Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main case page (Talk) — Evidence (Talk) — Workshop (Talk) — Proposed decision (Talk)

Case clerks: L235 (Talk) & Callanecc (Talk) Drafting arbitrators: Guerillero (Talk) & NativeForeigner (Talk)

Case opened on 01:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Case closed on 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 22:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Watchlist all case (and talk) pages: Front, Ev., Wshp., PD.

Once the case is closed, editors should edit the #Enforcement log as needed, but the other content of this page may not be edited except by clerks or arbitrators. Please raise any questions about this decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment, any general questions at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee, and report violations of the remedies passed in the decision to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement.

Case information[edit]

Involved parties[edit]

Added by motion[edit]

Prior dispute resolution[edit]

Preliminary statements[edit]

Filing by MrX[edit]

MrX filed a request for arbitration with regards to Collect. That request resulted in the opening of two cases, this one regarding the American politics topic area, and a separate one regarding Collect. MrX's statment does not relate to the American politics topic area and so they have been removed as a party from this case at their request and their statement moved to the talk page. It remains as part of the "Collect and others" case. Thryduulf (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Collect[edit]

OK -- see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_PNAC_Members_associated_with_the_Administration_of_George_W._Bush

Which is the actual sum total of the actual complaint here. See whether my position appears to be supported by consensus or whether the position of the complainants on that issue have been supported by community consensus. Note the amount of support for SYNTH and/or BLP issues being clear.

Note that I have been subjected to multiple AN/I threads - all having the same basic complaints and all having the same basic population.

Note that I had an SPI complaint - involving some of the same basic population.

Note that I have been Harassed repeatedly - including a "new section" on my user talk page:

Is Florida a "fringe" state filled with fringe politicians who believe in fringe ideas?

I am getting rather tired of all this stuff, the overt repeated attacks on me, and the absurd SPI complaint, etc. I provide no evidence - the evidence is around you - look at the remarks pasted concerning me by the same small group of editors. I make no complaint here about them - such statements as they make will likely duplicate statements made over and over in the belief of "proof by iteration" alas. But when a single editor posts over 40K of "complaints" about me personally in under three weeks, I think I should be terse indeed.

See [1] with the close: Querulous complaint remitted to AfD and WP:DR if the OP refuses to drop the stick after that. Guy (Help!) 12:59, 17 March 2015 (UTC) JzG

Followed by a demand for a ban -- and this response: Oppose this sanction, support application of the WP:TROUT to the filing party. You want measured in-depth conversation? ANI is the last place you should go. And actually I think you know that perfectly well and are banking on the WP:BOOMERANG not coming back your way. Guy (Help!) 23:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC) and multiple agreements on that.

This current action is "vexatious litigation" and possibly harassment to boot. Kindly deal as needed. Collect (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh -- for the claim I accused others of McCarthyism - the only salient quote of mine I could find was[2]

To the extent that it intrinsically and deliberately violates multiple policies, it should not be "merged" but should be salted thoroughly. A neighbor of my aunt was caught up in McCarthyism, I see no reason to endorse that same logic today. It is noted that personal anecdotes have no relationship to policy, and at least one editor interprets this as attacking him personally, even though it was given only to show my personal state of mind about such SYNTH usage Collect (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2015 (UTC) (emended to make clear the personal issue I have was historical, and not a personal accusation in any way, shape or form, about any editor on Wikipedia using such WP:SYNTH as such) Collect (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) MrX seems to think my reasonable animus to what happened to a friend of a relative is in any way an attack on current editors. It is not, and was not, such. Collect (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By the way, I shall limit my entire participation to my comments above in the belief that any further engagement on the PNAC BLP/SYNTH is not salubrious for Wikipedia. Let the AfD be settled, and let everyone abide by that result in peace. Collect (talk) 21:26, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Um -- Viriditas is the precise person who proposed calling Florida a "fringe state" and otherwise harassed me - and had been instructed to not do so in future. For him or her to assert he or she is "uninvolved" is a long stretch indeed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive877#Harassment.2C_hounding_and_baiting_by_Viriditas_at_User_talk:Collect closed all of 9 days ago - which I suspect is telling about the harassment problem. Collect (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I ask each "essay" be examined and discussed individually.

Also that the claims that my positions are politically biased be checked by actual examination of edits in context and not by "diffs", and examination of all the BLPs I have edited, and not by measuring repetition of accusations.

Again, I specifically decline to participate in a witch-hunt, and ask that the arbitrators examine all of my essays de novo, and not based on iterated opinions but on the original evidence. I feel I have been a net asset to Wikipedia, and that my removal will not in any way benefit the project, but that is my personal opinion only. If you feel that the project benefits from my departure, then that is the right of the committee.

For form's sake, I specifically ask that the committee examine the Editor Interaction tool results to see whether I have been "chasing" anyone at all over four thousand and more pages, and whether any editors providing comments have been, instead, chasing me. Also I suggest a general CU to ensure that all participants are, indeed, separate individuals as a matter of form rather than as any accusation of multiple personas.

I ask that my list of blocks presented on my talk page be examined, with findings made on each block, as that appears to be one issue at hand. Any improper or marginal blocks should be then discounted.

I ask that the partial list of articles edited from my user page be examined to see how widespread any problems actually are out of several thousand articles.

Again I trust my requests will be met as otherwise there is to be no evidence at all to be presented by me, other than the words I have already written and my deeds already done.

I have been through this sort of witch hunt before when Ikip front-loaded an RFC/U with fourteen CANVASSed editors, and I do not care - just ask that the process be based on full and complete examination of my edits. I am currently beset on multiple sides - and some Arbs already do have possession of the Harassment evidence.

These should not be onerous requests as otherwise I shall be mute. As such is the case, I am done with this case, come what will. Here I stand. Collect (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

Broadly speaking I'm uninvolved here, although of course being active on Wikipedia I've ran across a few of the people listed above.

