Jump to content

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn of Africa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
Shortcut
Wikipedia Arbitration
Open proceedings
Active sanctions
Arbitration Committee
Audit
Track related changes

Case resolved by motion on 23:57, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Case amended by motion on 16:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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


Case information

Involved parties

Prior dispute resolution

Preliminary statements

Statement by TomStar81

I come before this board at wit's end. Repeatedly we have sought community assistance (to include community authorized general sanctions) to deal with the ever increasing amount of disruption on and around the Horn of Africa region and have been left wanting. The region's instability has fueled massive sock farms, multiple ANI complaints, and for better or worse has resulted in many familiar with the region to take a hair trigger approach when dealing with contributors whose MO matches known disruptive editors - many of them already blocked - and this carpet bombing has taken many of us (myself include) to the brittle edge of ipso facto assuming bad faith. I am asking the committee to take up this issue to gain a community perspective of the problem and judge for themselves what actions should be taken to help the situation. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Newyorkbrad: I've been thinking about that myself since its a large request likely to involve a number of people interested in or involved with the region and thus subject to the case. The most useful areas would be WP:AN and WP:AN/I, so as to draw attention to the matter with those who end up cleaning up messes made by those working in the region. There are a total of seven wikiprojects that lay claim in some way, shape, or form to the Horn of Africa region, and there are likely to be more when considering regional race and ethnic groups, sexually based wikiprojects (those that focus on LBGTQ editing and Women in general and so forth in that manner), religious groups (Islam and Christianity in particular), and those interested in historical time frames for both regions and nations in regions. Notifying each project would be difficult and likely counterproductive, so I would consider excluding notifications to these projects except in cases where a project has an active coordinator group, in which case I may make the coordinators aware of the case. Notifying the checkuser corps would be of use, since these editors can look "under the hood" as it were they may be able to offer insight into this matter and connect dots for the committee to gain a fuller understanding of the problem. A handful of editors ought to be contacted specifically, to include @TomStar81, Robert McClenon, Cordless Larry, Buckshot06, Drmies, Nick-D, Kzl55, and AcidSnow:, as these editors have dealt with the offending editors repeatedly, while @Ben MacDui, Wadaad, and EvergreenFir: have dealt with socks in this editing region in the past and may be able to offer supportive evidence in favor of a case. In addition to Drmies, @Sro23, Sir Sputnik, Oshwah, TheSandDoctor, JJMC89, Callanecc, GeneralNotability, and Zzuuzz: have rendered opinions in favor of or against blocking the two most prolific accounts that are often listed at SPI, and should be consulted here. Additionally, as much as this board doesn't want to hear it, all necessary and reasonable efforts must be made to get in touch with Bbb23 (talk · contribs), as the checkuser who was arguably the most familiar with both case pages his input here is priceless and precious beyond all measure. I understand if he doesn't want to log back in to participate, but if his email address is still enabled reaching out to him on this matter would be eye opening. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:48, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maxim: In regards to your bullet points, I provide the following answers
  • On both occasions when general sanctions were attempted, the community failed to respond in a positive way to the issues presented. Similarly, discussions on the possibility of an LTA page was deemed a bad idea and shot down. Given the numerous failures of the community to address the underlying issues, and the fact that the region could be argued to come under arbcom sanctions (broadly interpreted) from the existing cases Race and Intelligence (tribal-specific promotional edits and genetic based edits of who came from where) and Palestine-Israel articles (Arab league includes nations in the Horn of Africa region), I though it may be prudent to finally let ARBCOM weigh in on the matter and decide what should be done here.
  • This is largely sockpuppetry, a well coordinated offline effort to effect the articles we have online. A non-exhaustive list of people who could be said to be party to the dispute could be found at User:TomStar81/Horn_of_Africa_disruption#Questionable_editors, but most of these accounts are behaved enough or have been exposed and blocked that this is request would not directly undermine them. I note that the answer I give is shaped by the fact that I am usually requested to look at the two largest known sockpuppet farms, and that I do most of my contributing to on or related to articles that are related to the United States and Naval Warfare, so I am not the best person to speak for specific editors within the topic that should be reviewed. Others who have been pinged may be more active in this region and may be better equipped to answer this question, should they elect to leave a statement.
  • The scope here is difficult to determine, but is generally limited to articles on tribes, regions, nations, and genetic groups from the region. One of the reasons for the consistent failure of community requested general sanctions is over the term "broadly construed", as I have no idea what the accounts may do if abruptly restricted I include the phrase to allow enough leeway for us to pivot as needed to address what future issues we may have from the accounts, but the community appears to interpret this is blanket restrictions for everything instantly and eternally, and that in turn tends to dissuade them from supporting. As this is decentralized, I would be loath to place limits on this until we can see what happens next. As for long term semi-protection or extended confirmation protection, the accounts in question are patient and willing to wait to clear the thresholds for editing. Long term protection of this nature then would be of some use in forcing otherwise annonomous or ISP-based contributing accounts to register, which in turn would make it easier for the SPI people to block accounts instead of ISP ranges, however it would likely not be enough for us to settle the area down in any meaningful way. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:01, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Preliminary statements by non-parties.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Statement by Robert McClenon (Horn of Africa)

