Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment/Archive 103

Clarification request: The Troubles (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Swarm at 00:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected

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

Statement by Swarm
Greetings. So, WP:TROUBLES contains a 2011 provision that places all pages in the topic area under a blanket 1RR page restriction that is specifically enforceable without warning, provided Troubles restriction has been placed on the talk page. This directly contradicts the current awareness criteria for enforcing page restrictions, and it's unclear to me whether that provision is exempt from, or has been superseded by, the modern awareness criteria that were implemented in 2014 and 2018. In spite of the contradiction with standard practice, it continues to be advertised as an active sanction on many articles, which is apparently validated on the case page. However, there's no apparent record, anywhere, of an intentional exemption to ArbCom's now-standardized procedure regarding awareness. It also claims to derive its authority, at least in part, from a community decision, but there is no record of such a restriction at WP:GS or on the case page, so it's unclear as to whether the "no warning" provision is actually the will of the community. Thanks in advance.
 * I thought this was clarified based on the initially-unanimous response that warnings/alerts should be given. But now there are Arbs coming in, saying that the "no warning" provision still stands. So, I don't know how these things go. Will someone assess the consensus in this discussion, or should I file an amendment for the Arbs to vote on? S warm   ♠  20:15, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by T. Canens
The 1RR restriction originated from an AE discussion in 2008 and was clarified in an ANI discussion in 2009. It's not clear whether the 2011 motion superseding "all extant remedies" actually superseded these restrictions, since these aren't actually arbcom remedies, but looking at the history of User:Coren/draft this appears to be the intent.

Additionally, it is not clear whether and how the later changes to the DS system impact a page restriction imposed in 2011 given the provisions in WP:AC/DS (Nothing in this current version of the discretionary sanctions process constitutes grounds for appeal of a remedy or restriction imposed under prior versions of it. and All sanctions and restrictions imposed under earlier versions of this process remain in force.). T. Canens (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by L235

 * By its own terms, the motion applies only to page restrictions placed as discretionary sanctions and does not apply to restrictions directly imposed by the Committee, such as 1RR from The Troubles or the General Prohibition from PIA3. As far as I remember, comments from arbitrators from the original motion supported that interpretation. Similar interpretation at the ACN talk thread. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:46, 15 May 2018 (UTC) I'm not recusing because this is a procedural clarification request per Jan 2018 precedent (mailing list login required). Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 01:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I misread this. Community consensus was apparently here: permalink. Looks like it was at AE, though, so it probably doesn't really count as a community-imposed sanction. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:01, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It also appears that if the community did impose 1RR, it may have been rescinded by ArbCom in this motion, which superseded "All extant remedies of The Troubles" with the intention of "Clarity and complying with general expectations", as arbitrator said. In any event, this ends up beyond the clerks' pay grade in interpreting ArbCom decisions. Hope the links help. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

As the Committee noted in adopting the most recent amendments to the DS procedure, the point of having warnings is that it's fundamentally unfair to subject people to penalties for violating sanctions they didn't know about. That's what notifications and alerts are all about. There's nothing stopping admins from using the existing, well-functioning procedure to tag each page with 1RR and alerting each editor before using the blunt tool of AE sanctions against them, just like in (almost) every other topic area that the Committee has imposed DS in. In my view, any disruption in this area can be handled with existing discretionary sanctions. I suggest that the Committee vacate any Troubles topic-wide 1RR that may (or may not) be currently in effect for the sake of clarity and fairness.

Also, I strongly believe that the recent motion concerning page sanctions applies to all previous page sanctions, too. The Committee didn't technically vacate or invalidate the page restrictions – it simply placed restrictions on enforcing them by sanctioning editors, going forward. (The motion provided that "There are additional requirements in place when sanctioning editors for breaching page restrictions." – this doesn't invalidate the page sanctions, but it does create new restrictions on enforcing them.) If that argument sounds too wikilawyery, the more pure argument is that the clear intent of the Committee was to make the change applicable to existing sanctions, too. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I certainly think a motion would be helpful to clarify what the Committee wants.
 * The Committee has been trending toward requiring more warning – see, for example, PIA 1RR, where the Committee has in the past said 1RR could be enforced "without warning ... even on a first offense" (March 2012, January 2016, December 2016) but explicitly took out the "without warning" wording (May 2017) . I think an unequivocal statement that no page restrictions, whether imposed by discretionary sanctions or by the Committee itself, may be enforced without warning would be very helpful, if that's what the Committee intends. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 16:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Deryck
From the earlier statements by arbs and other admins, it is evident that we don't yet agree on whether the existing sanctions on The Troubles-related articles are subject to the awareness principle or not. Hence this clarification request is valid and necessary.

Gnomish editors are prone to falling foul of 1RR restrictions if there isn't an awareness clause. I often make reverts on articles I pass by, only to find out afterwards that the article is subject to 1RR. The recent fiasco with the block against seasoned administrator User:Jorm, which could have been averted if there was an explicit requirement to warn before blocking, also springs to mind. I strongly recommend ArbCom to amend this case and other old case with bespoke 1RR sanctions, to enshrine the awareness principle and standardise them to standard 1RR discretionary sanctions. Deryck C. 17:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

The Troubles: Clerk notes

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


 * Moved to above section. Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 21:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The Troubles: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * The general 1RR in the area was placed as a discretionary sanction by an administrator, so it is subject to the awareness criteria while enforcing it. This includes the requirements for page restrictions, as individual administrators cannot supersede the awareness requirements set by the Committee. (They could theoretically make them more stringent, but not less.) ~ Rob 13 Talk 16:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you find the answer here clear? If so, I'll have a clerk archive this. If not, I'll prod additional arbitrators for comment, but I strongly suspect it will be more of the same ("Yes, notifications should be made").
 * The 1RR without warning was placed as a discretionary sanction, not by the Committee. Does that change things for you? Are you suggesting discretionary sanctions placed before our change of awareness criteria go by a different set of rules? If so, that has major implications for page restrictions, etc. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The concept of giving a warning, before blocking or sanctioning an editor for innocently violating a DS restriction, originated in a comment I made in a 2008 case that it would be unfair to penalize an editor for doing something that is generally allowed, but isn't allowed on a page covered by DS. The intent was certainly not that this observation evolve into a complicated rule-set of "awareness criteria," in parallel with the rules-creep that continues to take place all over the wiki (as observed in this essay by a community-elected WMF trustee). The importance of reasonable warnings is reinforced when we periodically get AE or ARCA appeals from editors who are blocked or topic-banned for a DS breach and respond in good faith along the lines of "I didn't know there was any such rule" or "what the heck are you talking about?" To me, "warn before sanctioning if it isn't clear the editor knew (or clearly should have known) he or she was violating a restriction or acting improperly" remains a basic precept of wiki proportionality, fairness, and common sense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Late to the party, but for what it's worth I agree with NYB. Arb-related sanctions are a topic with so much rules creep that I understand why this question was asked, and yet I also want to think we as a community can manage to warn people before sanctioning them even if WP:OMGWTFBBQ#RTFM paragraph 3 line 2 says you don't technically have to. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The DS warning system is a poor attempt to codify what should be commonsense. Prefer the approach outlined by NYB, where we don't actually mandate a slew of warnings and alerts before doing anything, but nonetheless have the courtesy to let people know if they've done the wrong thing before applying sanctions. FWIW, I reckon the without-warning-1RR technically still stands despite the later implementation of other processes, but its existence suggests we should again go through these older cases and review the surviving sanctions to see if they're worth updating or even keeping at all. -- Euryalus (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * After looking at this issue several times, I think I also agree with NYB. I also agree that the without-warning-1RR still stands. I'll also note that even where we've found that sanctions aren't being used, editors have agreed that they are helpful. Doug Weller  talk 17:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I just want to be clear, because this actually has wide-reaching implications: is the emerging consensus that restrictions placed before changes to the DS regime are grandfathered in? If so, all old page restrictions can still be enforced without needing page notices. I do not think that was our intent. ~ Rob 13 Talk 17:57, 26 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you're asking me. Perhaps you should ask NYB? Doug Weller  talk 18:01, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I rather interpret NYB as saying that all page restrictions of whatever sort need page notices. If that is not the present rule it should be, and it should apply to all existing page restrictions whenever placed no matter by whom. The issue is basic fairness, which is the principle behind all arbitration and enforcement policy.  DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * It all seems fairly cut and dried to me. From a common sense perspective, if a person does not reasonably know about a restriction, they should not be sanctioned for it - the first step should be alerting them. We've put multiple motions out to say the same. If it's still felt that this particular set has slipped through the cracks, then I'd happily support a motion to change that. WormTT(talk) 11:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

The Troubles: Motion
The Arbitration Committee clarifies the following: All sanctions placed under remedy 3.2 of The Troubles prior to its replacement with remedy 5 are considered discretionary sanctions. Specifically, the 1RR sanction affecting the topic area is considered a form of page restriction placed as a discretionary sanction, and the additional awareness requirements regarding page restrictions apply.



Enacted -  Mini  apolis  14:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) After re-reading this discussion a few times, I think we're being very silly. Ideally, all of this would be common sense, but we've had repeated issues regarding awareness, so we know it isn't. Stripping away the idealism, we all seem to agree that editors should be aware of a page restriction before they're sanctioned for violating it, so let's make the awareness criteria apply here. I've phrased this as a clarification, but I urge the rest of the Committee not to get hung up on whether this is a change to existing practice or merely a clarification of it. We all agree on the outcome, so let's just make sure it's implemented. ~ Rob 13 Talk 14:48, 2 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) OK. This all seems like a lot of bureaucratic mud to me, relative to the apparent problem of "nobody really thought to update that one template". If spelling it out makes a difference, sure. (But isn't the first sentence of this already true anyway?) Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) OK here also.  Doug Weller  talk 15:06, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Per my comment above, thanks for sorting this Rob. WormTT(talk) 10:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Alex Shih (talk) 09:04, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Per my comments above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:30, 7 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * That’s why I phrased this as a clarification. I personally think all of this is true already, but I don’t want to debate whether it is or isn’t when we can just quickly confirm this is how it should be and move on to issues of greater substance. ~ Rob 13 Talk 07:50, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Community comments

Amendment request: Civility in infobox discussions (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by El cid, el campeador at 00:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) You must not start an infobox discussion here


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bishonen&oldid=846057026


 * Information about amendment request
 * You must not start an infobox discussion here
 * Delete

Statement by El cid, el campeador
Currently, there is a discretionary sanctions notice on the Stanley Kubrick talk page, alerting users not to add an infobox. That, I understand. But, there is also a notice to not discuss infoboxes on the talk page. To me, this goes against everything that WP is built upon, namely robust discussion and consensus-building. The intended purpose of talk pages is to discuss ways to improve the articles. Issuing a gag order on discussion doesn't seem right. Therefore, I propose removing that part of the DS notice.

Statement by Bishonen
The reason I added the sanction at all was mainly the disruption on the talkpage, with new discussions and "straw polls" erupting again and again, draining the energy of everybody who felt constrained to weigh in yet again in order to have their opinion counted. See my full rationale, and support from uninvolved admins, including two arbitrators, in this AE discussion. Bishonen &#124; talk 06:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC).

Statement by Winged Blades of Godric
Just no.WP seems to have a quite-proficient cottage-industry (esp. in this area) wherein there's a tendency to throw the same shit at the same wall, until some of it sticks.Any measure to counteract such activities ought be appreciated.And, time has shown that the infobox discussion(s) over the particular page are nothing but acrimonious and only lead to a hostile atmosphere, with zero development to the content.