With respect to MrX's statement about Collect, frankly, I think it is ridiculous to single out some essays someone has written (and AFAICT, misrepresent them) as a basis for an ArbCom case request. Even without reading further into MrX's statement that right there raises red flags about MrX's good faith. THAT kind of manipulative behavior is an example of battleground mentality, not the mere fact that someone wrote some essay that someone else doesn't like. I also think that the accusation that Collect "insists on an unusually high, non-negotiable standards for BLP" is... an unintentional compliment. We probably need more of that not less. The rest of the initial statement by MrX appears to be fairly standard Wikipedia style mud slinging where some fairly innocuous diffs and somewhat irate statements are presented as if they were "teh worst thing ever!!!!". It's hyperbole meant to appeal to emotion and prejudice, rather than a well substantiated request.

With respect to Dear ODear ODear's statement above, I roughly agree. My interactions with Ubikwit have been unpleasant to say the least, and I do think that user has a serious problem when it comes to, at least, Kagan and Nuland (as I'm not really active in Israel-Palestine topics, I can't comment more broadly), and yes, they do dance right on, if not over the BLP line. Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MastCell[edit]

I think that there is a long-term, ongoing behavioral issue with Collect which warrants review by ArbCom. Briefly, by way of background:

... you seem to have a habit where you throw out arguments and excuses and blame left and right but act as if you can do no wrong, that you're right no matter what and that your opponent is hellbent on destroying the encyclopedia and you're only trying to prevent that. But your actions simply don't reflect that. I actually always had a positive impression of you and certainly didn't expect to be blocking you for a week, but after a couple hours reviewing your AN3 report I was pretty surprised by the behavior I found and came to the conclusion that this is what was necessary. And you've completely victimized yourself in reponse, admitting exactly no wrongdoing except "letting him have plenty of rope". You should know better, although maybe you do and this is just your strategy to get out of yet another block for edit warring. ([3])

... which I view as a good summary of Collect's pattern of problematic behavior and which, I think, will be detailed if or when a case is opened.
  • Collect's approach to content disputes is fundamentally maddening and uncollaborative. He habitually misrepresents sources, refuses to engage other editors' arguments, employs strawmen, and stonewalls rather than admit error.
  • Collect presents himself as a stalwart defender of WP:BLP. I think he misuses this policy opportunistically to excuse his own edit-warring and applies it thoughtlessly and carelessly. I will also (if this case is accepted) present at least 2 egregious BLP violations committed by Collect, which I cleaned up, and for which he refused to take responsibility. In general, I think he lacks an understanding of the letter and the spirit of BLP and his focus on this policy, while not always misguided, has done more harm than good.

At a minimum, I think there is evidence here to suggest that this is an editor with a history of suboptimal behavior (as identified and sanctioned previously by ArbCom) and a long-standing and escalating habit of edit-warring on ideologically charged topics. I think a case should be opened, because there is no other venue to deal with disruptive behavior from long-term, established editors. As should be evident from the statements here, this dispute is quite heated and involves a number of established editors. If not addressed, it will continue to fester and harm the encyclopedia. I think the charge of "forum-shopping" is sort of ridiculous, since with the closure of WP:RFC/U, there is no other forum to address such issues. MastCell Talk 00:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by MONGO[edit]

Collect has been the object of attention by those that disagree with his politics for some time now and it is high time the witch hunt, baiting, harassment and personal attacks against him are put to an end. I have limited time to provide evidence for several days but will add at least one additional party to this case at that time.--MONGO 22:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Diff showing complaint about Viriditas harassing Collect--MONGO 00:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • personal attack against me by Viriditas
  • Viriditas warning to cease hounding me which happened in this thread
  • MrX badgering JzG about closing a complaint about Collect in section "Your ANI close" MrX accuses Collect of forum shopping then proceeds to say he's taking further action (aka forum shopping) and finishes by insulting me after I advise him and others to disengage.
  • Here, while successful, it should be noted that MrX has just recently asked for sanctions against another editor that is not liberal.
  • MrX defends an editor with a similar political outlook to his own, even though that editor was using less then sensational references to support a sensational claim on a BLP. That same editor that MrX was defending has been blocked five times in the last year. Why is MrX so happy to defend what appears to be nothing more than a troublesome editor, but wants to come after Collect, over and over. Its really pretty easy to see the issue here if anyone looks at it with NPOV and justice in mind.
  • In this discussion Collect is questioning the supporting evidence for labelling a BLP subject as a neoconservative or neocon. As I stated in the subsection that follows, liberals like to toss that label around like an epithet. Collect recognizes that as well and is in disagreement with Ubikwit who is searching for more evidence to support that label. Point is, since Ubikwit is liberal and liberals toss that label around like an epithet, the issue is that it becomes a BLP violation in the context it is being used. The talkpage is bogged down with liberals trying to figure out a way to discredit the BLP subject and little or no discussion about how to improve the rest of the article.
  • I resent Ubikwit's commentary that I was trolling him as he makes below. I queried him why he, a liberal, is interested in only adding negative information to a BLP on a conservative. The entire talk page on that article is littered with repeated efforts by Ubikwit to find ways to disparage that subject. It's actually very ugly that he has no other apparent interest in that article. I referenced this in my last comment. Why does the website allow this misuse of BLP to stand. He has no business behaving in this manner on any BLP, and his block log seems to indicate this.

I expect this case to be accepted and will resume adding diffs of named parties during the evidence stage.--MONGO

  • Ubikwit has resorted to once again labeling my sincerely questioning as "trolling". An injunction may be needed in this matter.

Courcelles, my argument is that Collect has been hounded, baited and harassed by multiple editors, which are named. There are likely others, so while it may appear to be about politics, its about harassment by a clique that want to eliminate Collect because he makes it more difficult for them to violate BLP and misuse this website to POV push.--MONGO 02:22, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The case should be about Collect and those that have been in disagreements with him. If we have had two other arbcom cases then no reason for a third if DS can be implemented. Why is arbcom creating more work for everyone?--MONGO 00:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still cannot understand why the need for an American Politics case overall. Especially difficult to grasp why we toss in Tea Party and Gun Control...why not also include Climate Change, alledged Police Militarization, the Occupy Movement and every other hit button topic. If you want a secondary case, then make it about BLP, and use it to implement BLP bans on editors that edit BLPs of persons they disagree with and filibuster adding only negative stuff to those articles.--MONGO 19:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Ubikwit[edit]

I'm going to keep this brief by incorporating the pertinent matter from a recently declined request I filed here involving Collect.[4]
@Courcelles: I agree with Floquenbeam and NE Ent regarding the scope of the case. I also think that the preventative measures implemented should include the imposition of discretionary sanctions across the entirety of American politics. The current status of only have recourse to AN/I seems to be too permissive and some editors take that as a license for abuse, and groups can game that system.

