Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia

Initiated by WhiteWriter ^speaks at 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

• WhiteWriter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Alinor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - diff for notification
• DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - diff for notification
• ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - diff for notification

Question about clarification of 1RR regarding Kosovo article, imposed in august 2009 by Nishkid64 (talk · contribs).

This happened:

• Following the expired RfC on Kosovo article talk page, Alinor (talk · contribs) followed the agreement, and re-include the 3 infoboxes. The talk page post and RfC was raised with 2 goals:
  • To finish article separation, or
  • To restore consensus version of the STATUS QUO, before 22 July 2010.

As we didnt get agreement about finishing separation, Alinor reverted status quo.

• ZjarriRrethues (talk · contribs), without anyone's agreement, reverted Alinors inclusion of status quo, with that's not the status quo but a revert of the consensus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Kosovo/Archive_25#ICJ_verdict. As i understand it (and all other's in question, as far as i see), RFC shown that there was no consensus for changes in question, and that therefor, linked consensus was faulty and mislead. ZjarriRrethues for some reasons, disagreed with that.
• Alinor reverted Zjarri, with revert; consensus obviously changed/wasn't reached - we have just completed a 30 day RFC Talk:Kosovo#Kosovo_article_split and there is no consensus for the changes in your version
• Zjarri writes on Alinor talk page and that post, you who read this, must reread there. Alinor, active user since 2004, without a dark spot in his resigme, was blocked 3 days for 1RR by DragonflySixtyseven (talk · contribs).
• Later, when Alinor was blocked, IJA (talk · contribs) removed one infobox, with removed the useless extra infobox, all that information is included in other info boxes. No point repeating it., without talk page entry, again changing agreed status quo.

Without question who is guilty, who is not (that is pointless not, i think), my question is, what exactly is 1RR? First edit by Alinor, implementation of talk page RfC was, by some, just a revert, while for some others new edit, followed the talk page. We must see what can be done regarding this, and with that agreement, similar problems may be excluded in the future. With this flammable page, clarification will be very useful. So, what exactly is 1rr on Kosovo page? Should any entry with similar historic content be regarded as revert? Now new editors can know about that? Is this 1ER (1 edit restriction) instead on 1RR per week? All of this should have answer. All best, and, by the way, Happy New Year! :) --WhiteWriter ^speaks 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Kosovo is under 1RR per week. Alinor's violation was pointed out by Alinor himself Anyway, you may technically count these as '2 reverts in total' and I don't want to argue about such technicalities and others [4]. He was blocked per the sanctions placed by Nishkid64 on Kosovo.

• There is a consensus which hasn't been overturned since July 2010[5][6] and a few hours after he made the second revert, one of the regular Kosovo editors restored that consensus because there was no consensus about reverting to a pre-July infobox version or even a discussion about it.[7]. Alinor didn't implement any agreement/agree status quo/consensus but reverted to a version he considered correct, which caused other users to suggest reporting him to AE. As Alinor kept saying when he was making the reverts consensus changes, however, it doesn't change by reverting but through discussion.

• As the one who started this request for clarification WhiteWriter should bring difs that show there was an agreement for Alinor's reverts as this supposed agreement WhiteWriter keeps insisting on mentioning to justify Alinor's reverts isn't on the article's talkpage.