Some subject areas, which are areas of the Earth, are the subject of battleground editing because they have a history of having been actual battlegrounds. ArbCom has typically dealt with these areas by imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions. The most difficult area may be the lands disputed between Israel and Palestine, where the history consists of low-level conflict interspersed with open wars, for which ArbCom has authorized the most detailed regime of discretionary sanctions. Other areas of battleground editing due to a history of battles include India and Pakistan, the Balkans, where World War One started, and Eastern Europe, where World War Two started.

The Horn of Africa region has been an area of battleground editing because it has had a history of battles for millennia. It is the meeting place between three distinct civilizations with very different histories: North Africa, which is part of the Greater Middle East that is the core of historic Islamic civilization; Ethiopia, which is a distinctive civilization with its own history; and East Africa, which has the longest prehistory of anywhere on the Earth because it is the original homeland of Homo sapiens.

I have repeatedly observed battleground editing and sockpuppetry in disputes involving Horn of Africa articles. I urge ArbCom to impose discretionary sanctions by preliminary injunction and then open a full evidentiary case to determine whether any further remedies are needed.

I note that User:Cordless Larry has tried in the past to be a reasonable editor in an area with unreasonable editors, and I suggest that he make a statement.

ArbCom should accept a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cordless Larry

Posting here by request (in Robert McClenon's statement above). I've long agreed that we need greater attention to this area of editing (cultural and political issues relating to Somalia, and therefore likely the broader region). There are several sock farms apparently operating in relation to the topic, most prominently the one documented at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Middayexpress/Archive. We know that Middayexpress has used external forums to "recruit" POV editors and there's possibly meatpuppetry going on too. I've also been told that the SomaliPN group on Facebook is being used for co-ordination of editing, but I don't use Facebook myself so haven't been able to investigate that further. This has all dragged on for years (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive887#WP:NPA breech following NPOV, THIRDPARTY breeches and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive888#Middayexpress's external canvassing, although the problem behaviour had existed long before then). There's now a situation where new editors frequently show up in this topic area and if they appear to share a similar POV to Middayexpress or another sock master and some clue about how Wikipedia works, they find themselves suspected of sockpuppetry. In many cases, this may be unfair. However, there's also the danger of socks slipping through the net, and what often unfolds is editing warring and the accumulation of significant damage across multiple articles that then needs to be worked out and undone if they later get blocked. Buckshot06, Nick-D and Drmies might also want to chip in on some of this, given previous discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradv: sockpuppetry has been an issue, but it's not only or even mainly that; there's also evidence of external canvassing and possible meatpuppetry - see Kzl55's comments about Twitter, for instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Buckshot06

I support and strongly endorse TomStar81's request, also endorsed by Robert McClenon and Cordless Larry. I often have to deal with biased and distorted information repeatedly introduced into Somali articles to denigrate or bolster the reputation of one or another clan. An example is the back-and-forth at Gedo. I have grown tired of repeatedly having to scan and recheck my introductions of good basic material like population figures which are then altered for political reasons. In some ways I've given up. This would allow consistent action in this regard. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(clerk note: moved the below from the arbitrators section. This was in reply to David Fuchs. In sectioned discussion editors should reply in their own section. Thanks. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 00:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Statement by Kzl55