In addition to the mention I made at the recently closed An\N/I of Collect's complaining about my edits at the PNAC article to Swarm, including the expected unsubstantiated claims of BLP violations, etc:

  1. PNAC
  2. "PNAC: FGS do something"
  3. "PNAC: and yes - he keeps on!"
Only one other editor commented in that thread“Yup”

He also tried to provoke me at another article to which he followed my edits, and then complained to Callanecc here.

--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even with this request under consideration, MONGO has tried to trollbait and provoke me with personal attacks, etc.,[5][6] at a page he's not been active on before[7].
Note that I do not recall having interacted with MONGO significantly on any article on Wikipedia.
Accordingly, while I think that the central issue of the case should be Collect's conduct, the question as to the scope of the case may require some deliberation so as not to be overly constrained, yet not unwieldy. Incorporating "Neoconservativism", as per EvergreenFir's suggestion might accommodate that. Perhaps something along the lines of "American Politics III, User:Collect and Neoconservativism, broadly construed".
I understand that the scope of Collect's misconduct would thereby be constrained, but there is no doubt sufficient misconduct there to keep the Committee busy for a month or two.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just a note that I've seen the statement of LM2000, and would reiterate that many of the RfC's started by Collect at various venues have been pointy diversions from the task of drafting wording corresponding to reliably sourced statements and the positions described thereby. I believe that the misrepresentations of my edits by LM2000's statement have been adequately addressed in other threads, including (Sam Harris AN/I 2), so I won't go through that again here. Suffice it to say, that insofar as the political implications of the writings and public statements of Sam Harris have resulted in his being described as espousing right-wing, neoconservative views, etc., the material falls under the scope of American politics.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 03:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note on scope If two cases are to be opened and one is to be on American politics, broadly construed, then it would seem that practically the entirety of the case I requested with respect to the problems on the Sam Harris article should be addressed. Aside from adding LM2000 as a party, others would certainly include Xenophrenic, etc. It would have been preventative to have dealt with the issues then, but here we are again with an even bigger problem.
Although this request was filed against Collect, a couple of editors are trying to make a scapegoat of me, diverting from the egregious misconduct of Collect.
Accordingly, there would seem to be further issues regarding delimiting the parties of the second case that the Committee has to deliberate.
Aside from Mongo's personal attacks and inflammatory remarkstrolling, Capitalismojo has also appeared out of the blue at a couple of articles/talk pages and edited in a disruptive manner. I should note that he was also a party to the Tea Party case, but dropped out of sight during the case, and avoided sanctions.

  1. [8]
  2. After I reply “WP:NOTBATTLE”, he thanked me and deleted offending material, then I thanked him.

Then, he shows up at another article he'd never edited, as follows.

  1. first ever edit here, no participation in discussion/RfC at Talk, but moves sentence from lead, questions whether it is due at all
  2. apparently hasn’t read the sources and doesn’t even understand that the letter was not a personal letter, yet claims text is pointy and tendentious, after acknowledging that the sentence inserted by Collect “looks inane”, and doesn't respond to replies by JBH and me.

Lastly, @Courcelles: If Collect is not to be named as a party in the second case, that might save work for him, but will probably result in increasing the burden on me, and my conduct is not the subject of this request, though many of Collect's partisan collaborators are trying to make it one. That would result in a patently an unacceptable demand on my time.
And I repeat, I am not the subject of this request.
Therefore, I'm going to have to insist that my concerns be taken into consideration as well.
--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 04:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I've added the diffs, and submit that the editing of Mongo and Capitalismojo (most of it after this request was underway) is representative of a group dynamic among partisans that edit paying no attention to the sources in a manner focused on "the opponent" and attempting to obstruct the introduction of all sourced content that they find negative with respect to their ideology and associated figures.

And one other point, though I haven't been around here long enough to have the perspective of Cla68, among the administrators here, the use of the tools by MastCell could use scrutiny, particularly with respect to User:Is not a/User:Dear ODear ODear, whom was indeffed as a result of this AN/I I filed[9]. MastCell revealed his partisan sympathies with this comment Ubikwit has edit-warred to restore extremely dubious external links, while Collect has repeated unsubstantiated and irresponsible accusations of anti-Semitism against Ubikwit. There was an open RfC on one link and the claim of edit warring questionableas I described here in reply, and that was closed in favor of restoring the link, a tertiary source without a single objectionable source linked in it. There was nothing "extremely dubious" about that link, or the other one, for that matter. I don't care what MastCell's politics are, only that they maintain their bias(pov) within NPOV an in relation to the sources, like everyone else, and not denigrate (in this case, a form of misrepresentation as "not RS") sources they don't agree with when making an administrative statement.

It would seem to me that such act facilitated the continual disruption at the same articles/topics, when a topic ban proposal would seem to have been in order, because it is not clear why he would acknowledge misconduct but then state, in a manner such as to preempt even the pursuit of a topic ban, etc., "the owner of the account is free to use his or her main account if s/he wishes to contribute to contentious topics"(same diff). Moreover, the account under which the user resumed editing has few edits, while the editor earlier demonstrated substantial Wikipedia knowledge, and had refused to respond to a question I posed at his UT page as to the existence of a possible COI. I understand that there is a disclosure system regarding alternative accounts so as to protect privacy, but that seems subject to being abused/gamed. In this case, it resulted in a second SPI being filed against the same user, wasting everybody's time, basically, yet MastCell was not around to perform any preemptive administrative action to prevent that in relation to the user that had apparently pre-disclosed to him. In short, I'm not sure whether he abused the tools, but his actions as an administrator in that case--as well as in at least one other mentioned in the request for arbitration I filed (he closed an AN/I thread on Collect prematurely, perhaps)--bears scrutiny.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 10:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • Note, I am aware that my statement exceeds the limit, but there seems to be no alternative in addressing the proposed scope of the(se) cases due to the obvious extenuating circumstances, including the request I filed a short while ago that was declined but is now being reintroduced in conjunction with the extraordinary suggestion of opening two overlapping, related cases in parallel, etc. Of course, I will reduce the text upon request by the Committee.--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 15:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved Gaijin42[edit]

Only involvement was commenting at the AFD. Somethign to criticize all around, but this does seem a bit like forum shopping in the face of a fairly strong consensus against the filing party's argument, especially in light of the multiple other venues that have been tried recently by various participants.