Statement by Johnuniq
An edit war is easily handled with protection or blocks. It is the talk talk talk that corrodes the community. The wiki way would be to brawl for another three months, but discretionary sanctions are provided to prevent such unproductive fights. No RfC has found that infoboxes are required so there is no reason to worry that people won't be able to argue until 10 September 2018 when the discretionary sanctions expire. Johnuniq (talk) 03:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
We can wait until September 2018. In the meantime, our planet will continue to rotate. GoodDay (talk) 11:44, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
It's pretty common for a community consensus to come up with a moratorium on re-re-re-discussing that which was just discussed to death again at the same page. It appears to be within WP:AC/DS parameters for an admin to apply a similar anti-disruption remedy as a discretionary sanction, especially since it's not targeted at anyone in particular, but just puts up a temporary forcefield around two combatant sides so the rest of the peeps are not caught in the continual crossfire and can get on with the real work. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

Civility in infobox discussions: Clerk notes

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



Civility in infobox discussions: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Considering the full support at Arbitration Enforcement and the 8-2 consensus on the talkpage... I'm not seeing any good reason to modify this. I also don't see an appeal made to AE, not that one is required. If a view can be presenting that this is actually harmful to Wikipedia's goals, then we can look at it. If we want to talk about the five pillars and how the fourth is to discuss issues, the community has fought that out already way too often and is why the Arbitration case exists to begin with. If we move on to the fifth pillar, it notes So I see this as a very valid interpretation of the pillars and principles of Wikipedia. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Consensus building isn't happening, so the discussions are endless. I have no problem with this discretionary sanction in this instance, it's clearly defined and does not stop any other discussion on the talk page. It can be appealed in the future, but absolutely, this is the right solution for this article now and I thank the admins (especially Bishonen) for using discretionary sanctions well. WormTT(talk</b>) 06:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely agree with the above. The talk page was being inundated with constant RfCs and discussions re-hashing the infobox issue for that article, wasting our most precious resources: the time and patience of editors. In the absence of a strong indication that the disruption won't flare right up again, I can't see a reason to remove this restriction. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 07:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


 * For the above reasons, no. Doug Weller  talk 09:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely no, for reasons already stated. Alex Shih (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline as within administrator discretion. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:56, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:34, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that this request should be closed without action. The wiki way allows open discussion, but that doesn't mean that every issue must be under continuous discussion every day. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. It's been said enough. RickinBaltimore (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:58, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Macedonia 2 (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by NeilN at 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Remedy 29.1.1: Establishing consensus on names
 * Remedy 29.1.1: Establishing consensus on names

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request

Statement by NeilN
Can I get a quick clarification from Arbcom on how they want admins to handle WP:MOSMAC (which has the the force of an Arbcom decision behind it) in light of this. I'm already seeing name changes on some articles contravening "Republic of Macedonia", the full self-identifying official name, will be used in all contexts where other countries would also be called by their full official names. Enforce MOSMAC as usual with reverts until and if the name change becomes official and then change the guideline? I ask because uninvolved admins usually stay clear of naming disputes and "when to change the name" discussions but in this case it's a name mandated by an Arbcom case. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 17:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added an explicit edit and talk page notice: "Editors may not make any modifications to the official name of this country until consensus has determined that the name has officially changed." I have not logged this as I consider it a straightforward interpretation of MOSMAC. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 19:36, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding, "new, equal in scope, consensus emerges" - looking at history, the current consensus was arrived at via a complex three stage process which involved three admins acting as referees. Are you suggesting that the community has to undertake a similar process if an official name change goes through? --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Might want to define "finalized" or editors will argue over that. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 00:07, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Illegitimate Barrister
AFAIK, the change is not yet official because the constitution has to be amended. Just keep the name as it is now until the change to the constitution is made official. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 18:31, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fut.Perf
Like others here, I'd strongly recommend to not change anything for the time being, at least for as long as the change hasn't become official. Once it has, we should probably first have a systematic new naming disucssion/RfC, as there will be quite a few non-trivial issues to decide. Sure, renaming the main article will be a no-brainer, but what about the dozens of other article titles that contain the name? Will all references to the country in running text have to be changed? What about adjectival forms like "the Macedonian government"? Of course, the Greek side is quite insistent that the new name should be used erga omnes, by and towards everybody, and that this is part of the deal, but will the common usage of the English speech community follow this, or will plain "Macedonia" remain in common informal use among third parties? If it does, to what extent should Wikipedia's usage reflect the official position? There'll be some consensus building to do and it will take some time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:56, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by StanProg
We should enforce MOSMAC until the renaming becomes official, which is expected to happen at the end of 2018. When it becomes official we should use the name "Republic of North Macedonia" instead of currently used "Republic of Macedonia". Regarding the adjectival forms "the Macedonian government" or "the North Macedonian government" - this have to be discussed. In the press-conference the Prime Minister Zoran Zaev used the term "Ministry of Health of the Republic of North Macedonia" and "Macedonian healthcare" as an examples. The second thing we should discuss on after it becomes official is the short term "Macedonia" which we currently in use for the republic and it's replacement by "North Macedonia". --StanProg (talk) 19:44, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Izno
must end one month after it is opened should probably be must end no earlier than one month after it is opened--no reason to be so precise. You might also reasonable specify the number of days a month constitutes (or take our common understanding to be the same date one month later). --Izno (talk) 00:33, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by GoodDay
There's going to be a referendum later this year, on whether or not to accept the proposed name change. We shouldn't be changing the name now, per WP:CRYSTAL. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Sandstein
The proposed motion makes sense. Perhaps it should be amended to clarify that the RfC should not be launched until the naming dispute is considered fully resolved by the authorities of both countries involved. Recent media reports indicate that the Macedonian president intends to veto the new name "Northern Macedonia", so this might still take a while.  Sandstein  18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bellezzasolo
Of course, Wikipedia should reflect an accurate, current name. I see that the below motion is currently gaining support, and I do believe it should pass. Since the current policy has the force of ArbCom behind it, it makes sense to have an ArbCom clarification. Regarding a future RfC, others have pointed out that the change is not official yet. If we're going to have a month-long RfC, we should do it as soon as practicable, rather than waiting for the change of name to be signed, sealed and delivered. Of course, the RfC shouldn't go into effect until that is the case. However, if we waited, there will be a month where we are inundated by people trying to change the name. There will be many page protections, plenty of edit warring blocks and a smattering of inconsistencies. If we run the RfC now, we can avoid all that drama. Furthermore, if, as mentioned by several others, this proposal is stopped, then we will have plenty of time to discuss any alternative proposal and no harm is done.

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

Macedonia 2: Clerk notes

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


 * Recuse for personal reasons --Kostas20142 (talk) 15:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Although agreements have been reached by both governments, it appears that there are still vehement oppositions within both states, so there are still quite a few uncertainties. Therefore I think it would not be wise to change our approach until the name change has been not only finalised but enacted. I would endorse NeilN's suggestion of "Enforce MOSMAC as usual with reverts until and if the name change becomes official and then change the guideline". Alex Shih (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * At risk of sounding like were making a content decision, properly obtained consensus should exist until a new, equal in scope, consensus emerges. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 21:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, just saying that an RfC of three people should not override the consensus of a large population. Was not specifically referring to the previous RfC. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good topic for an RfC. At what point should Wikipedia recognise the change to the name? At any rate, while I have an opinion, it's as an editor, not an Arb - this is a little too close to a content decision for my liking <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 22:01, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia 2: Motion
The Arbitration Committee clarifies that Naming conventions (Macedonia) may be modified by an RfC discussion. The discussion must remain open for at least one month after it is opened, and the consensus must be assessed by a panel of three uninvolved contributors. In assessing the consensus, the panel is instructed to disregard any opinion which does not provide a clear and reasonable rationale explained by reference to the principles of naming conventions and of disambiguation, or which is inconsistent with the principles of the neutral point of view policy or the reliable sources guideline.
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Enacted: Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 14:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Support
 * 1) This clarifies that the arbitration case does not stand in the way of a further RfC, without tangling us up in deciding a content decision. The specifics mirror those of the original case. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:53, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Edited to add: I agree that three admins isn't necessary, three experienced editors in good standing should suffice, admins or not. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) I'm not sure that the editors who close the RfC must be admins, but I won't oppose over that. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) Support current version, this should be a community decision. Like Callanecc, I don't think we need 3 admins to close, but not worth opposing over. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 16:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Support, but also dissent on the three administrators part. --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 04:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) I don’t think three admins will be necessary, but like WTT, not worth opposing over. Katietalk 11:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Also supporting; the three administrators part is probably meant to be consistent with the original case, but 2009 was a long time ago, I think normal editors in good standing these days should be fine. Alex Shih (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) Support. So long as there are three, it shouldn't matter if they are Admins or not, so long as they are uninvolved. Doug Weller  talk 20:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 9) I agree that an RfC would be appropriate before the name is changed. I might not be quite so prescriptive about the rules for the RfC, but they don't seem to be controversial, given that no one seems to have objected to the details we have provided, other than ones we have already tweaked. Also, to add something that I hope is obvious, nothing in the old ArbCom decisions or in the naming convention precludes objective discussion of the proposed resolution of the naming dispute itself, including reference to the proposed new name and forms of reference, so long as the current status of the proposals is accurately given. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 10) As it currently stands. Like the panel of three, don't think they need to be admins. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain
 * Per my comment to Doug, I'll abstain here as long as we are stating when the RfC can be handled. I'll support any motion that says an RfC is acceptable based upon the recent developments. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)




 * Discussion by arbitrators
 * In the interests of being specific, should we say "modified by an RfC discussion held after the name change becomes finalized"? Not much point starting it before it becomes finalized, but if we don't say not to, I think there's a risk that people will want to anyway. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's ultimately a decision for the community, but there is certainly support for waiting so far. I'd rather not tie things down that far formally. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Fair. Also,, you make a good point. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes suggested here and above. Doug Weller  talk 13:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I came here to support this, but with that change I can't. I won't oppose, but I don't believe Arbcom should be saying "when" the RfC should happen. If the community believes it should be opened tomorrow and come in before the name change is finalized, then that is a community choice. As long as the RfC lasts for a reasonable length of time, so that consensus is not circumvented, then it's down to the community. Indeed, the RfC outcome might be "change when the name is finalized", meaning it can be changed when it becomes official, rather than over a month later. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer that be proposed as an alternative motion, as I can't support with that change. (Referring to just the timing issue, for clarity. The "at least one calendar month" bit is fine.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've removed that. I'll wait to see if there are many more comments on the timing issue. Doug Weller  talk 20:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Pinging WTT, since the issue he abstained over is resolved. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 13:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Community comments

Amendment request: American politics 2 (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by MrX at 19:40, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) WP:ARBAPDS


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''


 * [diff of notification Atsme]


 * Information about amendment request
 * WP:ARBAPDS
 * Atsme is topic banned from making any edits relating to Donald Trump, broadly construed.

Statement by MrX
Greetings. I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE. The matter concerns the article talk page participation by Atsme in the American politics topic area, that I believe to be disruptive and damaging to the collaborative editing process. As shown in the small sampling of diffs below, Atsme makes a lot of article talk page comments, a great many of which do not positively contribute to building consensus or resolving content disputes. Many of the comments are classic Whataboutism. Others are just off-topic screeds, diversions, defensive reactions to other's comments, dead horse beating, and attempts at levity.

The most troubling comments are the ones that undermine the credibility of highly-respected sources that are prominently used throughout enwiki. These take the form of characterizing sources like The Washington Post and The New York Times as biased, propaganda, clickbait, biased against Trump, rumor, and gossip. She also has a tendency to falsely refer to verifiable facts as "opinion". Her arguments are frequently based on fringe viewpoints typically found on websites like Breitbart, and are often based on fallacious reasoning.

She makes a disproportionately-high number of comments. In the past six months, more than 7 percent of the comments at talk:Donald Trump have come from her, out of 93 editors who have commented in the same period. That would be fine if she were moving discussions toward consensus or resolution, but that is rarely the case. What usually happens if the she will make increasingly tendentious arguments, and then when criticized for doing so, she gets defensive. Her arguments usually convey a tone of self-appointed WP:POVFIGHTER and frequently contain multiple shortcuts to policies that almost all experienced editors are very well-versed in. She often rehashes arguments that have already been put to rest.

Atsme seems to be a warm and affable person who is rarely uncivil, and who I believe is sincere in her participation in the project. She has made some outstanding contributions to building the encyclopedia in areas outside of American politics, and I have great respect for her for that. It seems though that she has an ideological blind spot which affects her objectivity, and manifests as large amounts of low signal-to-noise ratio commentary.

I am hopeful that Arbcom can deal with this without a full case. I know there are a lot of diffs (and I apologize), but since the behavior is cumulative, rather than incidental, I can't come up with a better way to present this. Sections are roughly arranged in descending degree of concern, and sampling a few diffs should be compelling.

Thank you for your time.