--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 20:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I have explained my position here: User_talk:Alinor#1RR_violation_on_Kosovo.
• The problem is that ZjarriRrethues continues to refer to a 26 hours discussion back in July 2010 that didn't involve wide input and didn't present all possible alternatives (they made an agree/disagree statements on only 2 options out of 7). As WhiteWriter explains and the RFC recently concluded shows there is no consensus for the ZjarriRrethues supported changes. I also find them as flawed for other-than-procedural reasons (the result is misleading for readers - and this was the reason I got involved in the first place - I was misled myself) - as explained in my post on my talk page.
• I was blocked for two edits that I made - first I restored the status quo before the ZjarriRrethues-supported-changes (that got implemented after a 26 hour discussion); second - after his revert I reverted back to the status quo. The first edit was result of the lack of consensus for the ZjarriRrethues supported changes (implemented 5 months ago and under discussion since that moment - I don't know if restoring previous status quo falls inside the 1 week 1RR rules). Alinor (talk) 07:45, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that (if there is technical possibility) this block should be deleted from my block history - of course if the result of this procedure here is that DS made a mistake by blocking me in the first place. Alinor (talk) 15:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Without comment on the wider issue, Alinor's first edit of 31 Dec 2010 represents a reversion of the article to 05:06, 23 July 2010 (in terms of number of infoboxen), and Alinor's second edit of 31 Dec 2010 is a repetition of that revert. If a user enters some entirely new content onto a page, someone else undoes it, and the initial user reverts them - that is only one revert because the initial edit was novel (and not essentially a revert to a prior state of the article). This does not seem to be the case here. –xeno^talk 16:25, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Xeno's hit the nail on the head here; there were two reverts in this instance (i.e. it doesn't matter that one was a revert to something long ago). Shell ^babelfish 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Xeno and Shell are correct in their interpretation of the word "revert"; a change to any prior state of an article constitutes a revert. (The main caveat is that the edit must have been made knowing it was a change back to a prior state: one can imagine an editor making a change without realizing that he or she is in fact reinventing an earlier version of the wheel.) I do not see that any clarification of our prior decision is required here. That being said, for what it is is worth (which may be little), in this instance if I were the enforcing administrator I would likely have given a warning rather than a block. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with the arbitrators above; there were two reverts. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• I see two reverts as well. Strict guidelines for these pages have been instituted as a last resort after protracted disputes, and great care is needed for this reason. I am sorry about the blemish on your block record but I am not sure there is anything we can do about it.Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Case or decision affected

AN

Notification of Sanction

Note: This appeal is of an enforcement action under Macedonia#Standard discretionary sanctions. AGK ■ 13:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Clauses to which an amendment is requested

1. Diff

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

• FkpCascais (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (initiator)
• Sandstein (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

• Sandstein

Information about amendment request

• Diff

• Suspension of the topic ban or at least allowing me to edit football, an area I am highly active and productive and that had nothing to do with the cause of this problem,

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

May I just say that the sandbox text is not mine neither reflects my views. I found that text oarticularly interesting cause highlightes how the myth of "centuries long Serbian-Albanian conflict" is a modern-times fabrication. It is a text from a different oeriod with some views which may differ from nowadays ones, but regarding the history of Albanian-Serbian relationshios is correct. It uses unfortunate language from the time it was writen, as saying as "unfortunate" the choice of crating a Muslim country in Europe, or giving Istabul/C9stantinople to Turkey. Those were all matters that at certain poiint were being discussed. I found the texyt interesting and brought it to a sandbox. It doesnt reflect my personal views neither I have forced them at any article. It is not fair that I have a 6 months ban based on on some sandbox of mine that users just guess what I use them for. I am actually a very much peacefull editor with good collsbotation with many nationalities as seen by my barnstars and talk-page.. Presenting me as nationalist is extremelly unfair. FkpCascais (talk) 09:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank User:SportingFlyer for having tryied to help. After all, this was all a content dispute in which I presented numerous reliable sources and once opposing editors started restoring their prefered version which ignored my concerns, I went to ANI to ask for help. Certain admins interfered directly in the dispute by punishing me with a 6 month topic ban which they perfectly know unables me to work in all projects I am involved to. Since the content dispute was no reason enough for a sanction, they came up with this brilliant idea of digging in my sandboxes a text I have there, which is not mine by the way. The text is simply a text ammong many I have and doesnt represent my view. I just found interesting certain aspects in it. Presenting it as if that was my political belief was a brilliant strategy to get me punished. Nevermind. I will not edit eating habits of chinchillas despite likeing them. I will abandon this project for at least the next 6 months. Thank you all. FkpCascais (talk) 18:30, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SportingFlyer, you are a testimony of how absurd the occusations of me being Serb thus being biased are. You followed my edits, you followed the numerous creations of articles on Croatian footballers, my contribution to historical Croatian clubs, despite being Serbian I made all those contibutions with pure passion. The insinuation some here are making without even knowing my editing historial are really insulting for me, and hurt a lot my feelings and leave me sad. FkpCascais (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