I whole heartedly endorse TomStar81's request. It is justifiable after enduring the onslaught of wave after wave of socks and other disruptive editors to finally request something is done about it. The Horn of Africa projects have been the subject of persistent long-term disruption for quite some time. Ordinary procedures to combat said disruption are proving ineffective in the face of a determined sock farm. A cursory reading of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Middayexpress/Archive, being just one example, shows a consistent (and continues) flow of disruption ongoing since 2018. There is a clear organised nature to this disruption, with many cases of sleeper accounts and many other methods employed to evade scrutiny. The cause of this disruption lies in the fact that the region has been engulfed in a state of constant war over the past 30 years. And so, like other hot-spot areas on Wikipedia, this becomes a platform for ultra-nationalist agenda, as seen in much of Middayexpress' rhetoric. This is especially potent in a region like the Horn of Africa with many different ethnicities, clans, administrations, religions, foreign actors all fuelling this constant state of strife. What is alarming is that recently new waves of socks are proving more sophisticated, and with clear confidence in ability to evade technical scrutiny. External canvassing as CordlessLarry touched upon is also a serious concern. I can completely understand and sympathise with Buckshot06's comment regarding "giving up" in the face of such overwhelming level of constant disruption, it would indeed drive most people to just do so. I urge the committee to consider this, seeing as the disruption is along similar lines to what is happening in Israel-Palestine and other problem areas. It is so difficult to go through normal sock-puppetry procedures when the sockmaster does not really care about losing the socking account. Middayexpress and other sockmasters would not be as hard to deal with if additional sanctions were in place, given the level of disruption they have caused. Imposing ArbCom discretionary sanctions would be the first step in curbing these activities. --Kzl55 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • In addition to sock farms discussed by editors above, and off-wiki recruitments on forums and Facebook, there are also clear signs of social media being recruiting grounds for Middayexpress and co. Below is evidence of ongoing recruitment of socks on Twitter, the tweets are saved both as images as well as Archive.org links in case they are deleted:

External canvassing and recruitment

- Example of open recruitment: tweet saved as an image. Please note the same nationalist tone observed in most socks as well as a call out to "all writers/editors, historians, activists" to send this account a direct message and join this "quest" [to coordinate disruption etc].
Link to tweet. Archive.org copy in case they delete it (they have a habit of deleting tweets as we will see below).
- Tweet saved as an image: "I'm an editor at Wikipedia and trying to compete with the nonsense of the anti-Somalis and secessionist propaganda, it's a struggle but I'm not giving up. What we need are an organised unionists group to be effective at this." Again, identical language of "anti-Somali" as observed in Middayexpress socks.
Link to tweet, please read the comments supporting their activity. Archive.org link in case tweet is deleted.
- They have deleted some of their tweets, but luckily they were saved on Archive.org link. Again, note the "not under our watch" as well as "However, we've got another 828 articles" and "the unionists and I...". Archive.org link.
- This one is really important. They are giving socks instructions on how to effectively evade detection: "Be smart about it. 1st edit a few dozen unrelated Somali articles about your interests like football, films, etc then move to something more related to Somalia and then start cleaning up. This way they can't ban you on sight. Also later on join the WikiProject Somalia. Tactics", Image link. Link to tweet. Of the three accounts in this conversation, one has deleted their tweet, whilst the other is suspended, but a copy has been saved via Archive.org which is where I got the screenshot from: link.
It is worth noting that majority of new suspected socks followed the above advice, from making edits unrelated to the Somali project to joining the WikiProject Somalia. As an example, GoldenDragonHorn's first ever Wikipedia edit was to add their name to WikiProject Somalia [1], they also made a point to make a couple of edits out-with the project as advised e.g. [2], [3]. Soon after GoldenDragonHorn edited WikiProject Somalia, editor Ragnimo followed as well: [4]. Looking at the editing history of WikiProject Somalia, quite a few disruptive editors as well as confirmed socks appear in the last few months: e.g. MahamedHaashi (later checkuser blocked), Gashaamo (later ArbCom blocked), EELagoon (later checkuser blocked). We also have editors who have added their names in the same manner but not yet engaged in obvious disruptive editing, like MrMidnimo (Midnimo meaning "Somali unity").
- Other examples of Twitter accounts requesting to join the private direct messaging discussion to "stop this misinformation in Wikipedia" image of tweet. Link to tweet (since the first tweet has been deleted I got the screenshot via Archive.org link). Some other replies are not visible due to the account being currently restricted/suspended, but can be viewed using a direct link. Archive link. Note: walal means brother/sister.
Obviously this is just the small snippets of off-wiki collusion that escapes their private groups, and much of the disruptive planning as well as recruitment is hidden from us, but I wanted to share this to give the community an idea of how far-reaching this disruption is. Best regards --Kzl55 (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GeneralNotability