 * Repeatedly discrediting reliable sources; claiming bias and propaganda in reliable sources (WP:GASLIGHTING)
 * 1) February 16, 2018
 * 2) February 16, 2018
 * 3) February 22, 2018
 * 4) February 22, 2018
 * 5) February 24, 2018
 * 6) February 24, 2018
 * 7) March 1, 2018
 * 8) May 4, 2018
 * 9) May 14, 2018
 * 10) May 19, 2018
 * 11) June 7, 2018
 * 12) June 18, 2018
 * 13) June 19, 2018
 * 14) June 19, 2018
 * 15) June 19, 2018
 * 16) June 24, 2018


 * Using talk pages for discussion unrelated to edits: (WP:TALKNO, WP:NOTFORUM, WP:SOAPBOX, Whataboutism) [n.b. I excluded her frequent humorous comments]
 * 1) November 17, 2018
 * 2) March 4, 2018
 * 3) March 28, 2018
 * 4) April 5, 2018
 * 5) May 2, 2018
 * 6) May 4, 2018
 * 7) May 14, 2018
 * 8) May 14, 2018
 * 9) May 14, 2018
 * 10) June 7, 2018
 * 11) June 7, 2018
 * 12) June 8, 2018
 * 13) June 19, 2018
 * 14) June 22, 2018
 * 15) June 24, 2018
 * 16) June 26, 2018
 * 17) June 26, 2018


 * Dominating discussions with excessive and often incoherent rambling (WP:FILIBUSTER, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT)
 * 1) November 9, 2017
 * 2) February 19, 2018
 * 3) February 22, 2018
 * 4) February 22, 2018
 * 5) February 27, 2018 - Not even sure what to call this mess. She made 12 comments, but adavanced the discussion very little.
 * 6) March 4, 2018
 * 7) April 22, 2018
 * 8) June 12, 2018


 * Although she often complains about clickbaith sources, she is apparently OK with using source like The Daily Caller, Breitbart, World Net Daily, Daily Wire, and RedState


 * WP:POVFIGHTER
 * 1) December 4, 2017 (User talk page)
 * 2) February 12, 2018
 * 3) February 12, 2018
 * 4) February 22, 2018
 * 5) February 22, 2018
 * 6) February 22, 2018
 * 7) February 26, 2018
 * 8) March 5, 2018
 * 9) April 17, 2018
 * 10) May 13, 2018 - Insists that local consensus is not sufficient for restoring a section heading to the status quo version.
 * 11) June 18, 2018

Frequently adds multiple, irrelevant policy shortcuts to he comments
 * WP:LAWYER
 * 1) November 22, 2017 - POV, NOTNEWS, WEIGHT, BALANCE, SOAPBOX,
 * 2) May 16, 2018 - WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NEWSORG, WP:TOOMUCH, WP:RS AGE, NOTCRYSTALBALL,
 * 3) May 14, 2018 - IDONTLIKEIT, BLP, PUBLICFIGURE, CONTENTIOUS LABELS, BALANCE AND WEIGHT
 * 4) September 1, 2017 - NPOV, V, WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:LABEL, WP:REDFLAG, WP:BLP, WP:UNDUE
 * 5) February 12, 2018 - WP:RGW, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NEWSORG
 * 6) February 22, 2018 - WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS, SOAPBOX, RIGHTGREATWRONGS
 * 7) April 25, 2018 - NOTNEWS, NPOV, DUE, BALANCE and OR.
 * 8) June 2, 2018 - SOAPBOX, UNDUE, NOTNEWS
 * 9) June 19, 2018 - NPOV, NOTNEWS, ADVOCACY, SOAPBOX

Numerous attempts have been made to get Atsme to follow WP:TPG and and to participate more constructively in content discussions. She has rebuffed all of these efforts.
 * Previous attempts to resolve. (also WP:IDHT)
 * 1) August 12, 2017 - Hint
 * 2) November 18, 2017 - Mild warning
 * 3) November 18, 2017 - Discussion
 * 4) December 5, 2017 - Warning
 * 5) December 12, 2017 - Warning
 * 6) February 5, 2018 - Request
 * 7) February 9, 2018 - Hint
 * 8) March 3, 2018 - Hint
 * 9) March 17, 2018 - Plea
 * 10) June 8, 2018 - Request
 * 11) June 19, 2018 - Mild warning
 * 12) June 20, 2018 - Hint
 * 13) June 27, 2018 - Discussion

Frequently misuses WP:NOTNEWS in content disputes.
 * Misunderstands or distorts policies
 * 1) May 15, 2018 - Says "material is not necessarily DUE simply because it received "massive coverage" " and seven days later May 22, 2018 contradicts herself.
 * 2) May 23, 2018 ?
 * 3) March 20, 2018 - Improper use of rollback in a content dispute. Her explanation
 * 4) May 5, 2017
 * Making false claims
 * 1) May 28, 2018 - "We are talking about calling a US President a racist in WikiVoice," - No one was proposing it, or even suggesting it.


 * Repeating arguments ad nauseum (WP:REHASH)
 * 1) February 25, 2018
 * 2) May 14, 2018


 * Defensiveness (WP:NOTGETTINGIT)
 * 1) November 9, 2017
 * 2) February 7, 2018
 * 3) February 7, 2018
 * 4) April 25, 2018
 * 5) May 17, 2018
 * 6) May 21, 2018
 * 7) May 28, 2018
 * 8) June 2, 2018


 * Do you speak for the entire committee, or are those your views?- MrX 🖋 00:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * AE does not take cases with more than 20 diffs, and this case can't be made with that few diffs. I brought this here to save everyone the effort of full Arbom case, but it's entirely up to Arbcom to as to whether to adjudicate this here or take on a full a case. My work is done, so it makes no difference to me.- MrX 🖋 03:03, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Atsme
I am respectfully requesting that the admins reviewing this case please forgive me for not being able to respond to this case. I am feeling more hurt by what MrX just attempted to do than I am upset over it. I'm not sure if what Drmies concluded hurt me more...but it cuts to the core. For me to respond to these allegations, I would have to provide diffs showing their bad behavior...we all know how that game is played, but I am not here to hurt other editors, or to try to silence them because I disagree with their POV or the material they've added or removed. I have always honored consensus - I am here to build an encyclopedia - to participate in collegial debates and present reasonable arguments. I believe that is exactly what I have done, and if the admins who are here to review my behavior will look at the full discussions and not just the cherrypicked diffs, I believe they will agree. I have always tried to include RS with my comments, but...again...I am a bit overwhelmed right now. I don't have it in me to fight this because in order to defend myself, it will be at their expense, and I don't have the heart to do that. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 21:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't sleep thinking about this very sad state of affairs, and the intent behind it. I don't see how it can be anything else but a deceitful, premeditated plan to eliminate editors they consider the opposition, and because it couldn't be done any other way, MrX chose to game the system, and inundate ArbCom with months of cherrypicked diffs taken out of context to create a false impression. This is clearly a case of WP:POV railroad, thinking it was the only to stop a productive, collaborative editor who never showed ill-will or wished any harm on anyone.

Please keep in mind that the articles in question are subject DS restrictions/1RR-consensus required; therefore, editors have no choice but to participate in relentless discussions on the TP in order to achieve consensus. The process involves nearly every single piece of material that is added or reverted. Of course you will see more input on the TP of those articles, and far more disagreement - just look at the sizes of the Trump articles. The WP:OWN behavior of MrX and others who share his POV, have made the editing environment at those articles very unfriendly with a noticeable resistance to collaborative editing with those whose views differ from their own.

There is no indication of any incivility on my part; rather there is an indication of WP:IDONTLIKEIT by MrX and those who support his POV. Worse yet, the threat by Drmies to me in this diff speaks volumes about this case now: "someone somewhere is marking this down to gather evidence for a topic ban”.
 * Examples of disruptive behavior, bullying, and incivility:
 * 04/22/2018 Drmies encouraging AE
 * 05/06/2018 Drmies f-word bombing and labeling
 * 05/16/2018 Drmies response to the N. Korea deal.
 * 05/17/2018 MrX & his f-word rant
 * diff - 06/19/2018 Drmies - (RfC) swears angrily at another editor
 * diff - 06/19/2018 Drmies - (RfC) his chilling response to me & unwarranted threat of a TB
 * 06/23/2018 - MrX - “And why the hell are you quoting Trump, a known liar”
 * 06/26/2018 MrX calling it “bullshit”


 * 05/23/2018 I had to revert MrX because he tried to edit a quote from a RS, which speaks to how he pushes his POV.
 * 05/8/2018 I was the one being gaslighted, & shared my concern with another editor who stopped by offer comfort;
 * 05/8/2018 - my response to Drmies which demonstrates the thought & xtra steps I take in an effort to reach consensus;
 * User_talk:Atsme/Archive_23 - one of the fun interactions I've had with MrX, and why his filing of this case set me back on my heels.
 * 05/05/2018 - an apology from Mpants who now wants me to stop editing political articles


 * I know RS and the difference between fact & opinion:
 * 02/24/2018 - I was pointing out questionable sources
 * 02/24/2018 -
 * 02/16/2018 - need statements of fact, not opinions
 * diff - MrX joking about someone transcluding a Breitbart article on my TP - a dig against another editor whose views he opposes.
 * diff - MrX responds to my concerns of media bias, and agrees there is a problem with the current state of the news media. It is nothing like what he is trying to portray about me now.

I tried to avoid this - it cuts deeply - but the deceit and the intent to cause me harm when I've tried so hard to do the right thing was simply overwhelming. I believe the evidence I've provided justifies a TB on all Trump-related articles broadly construed for MrX and Drmies, both of whom have demonstrated an obvious disdain for Trump that effects their ability to edit those articles in compliance with NPOV. Their bias is overwhelming, their behavior is shameful, especially that of an administrator I once trusted, and there are several other editors who harbor the same disdain for Trump who also need to be included in that TB. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 09:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Bishonen's TB against me was pure retaliation - she imposed the ban right after I posted the diffs. She has threatened me in the recent past, has shown extreme bias toward me dating back to 2015 when she overturned a trout slap at ANI and imposed a 3 month block against me without one diff to support any of the allegations.  She just gave a repeat performance. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 10:50, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Providing further evidence regarding Bishonen's behavior in the past and how she repeated it again here in retaliation in very much the same manner:
 * Aug 4, 2015 - Slap with a trout - Failure to identify actionable disruptive behavior other than the acusations back and forth themselves. No good is coming of this. Everyone gets a Trout. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 8:58 pm, 4 August 2015, Tuesday (1 month, 11 days ago) (UTC−5)}}
 * Aug 6, 2015 (→‎Vandal-like disruption, aspersions and PAs at WP:AVDUCK: Atsme blocked) - pure railroading - not one diff ever presented to show disruptive behavior as what GWH stated above. I don't think Bishonen even consulted him before she did what she did out of retaliation for....see the diffs below - retaliation against me for taking an Abuse of COIN case to ArbCom.
 * Closed July 13, 2015 - Bishonen used my ARBCOM case as one of the reasons, calling my actions "vexatious litigation”. Look familiar?  Her response below is not convincing, and something needs to be done about her behavior. Her ban should be overturned and Bishonen considered for desysopping, an action that should have happened when she blocked in retaliation back in 2015. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 11:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * 12-05-2017 Bishonen showed up at Sandstein's TP after he closed an AE against me for mistakingly reverting a blocked editor. She wanted to overturn Sandstein's decision and TB me from AP2.
 * 12-05-2017 I challenged her request, and explained about Bishonen's past actions against me.
 * 12-05-2017 She decided not to file but stalked me for a while after that...nothing has changed. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme 📞📧 11:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Mr Ernie
Very disappointing to see this posted here. I would encourage ArbCom, if they are to look into this matter, to look at the whole topic instead of focusing on one editor. For example, over the past year MrX has been very effective removing editors with a different POV than theirs from the topic area. This sort of diff stalking, collecting, and deep diving is somewhat troubling and chilling at the very least. MrX was recently warned about this - see here. Some of the diffs presented here are from a while ago, so it is really disturbing to think there are editors out there holding on to this stuff for months and even years.

Arbcom should dismiss this, or open a full case to look at the entire topic area. Mr Ernie (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish
Commenting purely about procedural aspects, I don't see what the Committee can do here, in the form of an amendment or clarification. This is the sort of thing that AE, based on the DS from American Politics 2, should be able to handle. Now having said that, it has been my recent experience that AE has been failing miserably at dealing with AP2 cases. It tends to look like the AE administrators can't make up their minds about whether or not they are being asked to resolve content disputes, so they keep punting. Sorry to tell you this, but you are eventually going to have to take an AP3 case, and in the meantime, the AP2 content area is a toxic waste dump that does not come down to just one or two editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * As much as I value Atsme as a wiki-friend, I think that Bishonen did the right thing here. But nobody should think that the AP2 problems are now solved. There are other editors who are significantly more harmful to the topic area, who have to date not been held to account, and the problems in the topic area are ongoing. In a way, it's almost unfair that Atsme has been singled out here.