To clarify, when I refered as "mosqueteers" to the editors, I had no bad intention besides indicating it was again the ones same editors creating a conflict. English is not my primary language and I often use expressions translated from other languages I speak better. In Portuguese it is often used for pointing out when a particular group hangs and acts always together. What I meant by that was that it was always the same editors that opposed me all time at Albanian-related articles. I had already pointed out prior that that a problem regarding Wikipedia:OWN was present with those same editors acting as group in order to control the content in the articles that are prioritary for WP:Albania. Having called them mosqueteers had no other intention on my behalve than just pointing out how their editing style was militaristic and how they acted in group. Other administrators often noteced this same pattern of behaviour and call it travelling circus, an expression I find much more offensive because (in)directly suggests editors are clowns.

Even so, I apologised at ANI to the other editors for the expression "mosqueteers". I promised to stay away from controversial matters (an editor from Balkans certainly knows which they are), but any of these seems to have been taken into consideration.

I have to point out a major flaw that I find in the way Wikipedia works. I cannot believe people here are naive to think there are editors without bias. Of course, I can have no bias when I wrote Zmaj aircraft. Why would I? There is nothing controversial there. However, articles such as World War II in Yugoslavia obviously are complicated articles in which events are seen trough different perspectives depending on one editors nationality, and even ammong the ones of same nationality often there are different fractions. Editors are inevitably biased, that is a fact Wikipedia would work better if assumed from the very begining. The problem is that at present, Wikipedia favours the ones that act and hide better their bias, against the others that believe things they were told that way, and are honest. I am fed up of seing good actors faking their unbiasness having their way. Editors from all Central and South-Eastern Europe are biased in favour of their nations. The lowest behavior is when editors group themselves by the rule "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Then ironically a false perception of consensus happends, with the other side accused of battleground mentality. We set this project to be a collaborative one where decitions would be made troughout consensus. We also highlight that what counts are the arguments, not the numbers. But what in practice happends more often if that becomes easier for a group pushing its POV to get the lone annoying guy eliminated from the project rather than accepting his valid points. Besides, the issue often becomes a matter of pride where winning or loosing becomes a matter of honour. In my decade long history I never e-mailed an admin, but I noteced certain groups when in trouble make a huge fuss off-wiki, something which becames notorious even if they think they are being discrete.

I am not OK with this. Most of this cases have been solved by force. Higher number of editors wins, they can perform more reverts, regular admins run as a devil from a cross when they see this cases, and the ones involving are the ones already having a long historial, with clear (unofficial) preferences. Sources are ignored but suddently a word someone used in a edit-summary is what decides the dispute. While often clear disruption is dealt with warnings, this cases are sealed with hardest punishments, of the kind "you are not welcome here and dont you ever dare to touch that issue again even when you return". This is wrong. Very, very wrong. This is not the proper way of solving the issues and sooner or later something will have to change. Wikipedia credibility is what is the main subject here. If Wikipedia is just a tool of the strongest, well, its entire purpose comes under question. Instead of the admins reacting badly by calling circus to this disputes, they should understand this disputes are real, and instead of just punishing the participants from "making problems" they should just ask for sources from both sides and after seing them crating a text that would properly represent the view historiograohers have over the events, even mentioning all options historiographers consider.

I think that if there was real good will, this project would be easy to run, and even unite opposing sides by creating eways of displaying realities where the views of all sides would be considered. RS, NPOV, Verifiability, UNDUE, ammong others, they all gives us tools make fair solutions that would be as fair as possible. All other behaviors seem suspicious and tendentious. FkpCascais (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend declining this appeal.