I was recently introduced to this contentious area through SPI. I do not have an opinion on whether a case should be opened at this time, but I would like to provide some relevant information from SPI for informational purposes. I am aware of two major sockpuppeteers in this topic area:

  • Middayexpress - I'd call their POV "Somali nationalist"
  • MustafaO - similar POV to Middayexpress, was originally suspected to be Middayexpress before being split out of that case.

There are also a handful of lesser sock groups:

I've spent the past hour reviewing the first two SPIs since they're more relevant to this case request. The checkuser findings in the first two cases tend to be pretty clear ( Confirmed/ Likely vs Red X Unrelated), though some unrelated editors were subsequently blocked anyway on behavior and a handful of editors were linked to multiple accounts but not to those sockmasters. Between that and comments in the archives about off-wiki forums being used for coordination, I think that there is pretty clearly intentional disruption and coordination going on here, but these SPIs have also become dumping grounds for "people with Somali nationalist viewpoints". There have also been strange cases of people showing up at these SPIs to comment despite not being related to the SPI and having no apparent reason to show up there.

Regarding adding other parties, it is hard to identify specific editors on the "other" side of this case since so many of the prolific editors in this topic area have been blocked for socking. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the proposed DS - I suggest explicitly mentioning both the countries and the people. Per TomStar81's comment above: The scope here is difficult to determine, but is generally limited to articles on tribes, regions, nations, and genetic groups from the region - that might be too specific, but I think the DS covering "countries in the HoA" is obvious whereas "clans and genetic groups of the HoA" is less obvious. GeneralNotability (talk) 16:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by GoldenDragonHorn

Fresh pairs of eyes joining the Horn of Africa country projects would be very beneficial to the region as a whole, both for added objectivity and maintaining accountability for all parties involved. The issue I currently have is that there are no safeguards to protect new editors with an interest in the region. They are literally ‘carpet-bombed’, as TomStar81 pointed out above, just to capture two banned individuals who have been active for decades, when some of us were still watching Saturday cartoons. I have been here for two months, and my integrity as a respectable contributor has already been trashed several times. This has happened to a dozen other Somali contributors, the vast majority of which have left the project in frustration.

The WikiProject Somalia as a result is now dormant, despite countless articles being in a terrible state. Scanning through the above SPI threads and the contributions of the most frequent filer of these cases, Kzl55. I have come to the terrible conclusion that there is also a strong case of advocacy at play that fuels the 'carpet-bombing'. Mr Kzl55, is a staunch advocate for an independent Somaliland[5], while the majority of the individuals tagged as sock-puppets that were proven innocent, either had a editorial disagreement with Kzl55, or have a history of asserting Somalia’s de-jure rights on an encyclopedia.

Another issue is seeing every editor from the region through a MiddayExpress/MustafaI lense to the point where we are now walking on egg-shells, because these individuals have touched 10 out of every 10 articles on the region, and if your POV is anything close to theirs, then you're on the chopping block. An entire group of present and future editors now run the risk of being tagged a sock-puppet solely based on the past contributions of banned individuals, which can make Wikipedia one of the most toxic environments I've been in. This pre-judged lense means editors such as myself also can’t collaborate with valuable Somali contributors on this platform without being accused of off-site coordination because the above banned individuals were known to canvas off-site. Though I have a more elaborate email to the ArbCom pending that point out a few more problematic issues of systematic bias I have encountered, the questions I currently have are:

  • What assurances are there that any editor with an interest to create neutral-POV articles worthy of an encyclopedia aren’t branded ‘disruptive’ because their edits might not sync with the advocacy of more established editors?
  • What assurances are there that new powers aren’t abused, if the reputations of innocent editors are already being caught in the cross-fire, with no apologies in the aftermath?
  • What safeguards are there to protect new editors with an interests in this region from being carpet-bombed to point they lose their confidence in editing?
  • What consequential measures will be taken against individuals that repeatedly file SPI cases against innocent editors, knowing how destructive this has already been to the WPSomalia?