 * In this overall discussion, I cannot emphasize strongly enough how the present situation has arisen through a failure of AE. At least Bishonen has now applied the DS the way that they are supposed to be applied, at least for one editor. But the admins at AE, as a group, really need to take a serious look in the mirror. DS do not mean take a minimalist approach. The entire point of ArbCom issuing DS in a topic area is to empower admins to act quickly and decisively in a topic area where all other forms of dispute resolution have failed. (Hey, this board is for clarification, so maybe ArbCom should clarify that.) After the GMO case was closed, disruption kept right on happening. So a few admins took DS to make WP:GMORFC happen. That was a big reach. And it worked. The GMO content area has been stable and peaceful ever since. Admins: when DS exist, your hands are not tied. And this isn't about a content dispute.


 * The one way we can avoid an AP3 case is for AE admins to continue to hand out topic bans in AP2. Lots of them.
 * --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Winkelvi
MrX wrote in the opening of his statement: "I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE" I'm curious about (1) What this is supposed to mean; (2) Whether it means administrators have approached him either on- or off-Wiki to lobby him for bringing a case against Atsme here. I would like the statement clarified. I would also like to know if there have been administrators encouraging him to bring a case against Atsme - and if that's the case, (a) it's very troubling that there has been a coordination of attack by admins against an editor, and (b) who are these admins?

For the sake of transparency, this statement needs to be clarified and the community needs to know what communication off-wiki has taken place that was a precursor to this case being brought.

Aside from this, I agree in total with 's statement above. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note It has been brought to my attention that the opening portion of X's statement ("I am bringing this here at the recommendation of several AE admins because it's not well suited to WP:AE") is referring to this discussion at AE. That in mind, someone - preferably MrX - needs to clarify that.  As it is, his comments give the impression that administrators have endorsed this case against Atsme.  <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * That in mind, why is this not really an amendment request rather, what seems to be a backdoor way to bring grievances against another editor and ask for sanctions in violation of the 500 word limit at AE - in other words, is it an abuse of the process? Am I totally off base here or am I seeing this correctly? (I don't want to make accusations if inaccurate) <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 20:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

, a few things you've said below need to be addressed, especially since several who've commented here have mentioned the AP2 articles in general and have suggested topic bans for a number of editors at those articles. The statement I'm going to comment on is this:

"this cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media leads to an erosion of trust and in a community that wants to produce an encyclopedia we cannot have that. It takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Wikipedia. In return, other editors are chased out of the area because it is just not worth their time and energy"

None of this is Atsme's fault. None of this is one editor's fault, or even the fault of a couple of editors -- probably not even most. It's the fault, in large part, of however it all spun out of control. No fingers being pointed by me -- but it has to be solved not by topic banning editors, something more meaningful and long-lasting than a bandaid needs to be applied. <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #0099FF, -4px -4px 15px #99FF00;">-- ψλ  ● <span style="text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px #FF9900, -4px -4px 15px #FF0099;">✉ ✓ 01:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media" For one thing, that cynicism runs both ways -- many of the heated discussions at AP2 article talk pages and reversions have been in regard to reliable sources that are considered conservative (overwhelmingly !voted to be removed and/or dismissed) and unreliable sources ala Hollywood gossip sites defended to support questionable content that supports anti-conservative wording/content. Such behavior has definitely assisted in eroding trust as well as a collegial editing environment and didn't help produce a neutral encyclopedia article.
 * "takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Wikipedia" I couldn't agree more.  The arguing, the back and forth, the introduction of trolling-type comments looking for reaction... it's way out of control.  Editors use the 1RR as a way to WP:GAME and WP:TAGTEAM does occur.  It's all ruined an cooperative editing environment looking for consensus and talk pages have become a place of obstructionism and WP:BLUDGEONing.  Not completely, of course, but far too often.  And I, too, believe that the attitudes and commentary we see far to often in social media has bled into Wikipedia.  It's toxic, plain and simple and WP:NOTAFORUM as well as WP:BLP vios are ignored.  By editors and admins alike.
 * "other editors are chased out of the area" Yes, editors are staying away. But some editors who stay are working very hard to chase away editors trying to keep the behaviors I've mentioned here from happening and articles being ruined with WP:WEIGHT, WP:POV, WP:TONE, and WP:TABLOID/WP:NOTNEWS.

Statement by NeilN
For and others: Previous procedural discussion. No editors were specifically mentioned and I was unsure if a group of editors was going to be reported. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Admins were not opposed to extending word/diff limits at AE so this not an end run to avoid those limits. That being said, I'm not sure why this is at ARCA instead of being a full case request. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 21:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Drmies
"Atsme seems to be a warm and affable person who is rarely uncivil, and who I believe is sincere in her participation in the project. She has made some outstanding contributions to building the encyclopedia in areas outside of American Politics, and I have great respect for her for that. It seems though that she has an ideological blind spot which affects here objectivity, and manifests as large amounts of low signal-to-noise ratio commentary." I couldn't agree more, and the list of diffs, and their analysis, bears this out. I'm sorry it has to come to this, but esp. the constant misunderstanding of fact vs. opinion and the attendant casting doubt on reliable sources (and the very concept thereof) is highly disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Atsme, for me this is in large part about your attitude toward reliable sources. If it hadn't been for that I might not have weighed in there, but this cynicism toward reliable sources and reputable media leads to an erosion of trust and in a community that wants to produce an encyclopedia we cannot have that. It takes too much time and energy to counter the many, many unfounded allegations, which drags along editors who might otherwise stay out of the area but who know see their Facebook thread reflected in Wikipedia. In return, other editors are chased out of the area because it is just not worth their time and energy. But these things I have said before, in individual threads and subthreads, and they are frequently answered only with an attempt at levity--and then we do it all over again. Drmies (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Winkelvi, I am not aware of people using Hollywood gossip sites (I am not quite sure what those are--gossip tabloids like EW?) in these articles. Nor am I aware of editors dismissing reliable "conservative" sites, and I won't stand for it: I have no patience for poor sourcing, no matter from which side--not on Facebook, and certainly not here. But if what is being suggested here is that this case against Atsme is without merit because everyone is doing it ("bad people on both sides", I dispute that: it is not for many editors that one can draw up such a long list of edits that counter policy, thwart progress, disrupt editorial processes. Drmies (talk) 02:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Concur with Tryptofish (and with the topic-specific comments in Mjolnirpants's comment page). It's not just a couple of editors, and it is across a large number of articles. I've gotten to where I studiously avoid entering the topic area other that to quickly post a !vote in an RfC I get from WP:FRS, then leave quickly. Even aside from factional PoV-pushing and a general degradation of civility, there's a massive WP:NOT / WP:NOT problem. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC); revised:  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC) PS, about the Atsme stuff: Fyddlestix correctly articulates the problem with all the "NPOV and NOTNEWS and FRINGE" stuff. We have policy shortcuts for good reasons; the problem isn't in using them, it's in repetitively ignoring arguments against the editor's personal [mis]interpretations of the policies and guidelines in question. That said, I agree that the editor is productive in other areas. As noted above, I don't think the problems is this topic area are particularly to do with this editor, though. Un-disclaimer: I'm a political centrist, so I'm not taking an ideological side in this mess. .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by MjolnirPants
My full statement to the Arbs is located here. Atsme is one of a very (very) small number of Wikipedians I would like to consider my friend, but I strongly urge the arbs to take this case. I have written my entire response here, so as not to post a giant wall of text on this page. I strongly encourage the arbs to read it in it's entirety before deciding whether or not to take this case.

, I hope you don't take my support here as a betrayal, because it's not. You are not the only editor I think should get the hell out of AmPol, and I don't think you're entirely to blame for why you should get out. So I encourage you to take my advice: let the Arbs take this case to try and fix the cesspool that is AmPol, but in the meantime, do as I did and just unwatch every directly political page on your watchlist. At the very least, doing so would essentially remove any reason to sanction you, regardless of what ArbCom thinks of the evidence above. If you don't think you can do that, or you can't accept that you should, then I'm afraid I would need to strongly support any proposed topic ban for you. Please don't make it come to that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants  Tell me all about it.  21:22, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking note of that. In all honesty, I really think that all that's needed is for a few admins to wade into the swamp, ban hammers swinging. Done right, it would solve the problem. Done poorly, it would still be a step in the right direction. I'd be completely on board with doing an AP3 case, if that's what it took. But something really needs to be done. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  05:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That apology was for me blowing up at you, telling you that I'd lost all respect for you and ignoring you for several days. The things I said about your arguing tactics prior to that and since then are all things I stand by: Your argumentation in political articles has -in my experience- overall been unoriginal, illogical, polemical, ill-informed and ultimately ineffective. You know very well that anti-Trump POV pushing pisses me off just as quickly and thoroughly as pro-Trump POV pushing, and that I'm more than happy to say good things about something I despise, so long as they're true. I could have been convinced of a lot of things, but you ultimately failed to ever make a good case. Even when we were in agreement on something, such as the existence and troubling nature of an Anti-Trump POV-pushing faction, or individual matters like the inclusion of the donation of office space to the pro-African American group on the racial views page, I rarely commented on or added to your own arguments because I found them weak, and wanted to distance my own from them.
 * Meanwhile, we've interacted over dozens of smaller issues at user talk and a few bigger things, as well. In every one of those cases, you struck me as a competent, rational and very thoughtful editor. In the end, it was like there were two people behind your account; the lovely (and I'm sure, devastatingly beautiful) lady who knows how to keep a conversation heading towards a consensus and has a keen eye for improving this project, and the partisan pro-Trump shill who repeats arguments from Breitbart ad nauseum and responds to any legitimate criticism with deflection. I really, really like that first person, and want to see more of her. She's the one I apologized to. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  13:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Beyond My Ken
I am unsure as to why MrX received the advice to bring this complaint here, as it obviously seems to be suited to AE as it has been presented here.I've read the full statement by MjolnrPants linked to just above, and they certainly have a valid point, that the American Politics subject area is a quagmire that drives away editors and needs to be cleaned up. However, I disagree that this requires a full arbitration case, and I can't imagine there's any great enthusiasm on the party of the community -- or Arbcom, for that matter -- for an AP3 case. I do agree with cleaning up the subject area, though, and a start on that can be made by dealing with individual editors who may be part of the problem. If these editors are topic banned, it would, presumably, reduce the number of disputes, and would send a message to other disputatious editors.So, the end result is that I fall in with the idea that this request is not properly suited to ARCA, since it involves a single editor, and is not calling for specific changes in the discretionary sanction regime. It seems clearly to be an AE case and should be closed here and brought there, as should any similar complaints regarding other editors. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:07, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a word to day that I think that determining the boundaries of a "Donald Trump, broadly construed" topic ban, should one ever be issued, would be extremely difficult, as the controversies surrounding Trump, his policies and politics, his appointees, his relations with Congress and the Courts, and, not the least, the ongoing investigation of possible wrongdoing connected to his Presidential campaign, have fairly well overwhelmed almost everything else in current American politics and become the central issue of the moment. Although American Politics discretionary sanctions have the boundary of being post-1932, the actual active hot spots that cause the problems pointed out by a number of editors all really revolve around Trump and current issues, so that a "Donald Trump, broadly construed" topic ban becomes, in essence, an American Politics topic ban. Since that is the case, it seems to me better just to issue post-1932 American politics topic bans instead of Trump topic bans, to prevent gaming, and also to avoid the problem of disputatious editors simply slipping back in time to create the same chaos around Barack Obama, the Bushes, Bill Clinton, and Ronald Reagan. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:29, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Fyddlestix
Procedural questions aside, I'd just like to encourage admins/arbs to not be too quick to dismiss this and to take the time to look at the pattern of behavior and how much disruption it's caused over time. Atsme really does have difficulty accepting RS as RS when it comes to the AP area, and a tendency to repeatedly spam WP:POLICYSHORTCUTS as if they were an automatic "i win" button in AP debates, while ignoring other editors' earnest explanations of why the policy might not apply/why it might not be that simple (ie, IDHT). This is a pattern of behavior that has remained unchanged for a long period of time, despite repeated pleas/warnings from others - this RFC from over a year ago, for example, shows much the same type of disruptive behavior displayed in MrX's more recent diffs. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:56, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To add: I agree with others' comments that the whole topic area is a bit of a shit-show: if arbcom wants to take on an AP3 case to resolve the broader issues, more power to them, but that is a massive undertaking and a huge challenge. If not, then the fact that the roof is on fire doesn't mean you should ignore the gas leak in the basement: I'd echo BMK's suggestion that even if taking care of one problem doesn't solve all our problems, it's a start and a step worth taking. Fyddlestix (talk) 23:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by OID
I suggest you turn this into an actual case request, as this is not new behaviour on Atsme's part, and it has never been limited to American Politics, as Atsme either has a competence issue (they dont just have a problem with NPOV and sources, they have had ongoing issues with the BLP as well), or a deliberate misunderstanding of policies and guidelines when other editors disagree with them. When you have problems going on for over 3 years, its not going to be suited to an AE request - as they usually result in a short block/ban from a topic. And while AN can (and does) handle ongoing editor behavioural issues, its probably not suited in this case. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to point out, the link I have included above is the discussion Atsme is referring to RE Bish. I would suggest people read the comments there by Guy especially. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by power~enwiki
This should be a case request and not at ARCA. I assume the clerks will move this if there is interest in a case. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding a case: I don't see a strong need for an "American Politics 3" ARBCOM case at this time. Content disputes are often very heated in the area, and the project would benefit from several editors observing a page-ban from Donald Trump and its talk page. But that can be handled under existing discretionary sanctions. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding clarification: I feel there should be a generally-understood scope for a topic-ban on "Donald Trump, broadly construed"; when these have been issued (as opposed to a page-ban or a full AP2 topic ban) they have turned into excessive wiki-lawyering. I have not been able to come up with any specific proposal that is an improvement, and the committee may want to simply discourage the use of a "Trump TBAN", and that admins should use a full AP2 topic-ban when that is necessary. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Bishonen: topic ban placed
I don't see anything preventing me from acting on MrX's diffs per the AP2 discretionary sanctions, no matter where the diffs have been filed, so long as I've seen them. I have therefore topic banned Atsme indefinitely from post-1932 American politics. The ban is a regular discretionary sanctions ban per single admin discretion, and can be appealed at AN, AE or ARCA in the usual way. It can be appealed right away, certainly, but after that, no more frequently than every six months. I thought at first a topic ban from Donald Trump and related pages might do it, but Beyond My Ken's argument here against Donald Trump bans convinced me against that. I institute this ban per all MrX's categories: wikilawyering, long-time persistent resistance to good advice, repeating arguments ad nauseum, filibustering and dominating discussions without bringing them forward, and, most of all, for repeatedly discrediting reliable sources. Drmies has explained very well the harm the last point does. Not all MrX's diffs are impressive, but together they paint a pretty appalling picture of an editing pattern that drains the time and energy of other users and is a persistent negative on talkpages. I should say that Am Pol is no rosegarden even if we disregard Atsme's input, and probably won't be one even if my ban is upheld. Several people have recommended an AP3 case to deal with the chaos on Trump-related pages. Personally, though, I feel that AP2 does give admins the ability to act decisively. Anyway, whether or not such an arbitration case is brought, or indeed an individual case to deal with Atsme's Am Pol editing, I don't see why I shouldn't try to take care of this gas leak. As Fyddlestix says, it's a start and a step worth taking. Atsme is an OTRS volunteer; I believe this topic ban precludes her from having anything to do with e-mails that concern American politics, but that's a little too arcane for me; perhaps, as long as we are on the ARCA page, the arbitrators would like to clarify that matter?