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

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

Just to note, an appeal of this ban was filed by FkpCascais at WP:AN on 22 December. [8] It was archived without being closed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

@Beyond My Ken - I saw that. It's a terrible look. That being said, I'm satisfied the week long block handled the situation properly. I see this as a situation where we either lose an editor, or give the editor one final chance to comply. That's why I'm setting the restrictions to be crystal clear and proposing a total site ban if there's any non-compliance. SportingFlyer T·C 06:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just as an aside to some comments above regarding the politicalisation of football in the area, I edit primarily football articles, especially Croatian football articles, and am familiar with the region. I see absolutely no problem with what I've proposed above with regards to politics. SportingFlyer T·C 18:58, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Updated notifications so they are Permalinks/Diffs, and included both the AN implantation and the --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 17:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• My default position for this sort of thing is that "decline where an uninvolved administrator has acted within the bounds of their discretion". Simply, I do not see that Sandstein has acted incorrectly here, and I am not willing to overturn his decision. Although I am willing to consider further, at present, I'm a decline Worm^TT(talk) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Seeing as Sandstein said, that football related articles can be a flashpoint for Balkans related issues, I do not feel it's wise to lift the topic ban for this area. Therefore I must decline this request. RickinBaltimore (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as within administrator discretion. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline both requests. The ban was within Sandstein's discretion and has community consensus behind it to boot. FkpCascais has given us no good reason to lift it and indeed seems to have little understanding of why it was placed in the first place. I see no pressing need to make an exception for football. – Joe (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline Mkdw ^talk 23:06, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline as above, this is within normal admin discretion. As a piece of advice, FkpCascais, the idea behind topic bans like this is to encourage editors to direct their efforts to other, less contentious topic areas, and to appeal the topic ban after accumulating a history of unproblematic editing elsewhere. Not editing at all for six months is unlikely to result in a successful appeal at that time. But if you like chinchillas, editing about chinchillas would be perfect :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline. Amongst the misconduct that led to sanctions, FkpCascais even adopted a nickname (mosqueteers) for the opposing disputants. Clearly, this topic ban was necessary and proportionate. AGK ■ 13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initiated by RGloucester at 16:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Case or decision affected

Eastern Europe

Macedonia

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

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

This is a matter of housekeeping, and I hope that the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee can assist me by providing some clarification. Recently, I filed a request for arbitration enforcement relating to the article "Origin of the Romanians". In making preparations to file that request, I came across the strange situation whereby I knew discretionary sanctions applied to the relevant article, but I was not sure which of the two related and existing discretionary regimes was most appropriate to use. I expect that's somewhat confusing, so let me explain a bit further.

There are discretionary sanctions regimes in place for articles related to Eastern Europe, and for the Balkans. Unfortunately, the definitions of both 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans' are ambiguous and potentially overlapping. This produced a strange result whereby the relevant editor had originally been notified of the Eastern Europe regime, but was later notified of the Balkans regime in relation to his edits of the same article. In any case, this ambiguity is really not desirable for discretionary sanctions. The definition of 'Eastern Europe' specifically has actually been a matter of substantial dispute on Wikipedia before. One can easily imagine a situation whereby one could 'wikilawyer' about the validity of a notification of the existence of one of the regimes, in an effort to avoid sanctions. I wonder if the the Arbitration Committee can do one of two things: either clearly define the scope of each regime, or merge the two. This way, administrators enforcing sanctions and editors seeking their enforcement will not have to grapple with the ambiguities inherent in the terms 'Eastern Europe' and 'the Balkans', and will be able to avoid a bureaucratic nightmare. Thank you in advance for your consideration of this matter.