Thanks in advance --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kzl55, my first edits are all Somali related, so that wall of text of yours is just another example of you chasing some kind of global conspiracy that isn't there. You can find similar discussions about Wikipedia on any country if you go looking for it on social media, especially if there is a conflict involved. It doesn't you mean you now have the right to start hitting every new editor with a hammer. Unfortunately, you are so involved in protecting your secessionist advocacy that you can no longer see the forest from the trees.
  • @TomStar81, you are meant to assume Good faith. I hope you will apologize when a CU checks my history, background, ip-contribs for the 3rd time and shows I have no socks. And for your information I would respect any decision made by ArbCom. This is getting exhausting.
  • @TomStar81 Those banned members and my POV aren't even the same, never backed their edits, never voted in their favor. How could my edit history ever be misconstrued as Meat-puppetry? This is quite a reach. I have also not engaged in any disruptive editing, and left clear responses on talk-pages to spark discussions before making editorial changes. If you don't want my presence on Wikipedia, you can just say that. I might oblige and leave on my accord if the mistrust is this high and with no safeguards in place to protect new editors. --GoldenDragonHorn (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by power~enwiki

Apart from possibly China-Taiwan disputes, this is the most heated real-life geopolitical dispute where articles are not under Discretionary Sanctions. The area is certainly one with POV editing; I note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visa policy of Somaliland as a recent AFD with several highly-suspicious accounts pushing a POV, and Tigrayans as an article with a lot of IP edits and SPAs, regularly edit-warring over whether there are any Tigrayans in Eritrea. I'm not sure whether DS will help or the area just needs more non-POV editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Guerillero

To keep the tomfoolery and lawyering at AE to a minimum, I recommend you enumerate the countries covered by the DS instead of trying to have us figure out what articles the Horn of Africa includes. For example, Somali nationalists include parts of Kenya in their definition of Greater Somalia, but I personally wouldn't include Kenya in my definition of the Horn of Africa.

I would go with "Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Kenya, broadly construed" and drop the "including but not limited to articles about countries in this region and their sub-articles" clause. The final clause is already covered by the standard reading of "broadly construed" if the countries are listed. --Guerillero | Parlez Moi 21:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request by Beyond My Ken

ATTENTION CLERKS - Please remove the repetition of the original motion below. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:31, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, DreamyJazz. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could one of the clerks also clarify how many of the arbs are active for this, and therefore what a majority is? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thanks to the clerks for quick action. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by TheSandDoctor

I am here as comment was requested above (apologies for being late to the party). I believe that DS could be a method that would work on a trial basis and largely concur with the comments above. DS may help address the issues mentioned and if not, the motion leaves open the option for a full case down the road. --TheSandDoctor Talk 05:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Preliminary decision

Clerk notes

Arbitrators' opinions on hearing this matter (4/0/0)

Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse)

