the close, because he banned me before it happened. This was the full discussion. 3. Your behavior on the AN thread itself. You were offered numerous opportunities to defuse the situation or take a clean approach that didn't lead to a confrontation, and chose to spurn all of them. Again, a component of an overall picture. I'm completely unclear on this. To an administrator who does not realize the situation with the filer of the notice, I could look stubborn. The confrontation was already happening, and not just there, and I'd already backed down in many ways. I did not pursue conflict, but I was pursued, as I've been ever since this case, it led to my almost total abandonment of Wikipedia editing, as edits I never thought might be violations -- mostly of the MYOB ban -- were alleged, and some resulted in blocks, or in extensive discussion at AE, which is, indeed, irritating! GWH blamed me for the "confrontation," when there had been no confrontation other than the kind of edits he cited, which he acknowledged as not being a problem "in themselves." The "confrontation" arose when JzG filed the AN report. GWH gagged a hen for making some mild squawking noises, ignoring the fox, who has long been acting to ban editors. (-- note that no use of tools while involved is alleged here, I've seen nothing recent like that.) I am not here requesting clarification on the so-called MYOB ban, nor on the alleged violation of the interaction ban that was the basis of my last block, this is only about the cold fusion topic ban. Jehochman tried to mediate, as he had before (he filed the prior arbitration case with JzG.) His suggestion was, however, for me, that I abandon editing even Talk:cold fusion, totally. Problem is, almost all the editors remaining were either with or supportive of the POV editing that had long done such damage at Cold fusion, by exclusion of what is in peer-reviewed secondary sources in mainstream journals, for about six years now, and in other ways, or they were ineffective, not knowing the sources and not knowing dispute resolution process. I know the reliable sources and proper process. And as a COI editor, I was supposedly encouraged to participate on the Talk page. Note: I became COI only after the subject ArbComm cases. I was originally concerned only about the abusive blacklisting as a process issue. Then I researched the topic, and started to work for article balance. By the way, if not topic banned, I doubt I would have pursued formal dispute resolution, it's inconsistent with COI editing. Rather, I'd have occasionally advised, or responded to questions, and as I still do, off-wiki. I'd just rather advise, re cold fusion, on the cold fusion Talk page! Or make non-controversial edits, I often see errors or obvious shortcomings, since I know the damn field!

While "wall of text" may have been a contributing factor for some arbitrators, the sanctions based on lengthy discussion did not pass, and the ban was rooted in a finding of tendentious article editing, with lengthy Talk page comment only weakly asserted. Since there was, this time, no such editing of the article even alleged, the new ban was not based on repetition of what led to the ban. See also the discussion of that finding as proposed. Rather, "wall of text" was a common claim from some editors, and I acknowledge it as a problem. It has been understood, however, that sometimes detailed discussion is appropriate, or can, at least, be tolerated, perhaps collapsed.

This is one full discussion that was part of the basis for GWH's decision, as considered in collapse above. The issue here is what RfAr/Abd and JzG was about, with another editor, previously and subsequently banned and blocked for behavior like this, raising the same arguments as ArbComm had rejected. You can see how the debate continued after I gave up, having done as much as I felt I could do. I did not create the mess at Cold fusion, it existed long before I became aware of the cold fusion article. The lenr-canr.org issue is still alive, see Talk:Cold fusion on lenr-canr.org, permalink for today.

To understand why it might easily seem that I'm disruptive, notice that my first case found that use of tools while involved had happened, and the second desysopped the admin, the occasion for my filing. A non-admin confronting admin abuse is rarely popular. With the first case, the preceding RfC, with crystal-clear evidence, had still shown 2/3 comment for banning me instead of addressing the RfC subject. The second case, the same clique had piled in, resulting in an easy appearance that "this editor is causing trouble." A later case, in which I took no part, addressed the clique itself.

Even if "wall of text" were the prior basis, contrary to claims that I "didn't hear," I had ceased the writing of lengthy comment, even where it might have been necessary, as a waste of my own time, and as ineffective with others. I acted consistently with COI restrictions, rigorously, regardless. This is a topic where experts, including Nobel laureates, disagree, see Brian Josephson, at Energy Catalyzer, and detailed discussion regarding the implications of sources, needed to negotiate a balanced article, will almost certainly be "impenetrable" to those who don't study and read the sources, etc.