I suggest that this case should be declined and the PNAC and related articles be placed under DS per WP:ARBAPDS. The continued issues (if any) could then be dealt with swiftly by normal admin processes or WP:AE. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved A1candidate[edit]

I consider myself to be uninvolved in this particular dispute, but I note the following points:

1) Administrator JzG closed the ANI thread before the community had much of a chance to participate [10]

2) Administrator JzG contributed to the inflammatory environment by demanding "application of the WP:TROUT to the filing party" [11]"; this statement is likely to further offend the filing party.

3) When asked to clarify his actions, administrator JzG bluntly dismissed the filing party's case as "a rallying cry to attract supporters" [12]

This administrator has shown similar patterns of WP:BATTLEGROUND conduct in many other disputes. He also uses abusive language [13] and invokes his admin status to silence other editors [14]. He bites the newcomers [15][16], attacks other editors by labelling them "apologist" in the edit summary [17] and accuses them of being "quackery supporters" [18]. I think it is time for the Committee to take action.

Statement by Cla68[edit]

There has been ongoing battle between two loosely associated groups of editors in WP for years. One side appears to favor left-wing/liberal, environmental, anti-religion, dogmatic western science/medicine activism, and the other is more right-wing/conservative/libertarian, pro-free market capitalism, religion, and theistic science. Several of the names listed above are heavily involved in one side or the other, including several admins who really don't hide very well that they are trying to support one of group of editors using their admin privileges. If the ArbCom and all the editors involved are up to it, why not get this all out in the open now and get this area cleaned up? The constant conflicts and POV-pushing by these groups of editors, many of them long-time, heavily involved participants here, is one of the main reasons, IMO, that WP has had such a hard time recruiting new volunteers the last few years. Cla68 (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved RightCowLeftCoast[edit]

While there is WP:STRAIGHT, I have to mostly agree with the above statement. What I have seen is an effort to, through consensus of those opposed to the "more right-" side of the political spectrum, achieve negative actions being taken to those editors who aren't in favor of the "left-wing" side of issues. Whether it be banning, topic banning, or other things (Example, why has there been an effort (or was an effort) to delete WikiProject Conservatism while there hasn't been an effort to delete other wikiprojects with political scopes). This is just another attempt. If WP:BATTLEGROUND is being argued, that can be argued for many listed here, and myself, and many more not listed here (including a few now on this committee and commenting here). Not that it is true, not that all editors aren't attempting to improve Wikipedia (I am of the view that most editors who are involved with editing political articles, who might come up in this discussion, believe that they are doing the best thing for the article, even if those with opposing political views believe that they are not). But slowly working to remove editors who do not share one's political spectrum, will not lead to a better project, and likely lead to the old issues of non-neutrality, which have since been improved upon (a work in progress IMHO).--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC) What I disagree with is that this has affected bringing in new editors. I believe it hasn't, and is due to other things.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC) Found my way here due to an AfD--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by uninvolved Viriditas[edit]

I wholeheartedly support Gaijin42's proposal above; please decline this case and place the relevant articles under DS per WP:ARBAPDS. I've actually been discussing this very proposal for several months. It seems that several of the editors named as involved are getting more and more disruptive in the American politics topic area. Collect's behavior on the PNAC articles as described above seems to be very similar to MONGO's on American Sniper (see his talk page contribs), and when MONGO was recently brought to ANI, the closing admin said, "If there is a long term pattern of abuse, as they seem to allege, it would probably be best dealt with at arbitration." I would like to suggest that what we need here is strict arbcom enforcement in the American politics topic area, particularly in regards to Collect and MONGO, who seem to be engaging in disruption in this topic area at this time. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Collect: I am very confused about how a reference to a news story breaking that day about how Florida has "banned" any discussion of climate change by scientists in their state, amounts to "harassment" of your person. And when even mainstream Time magazine acknowledges that the GOP is "fringe",[19] your claim of harassment becomes even more strained. If you're not a senator or the governor of Florida, how can I be "harassing" you? Facts may be funny things, but they are not "harassment" of any kind. I should point out that according to WP:AOHA, "making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory...It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment." Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Collect: your notion of "involved" is unusual. I am not involved in any of the disputes listed above, nor have I touched any of these articles or their talk pages or the relevant content dispute noticeboards. You falsely claimed I "harassed" you during a discussion on your talk page that has absolutely nothing to do with this topic. Viriditas (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment by Alanscottwalker[edit]

Just to note that the AfD mentioned by Capitalismojo is quite odd, in my experience, with multiple !votes for delete but the same !votes saying the information belongs in another article. That seems to me to be a merge of sorts but as such a thing is odd, it does suggest there is something going on that has nothing to do with the AfD, and if the committee does wish to plumb the depths of what it's "really" all about - it won't find it in that AfD, and good luck to you. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:55, 18 March 2015 (UTC)(as an aside, Captalismojo's count is somewhat off, if that matters) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Cas Liber[edit]

I tend to agree that the politics and opinions of alot of editors will impede any debate that takes place on AN/I (or elsewhere) to the point that it will be impossible to gain consensus, especially for long-term tendentious behaviour. Hence a case examining the conduct will be by far the easiest way to determine if sanctions are warranted or not. AN/I will be buried in walls of text, indignance and vitriol. Hence I recommend accepting the case. Just try to make it a quick one. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS: Should add that an accusation of misusing sources trumps all edit-warring in seriousness and hence should be examined for truth or discarded. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Floq[edit]

The original case request focused on Collect; the other parties included were based on their interactions with him. I see people adding parties left and right (ha!), based on the broader chronic "American politics broadly construed" battleground. This is a truly excellent way to bog down a case. If the case is accepted, I suggest it be refocused down to Collect and his interactions with others, and the list of parties trimmed accordingly. Unless you want to open a free-wheeling Left vs. Right Battle Royale case. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by mostly uninvolved EvergreenFir[edit]

Without spending hours scrutinizing every diff and comment, it seems there's an issues that ANI has failed to resolve. It also appears to be spilling over into other pages (e.g., Talk:Robert Kagan). Given this spillover, it would seem the scope is more about neoconservatism in general.