  • The request for general sections at ANI is from 2018 and was sparsely attended. If the issues from 2018 still persist today, why has another proposal for general sanctions not been attempted again?
  • Usually cases like these, which involve disputes along ethnic or similar lines (which I'll call "advocacy" cases), tend to come with a reasonably exhaustive list of involved parties. TomStar81, you have pinged a plethora of editors, but these would seem only involved in cleaning up the mess. My question is as follows: are there any established editors who are disputants in this topic area whose conduct you consider worthy of review, or is poor conduct more exemplified by sockpuppetry?
  • How well defined is the scope of affected pages? Are we looking at a few key pages (e.g. Somali) or is the disruption more decentralized? If it's more centralized, has long-term to indefinite semi- or ec-protection been attempted? Maxim(talk) 19:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth seeing what other statements we get here, but if the concern is lack of flexibility and the overall issue is off-wiki coordination of accounts, I think it makes more sense to just apply DS (perhaps time-limited to be reevaluated) rather than going through a full case. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:36, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am also leaning towards handling this by a motion rather than a full case. My impression is that a large part of the problem is users who would not participate in a case or respect any decision such a case would make so our primary responsibility is to shield good-faith editors from those people with whatever tools we have at our disposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like the others, I'm not seeing the benefit of a full case here when we could handle it by motion. The bad actors who are socking won't participate here, as Beeblebrox notes, leaving us with only the conduct of (probable) good-faith editors to review. Let's not put them through a full case if we don't have to. Katietalk 15:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with my colleagues who think discretionary sanctions could go a long way here, and that it could be handled by motion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree with the idea of resolving this by motion. I also like the idea of a time limit but I think the limit should be on when we have to re-evaluate it, not on the DS themselves, so they don't end prematurely while we are busy discussing whether to make them permanent. I have proposed a motion below. Regards SoWhy 09:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm as by the book as the next editor (probably more so, as a number of people have pointed out in the past) but I still think a full case is not necessary at this point. I understand the reasons bradv provides but then again, we have already a lot of cases to draw experience from which can also serve as guidance to future editors. As ArbCom, we cannot fix the underlying problem of the area needing more NPOV editors. What we can do is provide tools to help those editors already working in this area. But that brings us back to DS. From everything I have read here, I cannot envision a scenario in which DS will not be a part of any remedy at the end of such a case. But if we can be practically certain of this already, then we can also skip the case and authorize them by motion.
    The proposed motion already includes a review obligation for this Committee to assess whether further action is necessary. Any editor is able to file a new request or an ARCA if they think DS is not sufficient before six months have passed. Nothing really is lost by resolving this by motion but in the best case scenario, there is a timely fix to help with the problems that clearly exist.
    That said, if the majority opposes a motion and the decision is solely between accept or decline, I would vote to accept. Because we do agree that something needs to happen. Regards SoWhy 16:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have some reservations about this. The community has twice discussed imposing GS on this topic area, and decided not to. I'm uncomfortable overruling that decision without going through the exercise of a full case: taking statements, gathering evidence, and exploring different solutions together. The benefits of imposing DS by motion are unclear to me at the moment – if the main issue is sockpuppetry, how are regular administrative tools insufficient? If the point is to be able to quickly topic ban people without going to ANI, how big of a problem is this currently? How many people have been topic-banned by the community from this area? If we want to impose DS in order to allow for 1RR page restrictions, where is the evidence that this is necessary to end disruption? These are some of the questions I have, and I'm leaning toward accepting a full case to explore them. – bradv🍁 15:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe the purpose of suggesting a review after six months is to allow us to evaluate then whether the discretionary sanctions have made a useful contribution to reducing the problems in the area, or whether something else is needed. There is enough evidence of problems that I think it is worth trying the experiment, despite the growing concerns that in general we may be becoming too dependent on DS as a panacea overall. Perhaps, though, it would make sense to calendar the review for three or four months from now instead of six? Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • So let me turn this around for a moment then: of all the cases ArbCom has ever heard, what makes this one so special as to enact the remedy before considering the evidence? Is this not a classic horse–cart inversion?
        The first comment on this page suggests that new editors in this topic area are getting blocked or mistreated based solely on their point of view or modus operandi, without compelling evidence that they are actually abusing multiple accounts. GoldenDragonHorn confirms this has happened to them, and the relevant SPIs do kind of back this up: (1 2). If this is systematically happening it could be affecting the neutrality of our articles, and is worthy of a proper investigation.
        Secondly, Kzl55 has provided evidence of off-wiki coordination, which needs to be examined more closely as well. If we simply resolve this by motion we'll simply be disregarding this problem without providing any sort of solution (I can't think of how DS alone would be useful here).
        Finally, there's the scope of the actual sanctions. Does Horn of Africa cover the entire area of the disruption? Should this cover all aspects of the region, or just nationalism within it? There's more discussion about this below, but we may not have arrived at the right definition yet, and it's hard to know because we haven't yet looked at all the evidence.
        I know this may seem like a bit of a waste of time to some, but I would rather not defer or deny this request. We should perform a full investigation in the hopes that we can provide a lasting solution – and we should do it now rather than in three or six months given the evidence already before us. Yes, authorizing DS is the most likely outcome, and it is possible that it will be the only remedy, but that doesn't mean we should shortcut the process. Evidence-gathering, workshopping proposals, establishing principles and findings of fact that can serve as guidance for future editors — these are all worthwhile activities, and the only way to be sure we've done justice to this request. – bradv🍁 00:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bradv: You make a persuasive argument. Reconsidering this overnight. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I want to note in particular is that the motion imposes DS with a clause to review in 6 months whether it helps/ed—there would be a (clearer) path to have a full case if it's still necessary. My impression of both attempts to impose some sort of sanctions is that they sank in part because we don't have many users or administrators interested in the topic area. It's to do with a part of a world that I'll guess most of our editors are jut not familiar with and it doesn't involve vested contributors. The editors and administrators that are active in the topic area are asking again for something to help. I think that at least being able to impose 1RR and topic-bans may likely help.
            As SoWhy above, if the motions fail, then I would also accept a request. I also don't foresee a case being particularly productive. I'm not entirely sure what the scope of such a case would be either; is it to examine the conduct of all parties (and we don't have a good list there), is it to examine how to handle off-wiki coordination in advocacy disputes, is it to do more formal due diligence prior to imposing DS (which seems a very likely outcome whether by motion or case), a combination thereof, or something else? Maxim(talk) 18:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Accept to hear as a full case. – bradv🍁 16:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept - needs looking into in a systematised way. Concerned DS will miss some subtler ways to influence article content Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept As with other nationalism disputes, the commmittee has historicallly done well with a full case. I furthermore think we should see if there is something other than DS that might be applicable. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accept. It does seem like DS is the only plausible outcome here, so I can see the logic in dealing with it by motion. But I would prefer a full case for two reasons. One, I think as a general rule, if the committee is going to impose something as sweeping as DS, we owe it to the editors in that subject area to examine the facts fully first. The trial idea does help with that, but ultimately it just shifts the responsibility to others, when we are the ones that have the community-mandated responsibility and processes for doing it. Two, I share DGG's scepticism about the entire DS system, and would prefer to find a less bureaucratic resolution if at all possible. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Failed motions.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Proposed motion: Horn of Africa disruption