I was pleased with General Sanctions passing, but, other than this ban, there has been no enforcement, in spite of clear disregard of policies and guidelines by others at Cold fusion. The only experienced editors supporting neutrality, previously active there, who knew how to, and had the energy to, handle disputes and get them resolved, to raise issues for AE, had been banned, both of us on the instigation of JzG, who was clearly highly involved, the basis for RfAr/Abd and JzG. This is not the place to examine JzG's behavior, per se, which is why extensive possible evidence about him isn't being submitted, it is only necessary, now, to understand that there is possible damage, and lessen it by removing an impediment to dispute resolution and true consensus, the bans. If the behavior is not repeated, water under the bridge.

An editor at Cold fusion, with his reverts and comments leading to so much of the allegedly offensive discussion, was later topic banned, and indef blocked, for behavior elsewhere that was no worse than at Cold fusion. Again, it is not necessary to rule on misbehavior, only the possibility of damage from such.

I ask for the Cold fusion topic bans of Pcarbonn and myself to be lifted, as unnecessary and prejudicial in context. Pcarbonn also acted consistently with COI rules on his return, he had found employment as a researcher in the field, I believe, and had not been tendentiously editing Cold fusion, confining himself to reasonable discussion on Talk, suggesting sources, etc. Pcarbonn told me that he'd given up, when he was banned the second time, notice, in such a frustrating way -- the arguments were bogus and misleading at best, implying that ArbComm had banned Pcarbonnn for his POV, something JzG often alleged in attempting to ban others. Sensibly for himself, he moved on to something else -- as did I, see Wikiversity:Special:Contributions/Abd. But Wikipedia lost. I also was, at the time of this ban, credited for editorial assistance in a journal that Einstein published in, Naturwissenschaften, in a recent review, Status of cold fusion (2010). Theoretically, this source should be golden on cold fusion (a recent peer-reviwed secondary source review in a mainstream publication), but material from it was tendentiously opposed.

Because of the meta delisting, one of GWH's reasons for the ban, I can provide a convenience link:[6]

Under General Sanctions, if a problem appears, it can be efficiently handled, but if the only experienced editors capable of clearly recognizing and addressing a problem are topic banned, there goes neutrality, while what is left looks like consensus. --Abd (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

• @JzG: Lie: 2 or 3 words. Correction: Many. JzG is a master of sound-bite attack. Each story sounds plausible, but he's repeating old arguments against consensus, evidence free. He knows that editors will often believe him unless they investigate. What appeal was previously rejected? --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• @JzG: Please review and check what JzG has written. If he's right, I'm totally insane, and Wikipedia is the least of my worries. (I might be insane anyway, to imagine that ArbComm might review this.) His arguments about lenr-canr.org were rejected by ArbComm and everywhere, lenr-canr.org has been delisted, at my request. (And that led to this ban!) The copyright issue was considered in detail, by many, links have been provided. RfAr/Abd and JzG was based on his actions re that site, and confirmed my claims. Durova had warned me that if I raised that case, I'd be banned from cold fusion. But I didn't care about cold fusion, I cared about Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• @Jclemens, PhilKnight: The bans to be lifted were not declared by ArbComm, they were requested by JzG at AN, for Pcarbonn, and granted under General Sanctions for the subject case after AN, for me, also based on JzG AN request. The General Sanctions ban requires ArbComm review. My behavior changed radically, I followed COI rules. Please review. --Abd (talk) 13:19, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• @Risker: You made your views plain in the RfAr. If you are not interested in the sequelae, in what the decision you proposed, and that passed as a compromise, has wrought, I can wash my hands of this. But do, please, consider the case of Pcarbonn. Same story: JzG attacks, editor banned, supposedly based on the same POV as got him banned before. Does ArbComm ban based on POV? If so, it's making content decisions. Is JedRothwell banned? by whom or how? (JzG. Blocked by MastCell as a favor to JzG, based on no misbehavior. Not banned.) What does Jed Rothwell have to do with this? Good luck, you have a mess, and intense denial isn't going to fix it. If you had paid more attention in the subject RfAr, you might have avoided the Climate Change RfAr. --Abd (talk) 15:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Developments