For full disclosure, my slight involvement was on Talk:Robert Kagan where I engaged in discussion with a number of folks party to this case. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Requesting a clerk split the vote tallies into the Collect case and the American Politics case for clarity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:53, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by LM2000[edit]

I first became involved in the Collect/Ubikwit conflict late last month on Sam Harris (author). A large part of the edit war revolved around Ubikwit's determination in keeping this bit of content in the article, which references the popular atheist's alleged "tribal affections for the Jewish state", sourced to the non-notable Theodore Sayeed. An RfC unanimously opposed its inclusion. Despite some editors in the RfC voicing direct opposition to the source in question, Ubikwit reused it elsewhere in the article days later.[20] Ubikwit then sought out the opinions of the most outspoken critics of Harris and pasted their most critical quotes into the BLP, this included their connecting him to neoconservatives despite him being a self-proclaimed liberal. These edits showed no regard to WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and BLP; they turned the article into a WP:COATRACK. A second RfC unsurprisingly found unanimous opposition to these edits. At this point Ubikwit tried to start an Arbcom case, but that was declined and sent to AN/I. It sat on AN/I for days until Ubikwit and Collect were both blocked for edit warring on the PNAC article. Before this, Ubikwit edit warred and attempted to reinsert similar contentious material 16 times.

Swarm did suggest an IBAN between Collect and Ubikwit in the AN/I thread after the fact but I think that this puts a band-aid on a geyser. At this point their interactions have spread out across multiple pages, involve several other editors, and such a ban does little to address the long-standing BLP issues here. I think the cases of Sam Harris and the PNAC list are clear in that consensus is on Collect's side. Dear ODear ODear lays out a case that Ubikwit has been labeling subjects as Jews and militant right-wingers for quite some time, in the short time I've interacted with Ubikwit I can also confirm that this has been my experience as well.LM2000 (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by John Carter[edit]

I regret to say that it is getting kinda hard to follow the accept/declines of two different cases below. Maybe having some some of hyphenated numbering in the vote count for the two separate cases will make it easier for the rest of us to keep track of the totals here? John Carter (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Presumptuous pseudo-clerking by Short Brigade Harvester Boris[edit]

Arb Collect Politics Note
Thryduulf Yea Yea "both are ready for arbitration now"
Courcelles Yea Yea "Accept only as two distinct cases"
Guerillero Yea Yea "Accept two cases per my colleagues."
Seraphimblade Yea Yea "Two cases is fine with me as well."
DGG Yea Nay "Accept, focusing on Collect. Decline American Politics at this time."
Roger Davies Yea Yea " I'm fine with this as two cases. One focusing on Collect; the other on American Politics."
Yunshui Yea Yea " I would accept either a case on Collect, a case on American Politics, or both, but not a single case dealing with both topics."
Dougweller Yea Yea "Accept with caveat Sorry, that's not a standard vote, but at the moment I think this is best handled as two cases."
Euryalus Yea Nay "Accept a case on conduct issues surrounding Collect and those editors he is in regular dispute with, without prejudice to either side. Decline a wider American Politics case."
GorillaWarfare Yea Yea "Accept as two distinct cases."
DeltaQuad Yea Yea "Accept" two separate cases."
AGK Yea Nay Accept to examine Collect's conduct only. Decline in relation to American Politics.

OK, looks like there's a clear majority to accept each case.

I'm not sure how you folks are going to handle two complex, highly personalized and divisive cases running simultaneously. But I guess that's why you're paid the big bucks.

@Euryalus, apologies for the copy-and-paste error. Corrected.

@Seraphimblade, Guerillero, apologies to you as well for mixing up your comments. In fact I'll just make a pre-emptive apology to all arbs, parties and onlookers, along with a promise to order new bifocals.

Statement by OccultZone[edit]

Collect is a prolific member. He has been in dispute with many editors, widely because of his topic range that he has selected. While he is correct so many of the times, it is usual for anyone to indulge in some sort of dispute with another editor. I believe that even if this case as been accepted, a lot of misunderstandings would be cleared up. Thanks. OccultZone (TalkContributionsLog) 05:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by jps[edit]

It would be helpful if arbcom would address the fact that WP:BLP is often used as an excuse for ignoring editing restrictions by Collect and others who agree with his approach. jps (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Beyond My Ken[edit]

I would think it would be most efficient if the committee were to deal with the Collect case before proceeding to the American Politics case. Doing them at the same time seems to me a recipe for overloading the Arbitrators. BMK (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • All I can say is that you folks are gluttons for punishment. Good luck! BMK (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Per #3A in the motion below, I do not recall having had a dispute with Collect, although it certainly might have happened, and I do not regularly edit U.S. politics-related articles, for perhaps obvious reasons. I doubt it would be helpful to add my name to the list of parties in either case, only to remove it per #3B. BMK (talk) 21:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by AndyTheGrump[edit]