The case request is accepted under the title Horn of Africa and resolved by motion as follows.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to Horn of Africa, broadly construed, including but not limited to articles about countries in this region and their sub-articles. After a period of six months the Committee will evaluate whether further action, including a full case, is required.
For these motions there are 13 active arbitrators. 7 support or oppose votes are a majority.
Majority reference
Abstentions Support votes needed for majority
0–1 7
2–3 6
4–5 5
Support
  1. As proposer per above. Regards SoWhy 09:52, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support, though I think "and their sub-articles" could use clarification/wordsmithing. GorillaWarfare (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting this is now my second choice to option 3 below. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 21:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not withdrawing my vote yet, but I'm reconsidering this approach per Bradv above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Maxim(talk) 18:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Some of us talk about the problems with DS; and especially with the difficulty of "all pages related to", we should see if there is something else we could do, and we will need a full case for that. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Needs a case Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm willing to accept a trial, but I prefer the 3 month trial proposed below WormTT(talk) 08:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. KrakatoaKatie per mailing list. SoWhy 13:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my vote to accept the case. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
I'm not against the motion but I do feel that the alternate version would cause less headache at AE. Maxim(talk) 00:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'm happy with the spirit of the motion, but I have a few procedure-related thoughts. Do we want something where we will initiate review (we open a request for clarification or amendment sua sponte?) or would we rather have a sunset clause which would need the community to file a request to make the DS permanent? There's a herding-cats hazard for the first option. Alternatively we could vote to open a case with a temporary injunction as above, while suspending the case for six months. Maxim(talk) 15:16, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest going the sua sponte route and starting an ARCA to gather feedback. A sunset clause might lead to the DS disappearing because no one thought of filing a request. As it appears now, authorizing DS should be sufficient to get a handle on thew problems, so opening and suspending a case when we expect that a case is not required, seems unnecessary. @GorillaWarfare: Wordsmith away Regards SoWhy 16:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I'm following you two. Isn't the way we normally do things to place the DS indefinitely and re-avaluate if and when a member if the community asks us to? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Normally, yes, but then again, normally we place them after a case where with all the stuff associated with it. Hence the proposed wording to essentially place them indef but have us do an evaluation later. If all works as predicted, the evaluation will just be "DS worked out, problems solved, nothing more to do". Regards SoWhy 21:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate motion

The case request is accepted under the title Horn of Africa and resolved by motion as follows.