• request for routine removal from whitelist, JzG makes contentious comment with no necessity at all. See discussion on his Talk page. There was never any "spamming." If ArbComm and the community ignore this repeated pattern, concern for the real cause of disruption on the wiki has been lost.
• JzG use of tools while involved, today. unilateral addition of lenr-canr.org to local blacklist, use of spam blacklist for content control, no discussion, no specific copyright violation shown, involved admin, log of action. See RfAr/Abd and Jzg: --Abd (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• JzG has again requested blacklisting at meta, based on "copyvio" showing his dogged attack on lenr-canr.org, that started long before I was involved. --Abd (talk) 17:06, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Statement by other JzG

Abd was topic-banned for wall-of-text argumentation of WP:TRUTH from primary sources using links to copyright violating material on partisan sites.

His appeal consists of a wall of text arguing WP:TRUTH with links to primary sources hosted in violation of copyright on a partisan site. The previous appeal was couched in exactly similar terms. Abd, a self-confessed obsessive, never gives up.

The central question for any appeal must be: what's changed. The answer in this case is, nothing. One more paper has been published, which has not, as far as anyone can tell, changed the scientific consensus, and Abd's appeal rationale is the same as last time: that he's still right and everyone else is still wrong, especially that the original decision in the cold fusion arbitration case is wrong, the previous appeals resulting in upholding that decision were wrong, and Abd is still a fearless and wronged crusader for WP:TRUTH.

But the ban was not imposed because Abd was wrong, it was imposed because his interaction with others was impossibly problematic. As is pretty clear from the above, he doesn't get that. Abd lacks the self-criticism necessary to understand and resolve the problems that ensue when he tries to edit a subject on which he has deeply-held convictions that are at odds with the opinion of other editors. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, Abd's trotting out yet again of the "blacklisting abuse" meme, a point refuted a thousand times, is further evidence that with Abd there is no way any issue can ever be settled other than by giving him what he wants. There was no "damage". Lenr-canr is a fringe advocacy site littered with copyright violations and repeatedly spammed by its owner and, after his banning, by Pcarbonn and Abd proxying for him. Neither denies being on friendly terms with Rothwell. This is why dealing with Abd is, quite literally, impossible: there is no known way to get him to drop something once he has it in his head. Ever. Guy (Help!) 14:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Clerk notes

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

Arbitrator views and discussion

• Is this a request for clarification, or a request for amendment? If the desire is that a specific sanction be terminated, I'm not seeing why this should be the former, rather than the latter. Jclemens (talk) 07:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

WP:NOTBUREAU. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

• This does appear to be a request for amendment, and perhaps we should request a clerk moves this discussion. However, I also agree with Stephan that we shouldn't worry too much about such matters. Anyway, based on the comments so far, I'm more in agreement with Guy than Abd. In order for the sanctions imposed on Abd to be relaxed, I would have to be convinced that he has changed. That could be achieved in a number of ways, such as collaborative editing, and recognition of past mistakes. However, based on his statement above, I'm unconvinced that he has changed sufficiently for the imposed sanctions to be relaxed. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Oh, I wasn't worried about such matters... I was actually using it as an excuse to try and elicit a succinct statement from ABD about what he actually is looking for, to confirm what I think I was reading. Jclemens (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Based on Abd's statement, he still fails to understand why the sanctions were imposed in the first place. I cannot support permitting him to return to this topic area when it is clear that he will return to exactly the editing pattern that resulted in his removal in the first place. This applies whether this is an amendment or a clarification. Risker (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed with those above, I see no reason to lift the topic ban. SirFozzie (talk) 16:41, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

---

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

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

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)
• 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)
• 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)

@ Thryduulf

1. It applies regardless of race/ethnicity but not to nationality. (Namibian looks like a nationality not a race/ethnicity.)
2. Arbitration enforcement ("AE") is the best venue.
3. 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)

• 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)

---