Not a statement, but a simple question, and a formal objection. Why is 'gun control' included in the American politics 2 topic? As far as I can see, the subject hasn't come up in discussions, and one of the major issues concerning articles on the subject of firearms regulation that led to the previous gun control arbitration case was the way that what was supposed to be an international topic was dominated by the narrow perspectives of a particular faction within the U.S. It seems to me that by including 'gun control' (itself a loaded term that Wikipedia must seriously consider stop using) within 'American politics', ArbCom is making a fundamental categorical error which serves to enhance the inherent bias resulting (to a large extent) from the demographics of the contributor base. I would like to state for the record that I consider this misappropriation of a global topic to be contrary to the expected standards of ArbCom. If firearms regulation needs to be discussed within this case at all (which appears as yet not to have been demonstrated), it needs to be done in a manner that avoids imposing the very bias that led to the previous ArbCom case - which means narrowing its remit, and describing the subject in a neutral manner which clarifies the scope, and makes it entirely clear that the subject matter is solely restricted to matters directly concerning the United States. As someone heavily involved in the previous 'gun control' case, I will formally state that I will, as a non-U.S. contributor, refuse to participate further in any arbitration which misappropriates a global topic, and reimposes the objectionable bias that has previously plagued the topic, to the great detriment of Wikipedia - and I will advise anyone else in a similar position to do the same. If further arbitration concerning firearms regulation is needed (I'll refrain from exppressing an opinion at this point), it must, if ArbCom is to carry out the role required of it be done in an appropriate and neutral manner - which, I have to suggest, necessitates separating it from this case, making it entirely and unambiguously clear that as an international encyclopaedia, Wikipedia does not define subjects according to the narrow perspectives of one particular country, and accordingly naming the case using appropriate terminology, making the global scope of the topic entirely clear. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that the wording has now been revised to indicate the degree to which 'gun control' is considered within the scope of any arbitration: "...any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic". Hopefully ArbCom will bear in mind the international scope of this subject, and not let narrow U.S.-based perspectives cloud their judgement should they make any decisions regarding the issue which might have broader consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Atsme (uninvolved)[edit]

I have great respect for Collect's ability for accuracy and strict adherence to BLP policy regardless of his own persuasions. We have had a few minor disagreements in the past, but I learned from them, perhaps because my goal is to keep writing GAs and FAs. In reviewing some of the diffs provided above, my conclusion is that some editors may have lost sight of NPOV, and what should be included in a biography as well as how it should be written. They may need to reevaluate their reasons for initiating this ARBCOM. I am concerned that some editors have become insensitive to BLPs as a result of the information we are finding on the internet including op-eds and blogs that are riddled with COI, partisanship, and other bigotry. I am also seeing what has become a common misconception (to quote the very wise words of TenOfAllTrades) that a source can be declared "reliable", and that declaration is a fixed, absolute judgement. Reliability depends both on the source itself and how it is used. Collect has skillfully managed to stay above the fray with such matters, and has kept contentious material in perspective by adhering to policies with a complete understanding of WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, including any narratives in the notes that may accompany the respective policies. Adherence to BLP policy often frustrates opposing editors who are partisan and want only to discredit, the latter of which is often fundamentally noncompliant with NPOV. We all have disagreements which brings in behavioral issues, but any editor who has spent time analyzing and studying WP:PAG knows that Collect's argument is on target, and that should be the first and foremost consideration as it relates to his behavior and insistence on following BLP policy. To accuse editors of using policy as a tool to win an argument is a claim that is neither plausible nor substantive. Winning arguments based on policy is a clear indication that policy prevailed, as well it should. AtsmeConsult 15:26, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by The Devil's Advocate[edit]

While it has been some time, I have had my own interactions with and observed interactions between several parties to this case, though I am not a party to the instigating dispute. Not sure if my current restrictions cover ArbCom space or if my prior involvement is sufficient to avoid it being a violation either way, but I think I could provide valuable evidence regarding the parties involved in this dispute. Do the Arbs see any issue with my potential participation in this case?--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statement by Konveyor Belt[edit]

I find it pretty poor form for the ArbCom to be blocking and removing the statement of one of the parties to the case with no explanation and no discussion on wiki at all. Actions like these undermine the procedure and fairness of the case process. KonveyorBelt 16:58, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preliminary decision[edit]

Clerk notes[edit]

This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
  • @Guy Macon and John Carter: The arbitrators are discussing their options on the mailing lists and the case opening will probably be dealt with by motion instead of by vote count below. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Dear ODear ODear: I've added a </blockquote> to the place in your section where I thought you wanted it to end. The open blockquote with no close was messing with the indent in all the other sections. --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • A reminder: Professional behavior is expected in arbitration, as elsewhere in Wikipedia. Conduct issues during arbitration (incivility, personal attacks) are taken into account by the arbitrators in drafting decisions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <11/0/0/0>[edit]

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)