I too want to express my regret. Atsme is a fine contributor in other areas, and I'm a great admirer of the photographic art she contributes to the project. Like several previous years, I've voted for one of her amazing pictures in the ongoing Commons Picture of the Year contest. Bishonen &#124; talk 09:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC).
 * Atsme rather unexpectedly posted a full response, 12 hours after having originally stated that "I am respectfully requesting that the admins reviewing this case please forgive me for not being able to respond to this case", and "I don't have it in me to fight this because in order to defend myself, it will be at their expense, and I don't have the heart to do that". While I was fiddling with my own post preparatory to hitting "Publish", it turned out she did after all have the heart to call for topic bans for MrX and Drmies, in a post that edit conflicted me. Of course I read it (that was the nine minutes) but it didn't change my mind. I'm not going to argue with you, Alex, as to whether that reflects badly on me or not. So heated and polarized as discourse in the area is, I naturally expect criticism from some users. You started with saying "personally I think" and then segued into a generalizing passive: "is not going to be perceived well". I could wish you stayed with your own, in fact personal, perceptions and the active voice, rather than speaking for — the community? the committee? I'm not sure, because with the vagueness of the passive, one never knows. As for the ARCA request remaining open, I completely agree. It's not like I placed the sanction in any sense per ARCA (how could I?), and more things than a possible topic ban have been discussed here. My post was intended more as a courtesy notice, to explain to people watching the discussion that the situation is now a little different. It needn't affect the arbitrators, or affect anybody who wishes to request arbitration. Thank you for clarifying the OTRS matter. Bishonen &#124; talk 10:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC).

Statement by MONGO
Well, if an arbcom case were opened, not sure where to begin. The problem with any politics, especially the most recent ones, is all we really have are news clips, written almost always in an audience satisfying manner, as sources. Of course these sources, if we are talking about major news networks, are deemed reliable. But they are, a great number of them, also geared to grab attention, not peer reviewed and lack the journalistic integrity of scientific papers. This sourcing for recent politics is going to suffer the inevitable bias of writers who are seeing things through the lens of immediacy, and not through the lens of hind sight. The inevitable outcome is articles about recent events and people that are far below quality levels of the website's best articles. Arguing, even forcefully, about whether a news feed is neutral is, a worthy effort. Comparing subpar articles to FA level articles is a worthy effort. Fighting to make sure articles, especially BLPs, are neutrally covered, is a worthy effort. I write fighting in a figurative way...in that protecting BLPs is paramount and I have long felt very disturbed when editors clearly state, not only in words but also in actions, how much they have a distaste for a subject, then turn around and blatantly fight to add all the negativism they can and work to eliminate all the positives they can, and use noticeboards to try and eliminate their editing adversaries and the same noticeboards to defend their editing allies. But far more chilling and despicable than that, is when those in positions of higher trust and power, also insult, ridicule and bully those they disagree with politically both on the article talkpages and the user talks and noticeboards as well. Indeed, were an arbcom case filed, not sure where to even begin as the problems are so pervasive here and some actions so obvious, that any neutral party recently arrived at this website and seeing how this all unfolds would surely declare that all this is insanity and fully noncompliant with any semblance of neutrality or fairness.MONGO (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by WBG

 * AFAIR, one upon a time (when I regularly used to close RFC(s) in the topic-area), I've asked Atsme to step down from APOL, (voluntarily), for the very reasons that have been mentioned above, (quite many times by multiple users).She seems to have a good-faith but fatal misunderstanding of key policies and is too willing to stick to extremist interpretations of policies which often reaches to the level of extreme bludgeoning and tendentious debating.That, she paid no heed and had continued in her ways, I'm afraid Bishonen's T-ban is well-deserved.
 * As someone who considers Atsme to be one of the most polite and resourceful editor over here, I regret to post the above statement but the T-ban ought to do some real good.
 * I disagree with Alex about the perception(s) of the T-ban.
 * Whilst Atsme claims to have got some history (INVOLVED-->??) with Bish, I fail to spot any relevant issue(s), per our policy. &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 12:49, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Alex:--I was careless to put the second part in the same line. Sorry, &#x222F; <b style="color:#070">WBG</b> converse 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Alanscottwalker
Although initial reaction from Rob, et al. was understandable, it's time to realize this has moved on, well passed that.

Atsme has accused a person, and relevant here, an admin of stalking and abusing admin status (an admin action, ban, predicated on the diffs in this very filing by Mr. X). Per WP:NOTBUREAU, treat this as an appeal of a ban to be heard here, or the ctte should motion it into a case. DO NOT send this anywhere else for more (disruptive) process. You are the only ctte set-up that deals with precisely this stuff. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

American politics 2: Clerk notes

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



American politics 2: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * If the situation is too complex for AE, it’s too complex for ARCA. Your two options are to file a report at AE or to file a case request, in my opinion. For now, I decline to comment on the merits of the report to avoid prejudicing a potential discussion at AE. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 22:48, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can’t speak for other arbitrators, only myself. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:13, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with ; if this is too complex for AE, then the only option is to file a full case request. I understand why it's being taken here: Like said, it's difficult for many AE administrators to make up their mind in this topic area (about whether or not the dispute is related to content or user conduct). But if the purpose of not filing a full request is to not upset a certain editor, filing this request in the form of a full case request without actually filing one makes little sense to me. Removing  from the Donald Trump topic area may reduce some of the issues in these American politics discussions, perhaps. But I think there is a emerging sentiment here that this involves more than just one editor; WP:ARBAP2#Neutrality and sources is the key issue here I think, and the principle as currently worded is far from sufficient in my opinion, and a better principle/remedy is likely needed to better deal with persisting issues in American politics pages, and to encourage more administrators to work on mediating disputes in this topic area. Alex Shih (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , OTRS is governed by a separate body in which I do not believe the English Wikipedia community have any jurisdiction; you can certainly make the recommendation to meta:OTRS. No comments in regards to the topic ban, but personally I think enacting such a discretionary sanction 9 minutes after Atsme posted a full response is not going to be perceived well. It is definitely within your discretion as uninvolved administrator however, but this ARCA request should probably remain open to allow for more input and discussion. Alex Shih (talk) 09:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am not sure if I mentioned anything about involvement; I was surprised to see Atsme responding after initially declining to respond, and equally surprised to see the topic ban enacted right after her follow up post. That was the sum of my thoughts. Alex Shih (talk) 12:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm also with Rob - this should be at AE or a case request. I see a lot of discussion already (12 editors not counting MrZ or Atsme), mainly either saying it should go to AE or that a case request be made, or that the single editor involved, Atsme, be dealt with by someone. That's now happened. Doug Weller  talk 11:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Allow me to pile on and agree with Rob. This case needs to be handled as a case request or at AE itself. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Rob. Katietalk 13:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. In a self-serving way, I can appreciate the intention to save us the efforts of a full case, but if this cannot be resolved at AE then a case seems warranted. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 16:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't quite agree with the reasoning above - "too complex for AE" means "too complex for self-selected volunteers who aren't actually obliged to do fuck all", whereas "too complex for ARCA" means "too complex for the people who specifically volunteered for and were elected to deal with complex problems and are as obliged to do things as anybody can be in an internet hobby". But I do agree with the conclusion that ARCA as a venue is a poor fit for this problem, especially following Bishonen's topic ban. (I agree with Bishonen's comments above that Atsme is a nice person and an excellent editor on other topics, and suspect that having to step away from editing about American politics for awhile would be, for just about anyone, a blessing in disguise.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline, without prejudice to Atsme's right to appeal the topic-ban imposed against her in the usual way (though I suggest she allow things to settle down for a few days before deciding whether she really wants to). Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Article titles and capitalisation (June 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by SMcCandlish at 09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) &sect;&thinsp;Discretionary sanctions
 * 2) &sect;&thinsp;Motion: Article titles and capitalization (February 2017)
 * 3) &sect;&thinsp;Enforcement log


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Information about amendment request
 * &sect;&thinsp;Discretionary sanctions
 * Repeal


 * &sect;&thinsp;Motion: Article titles and capitalization (February 2017)
 * Annotate as moot


 * &sect;&thinsp;Enforcement log
 * Merge (if necessary) into the DS logs we now use, and delete from the case page

Statement by SMcCandlish
WP:ARBATC's application of discretionary sanctions (DS) to WP:Article titles, WP:Manual of Style, and related pages (MoS subpages, and AT's split-off naming conventions [NC] guidelines) has never been helpful, and is certainly no longer needed.
 * The DS-related banners at the top of the related talk pages have a chilling effect and aren't conducive to collaborative policy formation. In short, they're scary, and reduce rather than enhance community input into the management of AT/MoS.
 * The DS were authorized back when there was an unpleasant squabble going on between a small number of parties.
 * The party most disruptive at the time was later narrowly topic-banned, then blocked for further  disruption at WT:RM (not as a DS matter, since the DS do not apply to that page). ARBATC didn't restrain this person's "remake title policy in my image" activities; usual community process has done that.  Another party, was a WP:TBAN-evading sockpuppet, later dealt with by standard administrative means.
 * ARBATC did unreasonable damage immediately: party quit editing shortly after ARBATC, costing us a good editor. (There were no findings of fact about him doing anything wrong, but he was nevertheless accused-by-template of "continued wrongdoing", and resigned in protest.)
 * There is no sign of AT/MoS-related pages being subject to any disruptive activity of note since 2016, and that was caused by a single person who could have been dealt with at ANI.
 * Before that, the only major issue since ARBATC was in 2014, and resolved by RfC.
 * The kind of disruption addressed in ARBATC was short-term and minor compared to what DS are usually authorized for (e.g. "my ethnicity/religion/country versus yours" hate-mongering). It was primarily a four-editor personality conflict. Why do we have DS covering a policy page and of calm, quiet guideline pages for a localized squabble that ended years ago, and which didn't need DS to end it?
 * These DS, when applied at all, have mostly been used one-sidedly to punish AT/MoS regulars for minor transgressions, but never applied to critics of our title policy or style manual no matter how nasty they get in their behavior toward other editors. Some of these punitive-not-preventative DS actions against MoS maintainers were overturned by WP:AN as illegitimate.
 * The one time the ARBATC DS have been used to restrain a long-term disrupter of MoS-related pages, the DS route was, requiring at least four WP:AE reports nearly back-to-back (after previous noticeboard actions, e.g. at WP:ANEW, where ARBATC DS were inappropriately used to punish the filer – this is one of the invalid DS that AN vacated), constant relitigation at WP:ARCA and AE, and an enormous amount of drama (now entering its third year, still ongoing as of this very month).
 * WP:ANI would have handled this far more expediently, probably in one to two decisions (T-ban, followed by indef or community ban if necessary).
 * In a case where DS arguably could have been used effectively to restrain multi-party, organized disruption, absolutely nothing was done for years, until the community resolved it a huge RfC (after two earlier RfCs and a WP:MR). ARBATC was no help at all, and the community didn't need DS in the end. So why's it still there?