@AGK: In response to your question, I endorse the analysis by Thryduulf. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Power~enwiki: Romania is considered part of the Balkans and Eastern Europe in most definitions of both terms. The use of "broadly construed" means that there is no doubt that Romanian-related topics are presently under sanctions. RGloucester — ☎ 20:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@EdJohnston: I respect your judgement. Here's the problem I foresee. In the specific case of Iovaniorgovan, he was notified of ARBEE sanctions almost as soon as he started editing here. When his participation in the debate at Origin of the Romanians became increasingly problematic, an administrator DeltaQuad (talk · contribs) notified him of the Balkans sanctions, seemingly unaware of the previous alert, or otherwise disagreeing with the scope of the alert applied, therefore delaying the enactment of sanctions on Iovaniorgovan, and causing other long-term editors to be swept up in his messes. In addition, we now have a strange situation where the page-level restriction that was applied at Origin of the Romanians was logged under the Balkans case log, but the topic bans on Iovaniorgovan and Cealicuca are logged under ARBEE. It's simply a bureaucratic mess, and it should be cleaned up. No one should have to roll the dice to decide which of these regimes to apply in a given case, and logging should make coherent sense, not be scattered all over the place. These sorts of messes make it harder for editors understand DS, and indeed, harder for them to participate in DS areas, for fear of falling into a Kafka-esque trap. We owe it to our editors to have a rationalised system of enforcement. That's why I'm asking for clarification. RGloucester — ☎ 22:25, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a further example for Mr Johnston, here is a hypothetical. Let's say that someone was editing a Romania-related article, like Origin of the Romanians, and received an ARBEE alert. They then go on to make substantial and problematic edits to articles about the Yugoslav Wars. Would that ARBEE alert still be valid, or would a new Balkans alert be required? These sorts of grey areas...are really not desirable in a DS regime. RGloucester — ☎ 00:14, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to thank the honourable members of the Arbitration Committee for taking up this matter. In response to Future Perfect at Sunrise, whom I greatly respect as an administrator, I'd like to say that your approach is indeed the best one. However, because the nature of the DS scopes implemented by the cases does not align with the specific disputes that brought on the cases, such a methodology is difficult to implement in practice. In as much as the scope of the sanctions is not "conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind", but "anything related to the Balkans, broadly construed", &c., grey areas quickly become apparent. I presume that the intent behind the broader scope of the sanctions, relative to the locus of the disputes that brought about the cases, was that the disputes that occurred provided evidence to suggest further disputes in the broader topic area were likely, and that it would be best to implement broader sanctions as a preventative measure. Whether that was a correct course of action is not for me to decide, but I will say that, in particular, the existence of the ARBEE sanctions was of a great help in controlling the outbreaks of disruptive editing that occurred at the time of the Ukrainian crisis of 2014...despite the original case not having had anything to do with that topic. In any case, I would advise the Committee to be more careful in its crafting of DS scopes in future, making clear whether it intends to limit such scopes to the locus of the dispute that occurred, or apply sanctions to a broader topic area as a preventative measure. RGloucester — ☎ 18:21, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @AGK: I understand what your motion is trying to do, but I think you need to clarify the logging procedure. Will the logs be unified, or kept separate? RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AGK: I find your proposed change more undesirable than even the present mess, in line with what was said by Mr Rob. As for why, it will do nothing to solve the problem about when to apply each regime, will do nothing to sort out the scattered logging procedures that I described above, and will in fact only make this whole business MORE confusing. The goal of a merger was to eliminate questions about which regime to apply in areas of geographical overlap, like Romania, as demonstrated by Thryduulf below, and also to centralise logging so as to avoid the situation of having multiple sanctions related to one particular article logged under different regimes. Your proposal will leave parallel bureaucracies in place, seemingly for no purpose, and leave behind a mess for others to sort through. The idea that updating templates, &c., is too much work is very sad. ArbCom established sanctions, and has a responsibility to the community to maintain those sanctions in a rational way. If you need my help cleaning up templates, I can offer it, as I have experience in that area. In any case, I support Mr Rob's motion as the most sensible approach. The other alternative I can forsee would be to clarify the scopes of the two cases to make them easier to differentiate, but the merger seems to have more support, and is easier to implement. RGloucester — ☎ 16:45, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend the committee make a motion of clarification here. The articles on Eastern Europe and Balkans are both unclear to whether Romania is part of the region. Neither of the disputes leading to discretionary sanctions particularly apply to Romania; the Balkans dispute primarily involved Bulgaria, Greece and the former Yugoslavia. The Eastern Europe dispute primarily involved Poland, Russia, and the Baltic States; the more recent crisis in the Ukraine has also fallen under those sanctions.