  • Accept. There are a heck of a lot of accusations and counter accusations flying backwards and forwards here, including of involved/biased admin actions on ANI threads. I think there is enough here that the claims warrant looking at to determine whether there is any substance to them, and, if there is, what remedies will restore order and prevent re-occurrence. I also think the formal structure of an arbitration case is probably the best way to go about doing that with the minimum drama. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree with my colleagues that this is two separate cases, one regarding the behaviour of Collect and the other regarding the American Politics topic area. I'm not sure that one needs to wait for the other though as both are ready for arbitration now. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Note Everyone choosing to comment on this request, or participate in a case if one is accepted, should be aware that standards of decorum will be strongly enforced, by blocks if necessary, and that misconduct by anyone is sanctionable. Thryduulf (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Floquenbeam has a very good point. Do we need a "Collect" case, one that would essentially be "American Politics III", or nothing? (I'm counting "Tea Party" there.) The scope of the request has wildly drifted from one about an editor to one about a massive topic area. Can we get statements focusing on whether we need one, both, or neither of those two distinct cases? Because what will not work is conflating the two different issues into one case. Not decided that we need any case yet, but we absolutely don't need a rolled-together mess. Courcelles (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Begoon: I have begum working on a motion to formally accept this, one of the provisions is that Collect would not be a named party, nor would evidence about him allowed in the American Politics case. Us deciding to split this should not result in more complications for them. Courcelles (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Don't we already have DS in this area anyways? --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:19, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept. American politics is a perennially contentious topic area, and clearly that hasn't stopped since the last case. Things will only heat up more over the next year or two, so I think it's time for another look. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept Collect case about that editor's behavioral issues. Postpone American Politics III, to be about behavioral issues on that topic generally, mainly to consider if we need to update of change topic sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
interpretation: Accept, focusing on Collect. Decline American Politics at this time. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept mostly per my learned colleague, Seraphimblade.  Roger Davies talk 05:27, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment: I'm fine with this as two cases. One focusing on Collect; the other on American Politics,  Roger Davies talk 11:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept, assuming that the scope can be clarified somewhat, per Courcelles. Yunshui  08:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To clarify, I would accept either a case on Collect, a case on American Politics, or both, but not a single case dealing with both topics. Somewhat ironic that my call for clarification required clarification... Yunshui  12:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept with caveat Sorry, that's not a standard vote, but at the moment I think this is best handled as two cases. I note that of the other 5 accepts, one states "Accept Collect case", which I don't think means the case as described so far, and an "Accept" from Yunshui which calls for a clarification of the scope. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept as two distinct cases. I agree that trying to combine the two topics here into one case is a terrible idea, but I think there are sufficient issues with both to warrant two cases instead of just a narrowing of scope. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept a case on conduct issues surrounding Collect and those editors he is in regular dispute with, without prejudice to either "side." Decline a wider American Politics case. -- Euryalus (talk) 19:32, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Begoon:, good point, and one reason why I think we should only pursue one case.
@Short Brigade Harvester Boris:, thanks for the impromptu clerking which is a helpful tally. However, while you record my votes right, the quote on the right is incorrect.-- Euryalus2 (talk)
Inconsequential additions - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (great name by the way), thanks for the correction but you have forgotten to include GorillaWarfare in the table. Courcelles, you have a begum working on the motion? :)
Dear ODear ODear, your explanation for the emails remains unclear. Can you expand on it at all? --Euryalus (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Accept to examine Collect's conduct only. Decline in relation to American Politics. AGK [•] 00:48, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Motion: Collect request[edit]

The case request of 18 March 2015 is accepted. As it consists of two distinct yet related issues, it will be handled as two cases, namely:

1. Collect and others

This case is focused on individuals and will examine allegations of misconduct by Collect and those who interact with him, irrespective of topic.

2. American politics 2

This case is focused on a broad topic and will examine allegations of misconduct within the American Politics topic, which – for the purposes of this case – also includes the Tea Party Movement topic and any United States-related overlaps with the Gun Control topic. While Collect may participate in this case, no allegations concerning him may be made within it, nor any proposed findings or remedies posted.

3. Procedures

a. All people making statements in the present request will be initially added to the lists of parties for both cases and all statements added to both cases. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party.

b. As the cases proceed, the drafters will (i) prune the lists of parties to remove uninvolved participants and (ii) delete non-relevant statements from the case main pages.

c. Both cases will broadly follow the standard timetable but with the American politics 2 case having three weeks for the evidence phase instead of the usual two.

d. Arbitrators and Arbitration clerks may at their absolute discretion copy or move material from one case to the other.

e. Arbitration clerks are instructed to adopt a zero tolerance approach to disruptive or inappropriate conduct of whatever nature on case pages. Any clerk or arbitrator, may, at their sole discretion, impose blocks, bans from participating further in the case, or any other reasonable measure to enforce proper decorum in these cases.

f. The standard evidence lengths will apply and be strictly enforced.

For this motion there are 15 active arbitrators. With 0 arbitrators abstaining, 8 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:26, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1.  Roger Davies talk 11:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Dougweller (talk) 13:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 17:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Courcelles (talk) 17:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  7. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  8. Still unconvinced re the need for the second case or the inclusion of Gun Control, even if limited to a US context. However, procedural support for this motion as a good way of running the two cases concurrently. I note in passing that there may well be additonal overlap between the cases - we cannot assume that an examination of conduct issues involving Collect cannot lead to FOF and remedies involving other people as well or instead. This is not "Collect: guilty or not?" It's "Recent history involving Collect: what are the causes of any current and intractable editor conduct problems by anyone involved?" -- Euryalus (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  9. Also echo Euryalus' last part of their comment. -- DQ (ʞlɐʇ) 15:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  10. Like Euryalus, my support for some parts of this proposal is procedural. AGK [•] 19:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I might suggest modifying the wording to "includes the Tea Party topic and overlaps with the Gun Control topic as it pertains to the United States." Gun control in other countries political systems isn't within scope of this case at all, might as well make that specific. But gun control, as a political and second amendment flashpoint in US political discourse, very much is. Courcelles (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Please all note the word limits for evidence. To avoid walls of text, the word limits will be enforced by a) a reminder, b) another reminder, and c) our friendly case clerks simply snipping your evidence off at the point the word limit is reached. The Committee may grant word limit extensions, but unless one is granted it will be necessary to stay within the posted restrictions. This piece of casepage bureaucracy brought to you by Euryalus2 (talk) 20:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Everyone: a slight expansion on this here. I'll post this on the evidence talkpages as well, when we get to them. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Temporary injunction (none)[edit]

Final decision[edit]

All tallies are based the votes at /Proposed decision, where comments and discussion from the voting phase is also available.