February 2017 re-scoping motion: It not only invalidated many of the previous ARBATC DS sanctions as having been out-of-scope, it made these DS so constrained – to only the AT/MOS pages and their talk pages – that they're. Almost all "style"-related disruptive activity takes place on article talk pages, mostly in WP:Requested moves threads (and most of the rest is at wikiproject talk pages). ArbCom was made aware of this, yet chose to drastically limit the DS scope anyway.

The committee themselves clearly recognize that the DS hammer should not be brought to bear on policy- and guideline-interpretation discussions broadly, and that normal community and administrative remedies are sufficient for disruptive activity in them. This was a wise decision, as an earlier ArbCom effectively telling the community that if anyone momentarily loses their temper in a WP:P&G-related thread it may result in unusual punishment is ultimately a separation of powers problem, an interference in WP's self-governance. WP policy material evolves over time in response to such discussions; it is not an immutable law no one is permitted to question. This was actually a central point in the ARBATC case itself (see initial comments by, for example).

"Enforcement log": It's just a short list of early recipients of, and there have been many more since. These notices/warnings officially expire after a year anyway. Twice already ArbCom has instructed that any items in that list that need to be retained should be merged into the newer DS logging system and this old "scarlet letter" material removed, yet it still hasn't been done years later.

Effect on sanctions: If the ARBATC DS are ended, this mustn't affect sanctions issued while DS were in effect. Let's not create another wikilawyering angle to exploit! If DS were the prescribed means in 2016 for dealing with AT/MoS disruption then, and the community should not have to re-re-re-litigate to restrain a disruptor from returning to the same activity on a technicality.

Standing: I was named as a party, despite no connection to the actual ARBATC dispute ("MoS editors" guilt by association). Since then, I've seen and personally felt WP:ARBATC doing nothing but causing trouble for Wikipedia and its editorial community – from punitive, disproportionate, and one-sided sanctions, to years of drama-mongering, to a disengagement of the community from its own policy and guideline pages; all while the DS have failed to actually help the community expediently resolve any actual At/MoS-related disruption.

The ARBATC DS are probably the single most obvious failure of DS to be a useful solution. Not every problem's a nail, so a hammer isn't the only tool we should use.

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

— SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  16:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC) — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Re "I've seen how high the passions run in this area": But generally not at the AT/NC or MoS themselves nor their talk pages, which are the only ones covered by the DS any longer. The few times it's gotten out of hand, within an even vaguely relevant time-span (2014 is really pushing it), the standard community/admin remedies would have been not only sufficient but obviously better. And it wasn't because the "topic area" is fraught with drama, but because of a few specific individuals crossing WP:DE lines (with behavior that would be disruptive regardless of the subject, like intentional derailing of RfCs to thwart community input in both the specific cases I mentioned). This simply isn't comparable to ethno-ideological editwarring, or obsessive insertion of fringe medical claims, or constant Trump promotion vs. bashing, and other things where where DS regularly do have a palpable dispute-reduction effect. Everyone may have an opinion about titles and style, but very, very few are on a WP:GREATWRONGS crusade about them (and things don't fall apart even when one such arises; non-DS means routinely deal with it). The AT/MoS DS are simply disused; the community and the admin corps don't find them useful, and when they rarely are used, it's generally a trainwreck of questionable judgement or farcical bureaucracy. Shotguns are effective for hunting ducks, but not very useful for dealing with a mouse in the kitchen.  DS haven't even been useful in MOS:INFOBOX-related disputes; that's come to separate WP:RFARBs, twice.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * In what way would that incident not have been resolveable with a regular administrative warning or a normal noticeboard action? "There was a problem" doesn't equate to "There was a problem that required DS". Editwarring is already covered by WP:Editwarring policy and has its own noticeboard at WP:ANEW.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Update: Since 2 Arbs are requesting more input, I've placed neutral notices about this request at the main AT and MoS talk pages. That'll probably be sufficient.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Disruption hasn't decreased in this area of DS, because the DS are almost never actually deployed, and when they are it's not toward the actions that are most disruptive. Rather, AT/MoS disruption has gone down naturally as these policies/guidelines and their interpretation and application have stabilized, same as with the rest of our WP:P&G system, plus a more conventionalized approach to dispute resolution today than we had a decade ago. (Anyone remember how "useful" WP:RFC/U was? Ha ha.) Another factor is the smaller and more committed editorial base we have now versus in the first 5–10 years, when it was kind of a torrent of short-term people, mostly from SlashDot, and the entire project had kind of a "this is a crazy open development experiment for geeks" feel to it.  The average editor today is more likely to be a writer, an academic, a grad student, a blogger, rather than a computer nerd whose main hobby, aside from fragging strangers in combative videogames, is arguing for sport on webboards.  The nature of the place has shifted, as would be expected; we're long out of the early-adopter, wild-and-wooly phase. The chilling effect isn't a chill on disruption. The ARBATC DS are virtually never applied to anyone who shows up to AT or MoS and starts being disruptive; regulars at those pages are more likely to be subjected to boomerang sanctions for daring to complain about the disrupters.  This is one reason we virtually never bring RFARB, ARCA, or AE actions against anyone (another is that the regulars at the pages aren't battlegrounders, but shepherds; we're averse to drama, and we seek stability and smooth sailing, even if we don't all agree on things.)  The chilling effect is on general participation.  People used to engage much more often, and more broadly from throughout the editorial pool, at these pages, but DS immediately cast a pall and it's never dissipated.  I go out of my way to draw broader attention (e.g. at WP:VPPOL) to MOS/AT/NC/DAB-related RfCs, but overall the participation in them is markedly lower today than in 2012 when the DS were implemented, even if you account for the smaller overall editorial pool.  The minor bits of disruption we've seen and where DS were applied (at least in the abstract, i.e. warnings) were all blips that could have be dealt with at ANI or ANEW or with a DS-unrelated civility warning. Meanwhile, the two actually severe bouts of disruption (which I mentioned already) happened after the DS. The DS were not used to prevent the problems; the community resolved the first on its own; and the second dragged on until the situation became so intolerable that someone did finally try using AE, long after much of the damage was done, and then it just turned into three years of additional drama. The only thing like this that happened before the DS was the date auto-linking and auto-formatting squabbles, which were not the ARBATC issue, but handled in an earlier RFARB, WP:ARBDATE – and handled without DS.
 * Boomerang: The ANEW that was reversed onto me then overturned at AN  is an obvious case. (The reported editor is the one who was not long after T-banned (largely on the same evidence as presented at ANEW) then indeffed and who's been the broken record at appeal after appeal). The most egregious example was probably when an AE request was opened regarding an editor who'd just been at ANI for the same sort of AT-related disruption, right on the heels of a highly critical RFC/U. Various AT/RM regulars were critical of this editor, based on previously provided evidence, and not in WP:NPA-raising terms. As retribution, the editor opened an AE immediately below the one open about him, to go after his AT critics. Rather than listen to this plurality of editors, AE admins refused to accept the fact that evidence against the problem editor had been supplied in spades at ANI and RFC/U, and instead jumped all over the whole lot (except the subject of the original report, of course). It's two back-to-back threads, at Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive129 and the one immediately above it. Unsurprisingly, the problem editor was very soon after dealt with at ANI. (I'm avoiding mentioning the name of the other editor, per Newyorkbrad, since they were subjected to a long-term block and may no longer be active.) Yet another case where ANI gets it right and DS/AE just end up being a BUREAUCRACY/WIKILAWYER/GAMING farm.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Then please read it again. From the close: "It is clear that this topic ban did not have the support of the community, and it is only procedural delay that let the discussion continue so long." That bears no resemblance to your summary. The central issue was that the ban-issuing admin refused to offer any justification or clarification – at AN, at my talk page, at his own talk page, anywhere – despite multiple editors and other admins requesting those rationales, and despite that admin being actively editing the entire time. It wasn't an oversight, it was a patent refusal. This was obviously grounds for a WP:ADMINACCT case at ArbCom against the admin in question (especially since it followed on a previous very similar misuse of ARBATC DS by the same admin, applying it to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves which is outside ARBATC's scope, and to only one side of the dispute that was active there). I chose not to file an RFARB, or to even appeal the T-ban until near its end, simply because I'm averse to WP:DRAMA and I wanted to make the point that the T-ban was objectionable on its own lack-of-merits not because I was personally unhappy or "chomping at the bit", or out for "revenge". The perhaps predictable devolution of this ARCA into "find some way to point the finger at the ARCA request even after AN concluded in the other direction, and even though this ARCA is about DS and the topic area not this editor in particular" actually serves to highlight what's wrong with DS in this area in the first place.  It's disappointing to encounter what looks like an implication that I must have some kind of nefarious motive in questioning DS's application to AT/MOS. This isn't about me (I haven't had a  issue with ARBATC DS in years).  What happed to AGF, and ARBATC's own instructions to not personalize style disputes? :-/  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I chose to focus in the appeal on whether the remedy was needed; as you well know, that's virtually the only way to get a sanction lifted, ever. It's "wikisuicidal" to focus on whether one was just/correct. The fact that several AN respondents also focused on this is meaningless except as an indicator of what is typical at ANs.  You asked for an example and I provided one, of an admin mis-applying DS one-sidedly (shutting down a legit ANEW request the intent of which was to stop someone disrupting two RfCs back-to-back), who then stubbornly refused to do WP:ADMINACCT for two months, and whose "discretion" was reversed by AN. If AE's collective assessment of largely the same evidence against the same reported user concluded in favor of a T-ban then a block, but the lone admin came to the nearly opposite conclusion, the latter was clearly a misapplication of DS and of admin authority generally. It's also a principle here that we don't supervote and second-guess a closer's decision years after the fact; if you had an issue with the AN closer's consensus rede, you should have raised that in 2015.  More importantly for this ARCA rationale the huge drama pile over the last three years, surrounding that reported editor, might even have been avoided if that ANEW has proceeded as normal; if similar behavior had popped up again, ANI would have dealt with it swiftly and cleanly. The misuse of DS to thwart standard DR process directly enabled continued long-term disruptive editing by that party.  The DS had the diametric opposite of the intended effect.  All that aside, I also provided a more important, broader, second example, which you ignored, despite it showing ARBATC DS to have been problematic since the start.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:11, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * By your reasoning, all of WP should be covered by DS, since there is recurrent dispute about virtually every topic. Let's reverse this: Can you or anyone else provide even a single example of ARBATC DS being applied, to a situation in which a) there were no grounds for an administrative warning (e.g for EW or DE) absent the DS, or b) there were no grounds for a noticeboard action (ANI, ANEW, NORN, etc.), only for DS and AE? If not, then the DS are not serving a purpose here since standard remedies suffice.  Combine that with the  of DS and AE to actually deal effectively with a long-term disrupter when that route was actually attempted in good faith.  This ARCA is obviously going nowhere, so I'll just drop it and wait for another ArbCom. The passage of time, the collection of further evidence of mis-application and of failure of DS to work in this area, and simple cycling out of some committee members seems likely to be necessary to get the nebulously menaching fog lifted off these policypages. DS never should have been applied to this in the first place, given that the rationale for it was just a petty four-editor squabble that would have resolved itself soon enough anyway.  ARBATC#Discretionary_sanctions was an over-reaction.  By current standards, DS would not have been applied in that case. The reluctance of ArbCom today to impose DS doesn't square with its simultaneous reluctance to un-impose old DS where DS would not have been imposed today.  And the fact that ARBATC DS have been invoked for warnings twice in  is trivial, in no way suggestive that DS works in this area. This is basically magical thinking.  "It rained last night, after I prayed to the rain gods, ergo prayer works."  I've offered far more plausible explanations above why AT/MoS see less dispute today than they did in 2011.
 * I've already addressed all that; that party's T-ban, I-ban, and perhaps an indef if necessary would have all happened under ANI, far more expediently than the ridiculous amount of AE litigation that was required. DS / AE were not needed to arrive at remedies, but were a drawn-out impediment to doing so – pretty much the least useful approach we could contemplate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Thryduulf
I find this an odd request, given that within the last month had an appeal of their topic ban placed under these discretionary sanctions declined, a one-way I bad against Smccandlish (the nominator here) added to that topic ban, and a short block for breaching the topic ban during the appeal imposed. They were indeffed by NeilN later the same day for breaching their topic ban on their talk page. See Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive235 and user talk:Darkfrog24. Given this very recent history (7 June) of ATC discretionary sanctions being actively used, I would be inclined to say that they are currently still needed. Thryduulf (talk) 09:19, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Statement by CBM
I believe that the discretionary sanctions are particularly important on MOS pages, which by the subjective nature of the content are more prone to personal arguments than many other pages. I wanted to post a few links in particular, which may or may not be informative about the continuing benefit of DS. From a MOS-related RFC in December:, from earlier this week  ("childish"), and from today. This is the tone with discretionary sanctions in effect.