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for for all pages relating to Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Kenya, broadly construed. After a period of six months the Committee will evaluate whether further action, including a full case, is required.
Support
  1. I prefer the version suggested by Guerillero—it is more specific and succinct. Maxim(talk) 00:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think my original proposal is too vague but either is fine with me. Regards SoWhy 07:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Equal choice to the original, no preference. (I understand the reasons for including Kenya, but we might want to narrow that reference to include only the relevant aspects.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 11:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
# I slightly prefer this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. If we're going to do this, and I remain quite unconvinced, we should not be establishing a definitive list of countries. Kenya is not part of the Horn of Africa, but Somaliland is, whether or not you consider it a country. There's also the ongoing Tigray conflict which could theoretically still lead to civil war and independence being declared. For our purposes, "Horn of Africa, broadly construed" is both accurate and sufficiently clear. – bradv🍁 15:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I also prefer the "broadly construed" language that the committee often uses to trying to be overly specific. We're trying to give admins the tools they need to stop disruption in this area, so I'd rather the scope not be so rigidly defined. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Bradv's concerns. This is so specific that I can't see it not needing repeated clarification requests to get just right. I would rather leave it up to admin discretion. GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Some of us talk about the problems with DS; and especially with the difficulty of "all pages related to", we should see if there is something else we could do, and wewill need a full case for that. DGG ( talk ) 17:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per DGG Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:17, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per Bradv and my opinion that the community can do it better. WormTT(talk) 08:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. KrakatoaKatie per mailing list. SoWhy 13:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per my vote to accept the case. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
Comments

New alternate motion (3-month DS trial)

This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies.
Enacted - KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:47, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support
  1. Proposing this for consideration. Bradv and others have made important points against our reflexively imposing discretionary sanctions and assuming we've addressed the issues. At the same time, the admins most active in this area seem to agree they are necessary, and I think it would be helpful to see from experience whether they prove useful in solving the problem. Given that this is an active topic-area, we can allow the option of reopening this after three months (or even sooner if there is good reason) rather than six. Note the compromise wording on whether to simply say "Horn of Africa" or list the involved countries. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:02, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think this is a good compromise. I'm willing to hear a full case if we have to, but if we can make a quick, targeted strike to fix the problem, let's do that and evaluate the results. Katietalk 01:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Third Equal choice after with original proposal and alternative #1. I think less than three months is not sufficient time to really determine whether DS work but it's still a better solution than a full case at this point. Regards SoWhy 08:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Amend my vote in light of NYB's explanation below. Regards SoWhy 18:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice alongside accepting the case Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm also happy with this approach. I share SoWhy's concern that three months might not be enough but nevertheless I'm optimistic. Maxim(talk) 14:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Three months is the suggested minimum time for someone to request our review. We can always decide to wait longer if we think we need more data. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:35, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seems worth a try. first choice. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm still of the opinion that this should be handled by the community - under general sanctions - however, I can accept a 3 month trial of something the majority of arbs are thinking will work. WormTT(talk) 08:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 13:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. I'm not going to vote for a remedy including DS, but I recognize there is some logic towards getting empirical data. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my vote to accept the case. – Joe (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain
  1. Mkdw talk 06:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments

Final decision

Contentious topic designation

Superseded version
Superseded by motion; discretionary sanctions authorization made permanent.

This case request is provisionally resolved by motion as follows:

Standard discretionary sanctions are authorized for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes) for a trial period of three months and until further decision of this Committee. After March 1, 2021 (or sooner if there is good reason), any editor may ask that this request be reopened for the purpose of evaluating whether the discretionary sanctions have been effective and should be made permanent or if a full case should be accepted to consider different or additional remedies.

Passed 9 to 2 with 1 abstention by motion at 00:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
Amended by motion at 16:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

All pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are designated as a contentious topic.

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

Amendments

Amendment (November 2021)

The already authorized standard discretionary sanctions for all pages relating to the Horn of Africa (defined as including Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and adjoining areas if involved in related disputes), broadly construed, are made permanent. The committee declines to open a full case. Any further amendments or requests for clarification should be made following the normal method.

Passed 11 to 0 by motion at 16:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Superseded by motion at 21:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Motion: contentious topic designation (December 2022)

As part of the 2022 adoption of the contentious topics procedure, the Arbitration Committee adopted the following motion to re-designate existing discretionary sanctions remedies as contentious topic designations.

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 log

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.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Horn_of_Africa&oldid=1165693003"