I'm not certain that Romania falls under any Discretionary Sanctions at this time. An explicit list of countries affected (rather than a region name) may be necessary. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at our articles about Eastern Europe and the Balkans, there is indeed overlap between them. Taking a reasonably (but not excessively) broad interpretation some or all of the following countries are included (sometimes depending on context):

Notes:

1. Geographically (sometimes) South Eastern Europe if this is distinguished
2. Usually only in geographical contexts
3. Only in (some) political contexts
4. Geographically usually Central Europe when this is distinguished, Eastern Europe when it isn't
5. Prior to reunification only
6. Only in Soviet/Cold War contexts
7. Only in religious contexts
8. Only the mainland in geographic contexts; included in only a few political contexts (most notably Macedonia naming dispute)
9. Very occasionally included in political contexts, but should not be for discretionary sanctions purposes
10. Only the European part

Based on this, Eastern Europe (when South Eastern Europe is not distinguished separately) is a near complete superset of the Balkans, so merging these into a single authorisation of "Eastern Europe including the Balkans and the Macedonia naming dispute." would resolve all the issues the OP raises. No actual restrictions would be altered, only the case they are logged under would change. Possibly those who are formally aware of only one scope would need to be informed they are now formally aware of the newly combined scope, but not definitely and this would only be a one-time thing. Thryduulf (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree completely with RGloucester - either the scope of both restrictions should be clarified so there is no overlap, or the restrictions should be merged into one (and Rob's proposal is a sensible way to achieve this). AGK's proposal is the worst of both worlds as it increases the bureaucracy and makes the confusion worse: at present there is no ambiguity that sanctions related to Poland should be logged under the EE case, if this proposal were to pass then there would be as sanctions could be placed under either or both cases; all the while it would not resolve the existing ambiguity over issues related to e.g. Romania. Thryduulf (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with the views of User:AGK. There is little upside to modifying the existing sanctions, and a possible downside. Even the present request doesn't give a persuasive reason why a change is required. In the recent AE about Origin of the Romanians nobody made the argument that the topic wasn't covered under WP:ARBEE. Even if ARBEE and ARBMAC do overlap, it's hard to see that as a problem.