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

Article titles and capitalisation: Clerk notes

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


 * Quick note about the DS notifications given prior to alerts being a thing: WP:AC/DS directs the clerks to keep the notifications on the main case pages ("Notifications and warnings issued prior to the introduction of the current procedure on 3 May 2014 are not sanctions and remain on the individual case page logs."). It's true that some portion of the work from implementing the DS procedure changes remains on the clerks' to-do list, but this is not one of them. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 15:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Article titles and capitalisation: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I raised the idea of rescinding discretionary sanctions in several areas on the arb list very recently, but this wasn’t one of the areas I was looking at. I’m open to being convinced, but I’ve seen how high the passions run in this area, and I’ll need to be convinced the discretionary sanctions are a net negative in the area. Awaiting more statements. (As a procedural aside, you don’t need “standing” to appeal a remedy or sanction affecting pages. Any editor can do that.) ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Can you comment specifically on why you don't feel disruption has decreased in this area because of the discretionary sanctions? You state they have no positive effect, but you also state they have somewhat of a chilling effect. A chilling effect on disruption is essentially the intent behind discretionary sanctions, and I wouldn't want to revoke discretionary sanctions if they're the reason we've seen less frequent issues in this area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 15:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to have a couple links to those boomerang results you mention. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 16:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't read the AN thread that resulted in your topic ban being lifted as saying that the ban was incorrect. I read it as saying that the ban was no longer necessary. This is also reflected in what you yourself wrote in the first couple lines of that request, stating the ban was no longer necessary because the underlying dispute had died down. In any event, if the only examples of potentially problematic enforcement are from 2015, I don't find that very convincing. Enforcement has evolved quite a bit since then. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the discussion, not the closing summary. In total, four editors supported lifting the ban. Of those, none said the ban was inappropriate. They focused more on the fact it was no longer serving a purpose (or was vague/poorly defined). It's somewhat unclear the topic ban even should have been lifted, since four editors supporting and two opposing do not usually form a "clear and substantial consensus" required to lift a discretionary sanction. This has nothing to do with the fact that you (as the ARCA filer) were the subject of that ban and everything to do with whether enforcement in this area has been poor. I asked for examples of poor enforcement, and you offered that one up. You shouldn't find it shocking that I looked into it. No-one has stated you have any "nefarious motive" here. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Decline. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 23:36, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm definitely not in favour of removing this set of discretionary sanctions. This is an area where passions run very high and disputes are relatively commonplace. In fact, just last month I alerted and warned a few editors who were edit warring on a MOS page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that discretionary sanctions didn't need to be used is a good thing. The knowledge that discretionary sanctions are in force and that an administrator is willing to use them is, in many instances, enough to make editors stop. I'd also note that these discretionary sanctions have already been used against two different editors for two different reasons this year (in my case to calm a situation and as an alternative to a block). My opinion is pretty clear here, if discretionary sanctions have been authorised by the committee they should not be removed unless there is no longer conflict in the subject area and it's not likely to return in the short term. This topic area, from what I've looked at, doesn't meet either criteria. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:26, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm with my colleagues above. From my observations they are still necessary. Doug Weller  talk 10:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see some more input from editors active on the relevant pages. (But unless really necessary, let's avoid discussing editors who are now banned and can't defend themselves.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the information above, and I will agree with my colleagues as well that these sanctions are still needed at this time. RickinBaltimore (talk) 14:17, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with everything my colleagues have said above. I'm happy to clear out the cobwebs on disused sanctions - but these are being used, even if rarely, and it doesn't sound like the underlying disputes have really stopped happening. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would like to hear more comments from the community and editors who work in this area. So far not a lot of outside feedback for or against the continuation of these DS. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 18:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I generally agree that the sanctions are still of use, per the above commentary. Like Mkdw I wish there was more feedback from others in the area, but lacking that I'm prepared to decline this right now. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Really wish we had more input from affected editors but it's obvious there's recent conflict in this area. I believe they're still necessary. Katietalk 15:15, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Amendment request: Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal (July 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Crouch, Swale at 19:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Ban appeal restrictions


 * Clauses to which an amendment is requested
 * 1) Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 36
 * 2) Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Archive 12


 * List of any users involved or directly affected, and confirmation that all are aware of the request:''
 * (initiator)


 * Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request''

Callanecc Euryalus Nilfanion
 * Information about amendment request
 * Links at the top
 * RM new page and moves/discussion editing restrictions (from myself)


 * Link to the principle, finding, remedy, section, etc for which you are requesting amendment
 * State the desired modification

Statement by Crouch, Swale
Can I have my editing restriction of page creation and discussion of NC and moves please. I have waited 6 months and edited as instructed. I have not had any problems with my moves on Commons and know that I need to follow consensus and propose potentially controversial moves. With creations I have to some extent reached an agreement with Nilfanion. I will mainly be creating pages for missing civil parishes and I will likely discuss with Nilfanion if I intend to create a large number of other topics. Note that I might not be around much next week but I hope that doesn't cause too many problems with this. I have never been blocked on Commons or had editing restrictions there, however if there is concern about my contributions which shouldn't happen, I will voluntary agree to restrictions, for example I have to discuss all moves I make.
 * (reply to Beyond My Ken) - I haven't contributed over there for years, and they were only realy blocked because of the blocks here, I didn't get any behavioral blocks there.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:27, 2 July 2018


 * My appeal was nearly 2 hours late, I though you knew that I would want to appeal. I have tried to follow your requests and I did expand some articles. There are around 750 missing (current) civil parishes. Creating a B-Class for all of those would be extremely difficult. Creating things other than CPs could be discussed with Nilfanion later.
 * In the case of Ireland I wanted to leave it open for longer and leave a message at WP but the restrictions wouldn't have allowed that. I had taken it to CFD and I only closed it then due to this comment in response to my comment here. It wasn't obvious that the other things like the link and subsequent moves should be carried out after the move. When the suggestions were made I did so. I would have proposed the move of Shetland first here but the restrictions wouldn't allow that. UKPLACE can apply to any place located in the UK, not just settlements, in fact it even gives Jura, Scotland as an example. The hyphens are not used in other sources. I haven't contributed to any RM discussions to simplify things as I would be quite easy to be considered to violate the restrictions if a RM affects geographical locations, say if some are listed on the DAB page. I am not formerly banned from the RM or NC in general, that's just something I voluntary suggested.
 * I therefore think only removing the discussions is inappropriate as I have no restrictions on Commons and haven't had recent warnings there. I think a WP:1RR, applying in particular to moves would be more appropriate. I would also need to work out a consensus on topics that is not a CP.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 19:12, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * (Beyond My Ken) And that was over the accounts here, not behavior there. My point was that Nilfanion didn't think that I would immediately appeal.
 * (Rob) If I had have participated in RM discussions Nilfanion would probably have made a comment similar to this and threaten to add those discussions to the ban. I have waited and waited for change to finish creating articles and I think its inappropriate to still now allow it. How about using my contributions on Commons where I haven't been banned.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 6 months is a very long time, it might have been a bit different if it had only been 1 month or so.
 * You are often the only one who cares about conventions, I attempted to draw up guidelines and get the wider community involved on Commons.
 * My main focus is often getting a specific category of topics but yes a topic might be deemed notable if it meets GNG.
 * But at least I don't have any restrictions there and few of my creations have been deleted and few of my moves have been reverted.
 * This, this, this and this don't involve geographical NC and the middle 2 are similar to AFD/merge discussions here.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 6 months is a long time so why should I want to wait any longer? I have improved other articles as well, Revelstoke, Devon for example.
 * I really don't think I should be expected to wait any longer. Haven't I had enough bans.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 07:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that I have been forced to make appeal after appeal, and still not succeeded, why am I expected to have restrictions which are similar to a site ban. I had waited precisely for the 1 of July (a whole 6 months) to be able to do the things I wanted to but it seems I have been let down yet again.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 09:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest that if this is declined which it looks like it will then I should not be expected to wait another 6 months but rather than when the disputes have been resolved. I think that this is otherwise like a prison sentence WP is not supposed to be so restrictive.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the time frame doesn't matter that much then can I appeal further anytime, as long as I have done what it needed, meaningful NC discussion and significant content creation, rather than having to wait until the 31st of December?  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 08:35, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Question by Beyond My Ken
Can I ask what this is about? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A sockpuppet block is a behavioral block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "My appeal was nearly 2 hours late" Do you say this because you believe it showed patience on your part, that you waited almost an entire 120 minutes (7,200 seconds) after the precise minute you were allowed to appeal? Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * - If there's some question about whether CS's sanctions allow them to participate in RMs of articles, this appeal could return an explicit statement that they're allowed to do that, so that the Committee can get the information needed to evaluate whether to lift the sanction on page moves. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Nilfanion
I'm not sure I'm a party to this, but clearly I'm interested. I'd urge ArbCom to read this discussion on my talk page. I'm surprised that he immediately came here at the 6 month ( though I shouldn't be ). My intentions were (and still are) to try and support him over the coming weeks/months to prove he can write good articles, and demonstrate he now has the key skills he lacked in the past and would likely produce new articles in a non-disruptive manner. If he had done so, at that point I'd have been inclined to approach ArbCom on his behalf to urge the restrictions were withdrawn.

The behaviour that triggered his initial block was generated by the mass creation of stubs on minor geographic places (leading to work at AFD, effort in merging into sensible parent articles, pointless templates being created etc). When he didn't stop that quickly death spiralled into socking. His comments, both during the discussion on my talk page and in his statement here, trouble me: All of these points suggest to me the potential for future disruption identical to what triggered the initial block.
 * 1) I have urged him to aim to create articles which are much more substantial than minimal stubs, and his replies show he has no interest in doing so. By doing the research and creating longer articles, not only is the immediate reader experience better - but he would amply demonstrate each article meets the GNG by providing a good number of sources.
 * 2) By creating very small cookie-cutter stubs - he gives himself the potential to create a lot of articles in a short space of time.
 * 3) His understanding of notability guidance is questionable. Instead of properly assessing individual cases on their merits (ie by finding if there are enough suitable sources to meet GNG), he just looks at broad classes. One he has a decision on a broad class he will follow it. His immediate interest of Civil Parishes ( Lowest tier of administrative areas in England ) are highly likely to be notable, but his future endeavours are bound to result in stub creation on much minor places. Instead of expansion of a suitable parent article (ie likely to be the relevant parish).