Jurisdiction of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

1) The Committee retains jurisdiction over prior cases, in this instance, the American Politics case.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of Wikipedia[edit]

2) The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Use of the site for other purposes, such as advocacy or propaganda or furtherance of outside conflicts is prohibited. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Role of the Arbitration Committee[edit]

3) It is not the role of the Arbitration Committee to settle good-faith content disputes among editors.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


4) Disagreements concerning article content are to be resolved by seeking to build consensus through the use of polite discussion – involving the wider community, if necessary. The dispute resolution process is designed to assist consensus-building when normal talk page communication has not worked. When there is a good-faith dispute, editors are expected to participate in the consensus-building process and to carefully consider other editors' views, rather than simply edit-warring back-and-forth between competing versions. Sustained editorial conflict is not an appropriate method of resolving content disputes.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Behavioral standards[edit]

5) Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other editors; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality and sources[edit]

6) All Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. Merely presenting a plurality of viewpoints, especially from polarized sources, does not fulfill the neutral point of view. Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight. Relying on synthesized claims, or other "original research", is therefore contrary to the neutral point of view. The neutral point of view is the guiding editorial principle of Wikipedia, and is not optional.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

7) Edit warring is detrimental to the editing environment as it disrupts articles and tends to inflame content disputes rather than resolve them. Users who engage in multiple reverts of the same content but are careful not to breach the three revert rule are still edit warring.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Findings of fact[edit]

Locus of the dispute[edit]

1) This case relates to behavioral issues occurring around articles relating to political and/or social issues in the United States. This area has been the subject of numerous arbitration cases.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


2) In the American Politics case, the Arbitration Committee stated "Placing all pages dealing with such a broad subject under sanctions is not desirable, but neither is having continuous disruption of content as the problems move from one area to another." and created a fast-track way of placing topics under discretionary sanctions. These sanctions have been ineffective in controlling the disruption, as the disruption has continued but they have not been used.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


3) Ubikwit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) edit warred (LM200's evidence) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([21][22][23][24]). Ubikwit has been previously sanctioned in the Tea Party movement case for similar conduct.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


4) MONGO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has engaged in incivility ([25][26][27]) and contributed to the hostility in the topic area ([28][29][30]).

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

Contentious topic designation[edit]

Superseded version

Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)

1.2) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people.

1.2) Remedy 1 of the American Politics case is rescinded. In its place, the following is adopted: standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all edits about, and all pages related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people.

Passed 11 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Amended by motion at 22:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

1.2) Post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, broadly construed, is designated as a contentious topic.

Amended by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Ubikwit: Topic Ban (III)[edit]

2.5) Ubikwit is banned from any page relating to or making any edit about post-1932 politics of the United States, and closely related people, in any namespace. This ban may be appealed no earlier than 18 months after its adoption.

Passed 12 to 0 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

MONGO: Admonished[edit]

3.3) MONGO is admonished for adding to the hostility in the topic area.

Passed 9 to 3 at 19:40, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Motion: American politics 2 (1992 cutoff) (January 2021)[edit]

Remedy 1.2 of the American politics 2 case ("Discretionary sanctions (1932 cutoff)") is retitled "Discretionary sanctions (1992 cutoff)" and amended by replacing the words "post-1932 politics of the United States" with "post-1992 politics of the United States". Any sanctions or other restrictions imposed under the discretionary sanctions authorization to date shall remain in force unaffected.

Passed 8 to 1 with 2 abstentions by motion at 22:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)[edit]

21) Each reference to the prior discretionary sanctions procedure shall be treated as a reference to the contentious topics procedure. The arbitration clerks are directed to amend all existing remedies authorizing discretionary sanctions to instead designate contentious topics.

Passed 10 to 0 with 1 abstention by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


Enforcement of restrictions

0) Should any user subject to a restriction in this case violate that restriction, that user may be blocked, initially for up to one month, and then with blocks increasing in duration to a maximum of one year.

In accordance with the procedure for the standard enforcement provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Appeals and modifications

0) Appeals and modifications

This procedure applies to appeals related to, and modifications of, actions taken by administrators to enforce the Committee's remedies. It does not apply to appeals related to the remedies directly enacted by the Committee.

Appeals by sanctioned editors

Appeals may be made only by the editor under sanction and only for a currently active sanction. Requests for modification of page restrictions may be made by any editor. The process has three possible stages (see "Important notes" below). The editor may:

  1. ask the enforcing administrator to reconsider their original decision;
  2. request review at the arbitration enforcement noticeboard ("AE") or at the administrators’ noticeboard ("AN"); and
  3. submit a request for amendment at "ARCA". If the editor is blocked, the appeal may be made by email through Special:EmailUser/Arbitration Committee (or, if email access is revoked, to
Modifications by administrators

No administrator may modify or remove a sanction placed by another administrator without:

  1. the explicit prior affirmative consent of the enforcing administrator; or
  2. prior affirmative agreement for the modification at (a) AE or (b) AN or (c) ARCA (see "Important notes" below).

Administrators modifying sanctions out of process may at the discretion of the committee be desysopped.

Nothing in this section prevents an administrator from replacing an existing sanction issued by another administrator with a new sanction if fresh misconduct has taken place after the existing sanction was applied.

Administrators are free to modify sanctions placed by former administrators – that is, editors who do not have the administrator permission enabled (due to a temporary or permanent relinquishment or desysop) – without regard to the requirements of this section. If an administrator modifies a sanction placed by a former administrator, the administrator who made the modification becomes the "enforcing administrator". If a former administrator regains the tools, the provisions of this section again apply to their unmodified enforcement actions.

Important notes:

  1. For a request to succeed, either
(i) the clear and substantial consensus of (a) uninvolved administrators at AE or (b) uninvolved editors at AN or
(ii) a passing motion of arbitrators at ARCA
is required. If consensus at AE or AN is unclear, the status quo prevails.
  1. While asking the enforcing administrator and seeking reviews at AN or AE are not mandatory prior to seeking a decision from the committee, once the committee has reviewed a request, further substantive review at any forum is barred. The sole exception is editors under an active sanction who may still request an easing or removal of the sanction on the grounds that said sanction is no longer needed, but such requests may only be made once every six months, or whatever longer period the committee may specify.
  2. These provisions apply only to contentious topics placed by administrators and to blocks placed by administrators to enforce arbitration case decisions. They do not apply to sanctions directly authorised by the committee, and enacted either by arbitrators or by arbitration clerks, or to special functionary blocks of whatever nature.
  3. All actions designated as arbitration enforcement actions, including those alleged to be out of process or against existing policy, must first be appealed following arbitration enforcement procedures to establish if such enforcement is inappropriate before the action may be reversed or formally discussed at another venue.
In accordance with the procedure for the standard appeals and modifications provision adopted 3 May 2014, this provision did not require a vote.

Enforcement log[edit]

Any block, restriction, ban, or sanction performed under the authorisation of a remedy for this case must be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration enforcement log, not here.