Many of the existing DS are about nationalism. In the ideal case, we would have some kind of universal sanction that could be applied to nationalist editing anywhere in the world. EdJohnston (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as somebody who has helped enforcing both sets of sanctions numerous times, I think there's rarely be much of a problem in determining which rule to apply, even if they overlap. For me, the crux of the matter is really not a mechanistic application of what country counts as belonging to what continental region. Those are pretty arbitrary attributions, and to take just one example, you will rarely find Greece described as belonging to "Eastern Europe", even though obviously its geographical longitude is well within the range of other countries that are. What matters is really more the nature of the underlying political struggles motivating the disruption we find on Wikipedia. Speaking broadly, "Eastern Europe" sanctions have mostly been invoked dealing with ethnic/national conflicts that broke up – directly or indirectly – in the wake of WWII, the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, or the collapse of the Soviet Union. The "Balkans" sanctions have been invoked dealing with conflicts that – directly or indirectly – stem from the breakup of the Ottoman Empire and the mix of nationalities that was left behind. I'd personally be opposed to merging the two sanction rules. It shouldn't really matter in practice, if it wasn't for the practice of some admin colleagues (unnecessary and not really advisable, in my view, but still common) to hand out sanctions whose scope is always automatically identical with the entire set of topics covered by the DS regime. For instance, instead of topic-banning somebody from Serbian-Croatian conflicts, which might be entirely sufficient in an individual case, they always automatically reach for a topic ban from all Balkan topics, because that's what the DS rule applies to. I'd find it regrettable if these colleagues were to take a merger of the two DS rules as indicating that in the future all such sanctions should be handed out straight for "all of Eastern and Southeastern Europe", which would almost certainly be overreaching in most cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• On an initial review, discretionary sanctions in Macedonia pertain to the Balkans region, which is the Southeastern Europe peninsula. Treating the Balkans as part of Eastern Europe seems to be a stretch. Are you sure that the two overlap? The article seems to be a bad test case: it relates to the distant origin of a people, which involves by its nature a broad range of geography. While awaiting comment, I'll say generally that I need to be convinced of good reason for changing any discretionary sanctions remedy. The changes can themselves cause short-term dispute and confusion, and defaulting to no change is a sensible practice. AGK ■ 17:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Special thanks indeed to Thryduulf for sharing a useful, methodical assessment of the area. To move us towards a conclusion (one way or the other), I will draft a motion shortly. AGK ■ 11:06, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Re. logging and RGloucester: I have proposed amending each case separately, without a disruptive "merger". In practice enforcement requests are always made in the context of a single arbitration remedy – ignoring all others – and so having two with the same scope will have no effect. At the same time, it avoids the need to update a bunch of notices, insist that existing sanctions are still in effect, and change how daily enforcement is carried out. AGK ■ 18:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Per Thryduulf's assessment, merging the two DS areas into something like "Eastern and Southeastern Europe" sounds like it would make enforcement a bit easier. But that does highlight their extremely broad scope: the history, society, geography, etc. of half a continent. Both motions seem to have been based on the actions of a handful of editors and the Balkans case is now over a decade old. Perhaps it's time to consider rescinding or refining these. – Joe (talk) 21:03, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merging the two makes sense to me as it doesn't increase the scope of the two DS simply puts them together for convenience and clarity. And it would be helpful to include a list of the countries involved. I am comfortable leaving the DS in place as it does not restrict editing, but is there to be used in case of future problems, and there may well be future problems. SilkTork (talk) 09:55, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I think merging the two as SilkTork said would make sense for clarity sake. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:02, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Thank you Thryduulf for your extremely useful table. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, thank you. I want to note that it was extremely helpful in parsing this situation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(3) Proposed:

For these motions there are 9 active arbitrators. 5 support or oppose votes are a majority.

Enacted: Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support

1. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. This seems like the neater solution. – Joe (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
3. This overall seems to be the way to go. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
4. I prefer this. It's a bit more effort to deal with the existing notices, but should make things simpler going forward. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
5. I explained in the arb discussion section why this is undesirable. AGK ■ 07:34, 10 February 2019 (UTC) Switched from oppose. Reconsidered based on community comment about the difficulty that might be caused by two remedies covering the same area. AGK ■ 19:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Abstain

Comments

• Proposing as an alternative to 1/2 without comment on whether we should do this at all, to avoid the odd situation of authorizing the exact same discretionary sanctions in two different cases. That just seems like a mess waiting to be cleaned up when some future Committee changes the sanctions in one place but forgets about the other. I hope to be able to look at this situation and actually support or oppose in the near future rather than maintaining my current inactivity on the matter. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've placed my votes after a review of the situation. This seems to be an improvement to me, reducing the overlap while not "losing" anything. Whether the DS should be removed entirely seems to be a separate question, and one best answered after we know how these DS operate when enacted in a less confusing manner. As a point of clarification on awareness, note that editors who were "aware" of the Balkans discretionary sanctions will need to be made aware of the Eastern Europe and Balkans sanctions before they can be subject to DS. This is a small hiccup, but it actually is rather sensible, since Eastern Europe and the Balkans is a superset of the Balkans. I consider it a happy accident that this merger would likely result in editors being made aware of the sanctions active in the broader topic area they're editing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]