Recent activity on Commons at CFD (the closest analog to WP:RM) may be of interest to ArbCom, as it shows other aspects of his behaviour: This show him closing a very high impact case, with minimal involvement from others. He did not initially care about fixing the consequences. He frets about "correctness" a lot, especially with following the one true source, and makes a lot of moves as a result. If he was allowed, he is bound to do the same on Wikipedia. His understanding definitely varies from Wikipedia norms. Some examples of moves: is at variance with an old WP discussion. quotes WP:UKPLACE incorrectly (it applies to settlements, not natural features). to remove hyphens (not used by his preferred source, but used by other sources).

Based on the evidence above, at this time I oppose removal of the restrictions on article creation and removal of the restrictions on page moving. The other restrictions (no involvement in RM, or in discussions about naming conventions) could be removed - that would give Crouch, Swale to the ability to demonstrate on Wikipedia that the page move restrictions could be safely relaxed in future.

Crouch, Swale hasn't contributed to any requested moves since he was unblocked, because his current restrictions prevent him from doing so. See my comment above about Commons, for similar activity on that project.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course I expected an appeal, but not one instantaneously. You approached me on June 22 and asked me to review some stuff you had done, which was reasonable on your part. I then expected you to have worked with me over a period of time, and at the conclusion of that been you could have been in the place for a strong appeal leading to a full removal of your sanctions. Not basically tell me to go away, and immediately appeal when you hit the 6 month mark.
 * You need to be engaging with the community-at-large, not single editors. You do that via taking part in discussions on article talk pages, project pages (like those for naming conventions or WP:UKGEO) not an user's talk page. And if you stay on topic, instead of going on a tangent with a slew of new questions you might find your original question gets answered. Its not right that you discussion with me what classes of subject should have an article. You shouldn't even be thinking about classes of subject, but individual subjects.
 * I'm not necessarily expecting all new articles to be high standard. But I do want to see you are able and willing to create one reasonable quality article. If you can't do that even once, I have little confidence you will ever do anything other than create stubs. And you need to move past that if you ever want to create new articles on Wikipedia. Edits like the ones to Theydon Mount are an important step in the right direction, but it needs to be sustained and not a one-off. If you do what I suggested and work on a single subject building a high-standard article its much easier for me (or anyone else) to give you meaningful feedback and allow you to create future articles in confidence.
 * My point with respect to the Commons examples is that your decision-making in all of them is questionable, and not clearly in line with WP norms, I'm not going to debate them here. Therefore letting you loose on Wikipedia at this time is high risk.
 * The restriction on RM stems from the topic ban on geographic naming conventions. You can't meaningfully participate in most RMs without relying on some aspect of the naming conventions, and he is clearly only interested in geography, that is a major limitation on such discussions. A bright line is easier to enforce instead of quibbling about whether a specific comment is about the NCs. @ArbCom generally: I'm think setting a date for a new appeal will get an immediate response, regardless of whether the circumstances justify a change. This editor will keep on pushing and pushing and it is time consuming for all involved (including him). It would be better for it to be come back "when you are ready" not "in at least x months" (which will be exactly x months). Perhaps a criteria that reads "when you can demonstrate positive involvement in several RMs over an period of time, then an appeal will be considered"?--Nilfanion (talk) 15:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 6 months is a substantial period of time, which means means the difference an extra day makes is minimal. You would be well advised to demonstrate solid evidence of improvement on the lines of "hey look at this article I improved, and this one, and this one" next time you come back here, not "its 6 months since last time, and I haven't been blocked". And finally, note this is Wikipedia, not Commons, different rules apply - for a start the community is more active.
 * That makes sense to me. Maybe break it down into two parts to reflect the restrictions: Create dispute-free & meaningful content on notable subjects = remove creation ban. Meaningful involvement in RMs and related discussions without disruption = remove ban on moves.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:44, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
Concur with Nilfanion. The very recent thread at indicates insufficient cluefullness (still, somehow). Given the previous track-record of grossly disruptive socking and endless creation of pointless one-liners, a desire to keep creating micro-stubs after all this is a big red-flag. I agree with Nilfanion's WP:ROPE idea of easing some other restrictions, but there should be no hesitation in re-imposing the RM/move ban should more trouble arise in that area. We already have too high of a noise:signal and heat:light ratio in that sector. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Also concur with BU Rob13 here; it's not really possible to do much at RM without referring to the naming conventions and their applicability/non-applicability to the case at hand. If you can't do those things, you'd be reduced to WP:JUSTAVOTE in many cases, and that is discouraged. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by {other-editor}
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.

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Clerk notes

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


 * Miniapolis isn't a party – she just did the paperwork. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) 20:04, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * Have you taken any pages through the requested moves process since you were unblocked? If so, please link that. If not, why not? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 14:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I’m open to rescinding one sanction on a probationary basis, but not multiple at once. If that goes well, you could come back to discuss others. My preferred one to rescind is the one on page moves, since I think it’s easiest to monitor. My problem there is the lack of RM activity. I don’t see requested moves of main space pages as being likely to violate your topic ban, which just forbids you discussing our meta naming conventions from my understanding. My initial thought would be to decline this appeal, allowing another appeal of only the moving restriction after one month of participation at RM. I would appreciate feedback on this both from Crouch and from the community. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 04:54, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We could consider loosening the naming conventions restriction to exclude mention of naming conventions in RM discussions, specifically to allow participation in that area. That would quickly show us whether this is a productive exercise or not. While I respect the Commons contributions, they aren't a factor in my decision here. I care about the ability to interact on enwiki, not Commons, which is a very different project. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 20:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * May as well start by actually thanking Crouch, Swale for their obvious interest in adding to Wikipedia, despite some fairly tough sanctions. Most people in similar circumstances would just give up and do something else with their time. So, congrats for that at least. I might be missing something, is the restriction in participation in RM a consequence of the restriction on taking part in discussions on geographic naming conventions? If so then I'd support a repeal of this specific restriction, with the qualifier that it can be reinstated in short order by the Committee if RM involvement becomes needlessly disruptive. After reviewing the edit history and the various talkpage conversations, I would oppose lifting the other restrictions for at least another six months. One aim of the restrictions was to encourage content contributions outside of single-paragraph stubs, but the contribution history hasn't moved that much beyond that, with the recent exception of Theydon Mount. A few more articles like this, and we would be in a better position to consider lifting the page creation ban. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:25, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks re the clarification on the RM ban. You also have a good point re times to next appeal, but I reckon there is still merit in it, otherwise (as a generic comment) we open the door to appeals seeking a date for appeals. Perhaps the answer is a combined wording: a minimum appeal date and advice that a successful appeal will require a record of dispute-free and meaningful content creation on notable subjects. In passing, thanks for your informal mentoring, as evidenced by the lengthy discussions on your talk page. —- Euryalus (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I would support removing the topic ban from discussions on geographic naming conventions to better allow Crouch, Swale to contribute to RMs in order to provide an opportunity for him to show that the prohibition on moving or renaming pages is no longer necessary. I also agree that giving Crouch, Swale a better idea of what he needs to show when appealing is a good idea, in additional to the usual time period. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm ok with removing the geographic naming conventions topic ban with the proviso we can reinstate it. Thus I believe I'm in agreement with Callanecc and Euryalus here. Doug Weller  talk 14:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with . <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 20:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Crouch, Swale restrictions appeal: Motion


Enacted --Cameron11598 (Talk) 05:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support
 * 1) Per the discussion above, dropping the topic ban is the next logical step in removing the unblock conditions. I'd also echo Nilfanion's comments above that appealing restrictions is more than just x time has passed, the appealing editor needs to show that the restriction is no longer needed because they won't repeat the conduct which lead to the restriction being imposed. In this case, Crouch needs to show that they can write meaningful and substantial content on notable topics without becoming involved in disputes and they they are able to be involved in RMs in a constructive and collegial way, with arguments based in policy. The other restrictions won't be lifted without clear and substantial evidence of this, regardless how long it takes to show. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 2) Echo Callanecc's comments. Crouch's emphasis on the exact timing of their appeal worries me, and he needs to keep in mind that it isn't the time passed that's important, it's the behavioral change. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Callanecc and Nilfanion. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk  06:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 4) As worded. Alex Shih (talk) 08:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 5) Also agreeing with Callanecc and Nilfanion about the circumstances needed for a further appeal.  Doug Weller  talk 09:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 6) Per below. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 7) Hesitant support. I’m not convinced this will end well, but I’d be very glad to be proved wrong. I’m okay with either version of the wording. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * 8) --  Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose


 * Abstain


 * Arbitrator discussion
 * Can we tack on the probation language we’ve used recently? (Any admin can restore the sanction if disruption occurs, permanently lifted after six months if no new issues.) I think that’s rather important here. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I was considering it, but comments above indicated more that they'd rather it be the Committee who reinstated it. Happy to add/for it to be added though. Thoughts? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with either wording. I suppose it has somewhat more "teeth" if we reinstate it, but letting any admin reinstate it makes it more expedient. Both have benefits. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We could always let any admin restore the sanction but require they simultaneously file an ARCA for us to review the situation. I imagine in most cases that would end with us endorsing their restoration of the sanction, but we would still have our review on it. I think that would satisfy everyone? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It does add bureaucracy though, they might as well just file an amendment request asking us to do it. If we're going to do it, we might as well just add the probation. Can I just clarify if you're opposing the probation we're discussing here? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support probation on that the topic ban can be reinstated by any uninvolved administrator. Alex Shih (talk) 09:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've modified the motion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I still support with the changes. Thanks, <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 01:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * regarding your comment about time frames, you will need to wait until at least 6 months to show that you have meaningful, substantial and sustained participation and experience in these areas. An appeal from you won't succeed if it's merely one or two examples of good conduct in each area. You will need to show that you have evidence of this over a number of months; not just amount but also consistency. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Clarification request: Return of access levels (July 2018)

 * Original discussion

Initiated by Guy Macon at 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Case or decision affected
 * Requests for arbitration/Scientology

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

Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request



(Please let me know if I should post a notice on the talk pages of the participants at the noticeboard) --Guy Macon (talk) 02:52, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Guy Macon
Per the discussions at Bureaucrats' noticeboard and Bureaucrats' noticeboard, I would like to request clarification/guidance concerning Requests for arbitration/Scientology and Bureaucrats

In particular, some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...


 * "Check their talk page history and any pertinent discussions or noticeboards for indications that they may have resigned (or become inactive) for the purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions."

...from restoration of permissions, arguing that if at the time of the resignation there did not exist an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that had a reasonable chance of leading to sanctions or desysopping, restoration should be automatic.

On the other hand some participants in the above-referenced discussions have focused upon...


 * "Users who give up their administrator (or other) privileges and later request the return of those privileges may have them restored upon request, provided they did not give them up under circumstances of controversy."

...from return of access levels, arguing that if there have been significant complaints that may have, if not for the discussion being shut down by the resignation, led to an active case at Arbcom or WP:AN that may have lead to sanctions or desysopping, an new RfA should be required.

The Bureaucrats were split 4 to 6 on this with one 'crat saying...

"So I'd err on resysopping someone who may or may not be or been have desysopping by arbcom and let arbcom deal with desysopping if they so choose."

...while another wrote...

"Obviously the community does not allow us to stand in for ArbCom and stand in judgment over resigned administrators. But I don't think that means our job is just to return the tools absent evidence of the worst kind of misconduct. The community has authorized us only to return the tools in uncontroversial circumstances. So I'd err the other way. If not relatively uncontroversial, I think RfA is the way to go."

Pretty much everyone, editors and 'crats, agreed with the opinion, expressed at Bureaucrats' noticeboard, that "My honest and unprejudiced reading of the evidence presented is that it clearly does not cross a bright line. Yet I find many honest and unprejudiced Wikipedians who I respect disagree with me. I take from this that our policy isn't clear enough."

This may result in an RfC, but even if it does, I think that some clarification from Arbcom concerning the return of access levels section of the Scientology case would help to avoid the participants in the RfC simply repeating the same confusion regarding policy.

I will post a link to this on the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Jbhunley
I would suggest that the intent behind the policy is to prevent resignation being used to duck out of a behavioral inquiry and then being able to just pick up the tools again a couple of months later. I believe that would be captured by wording similar to: "An administrator who resigned at a time when there was either an ongoing formal process which was avoided, circumvented, or minimized as a result of their resignation ie actively avoiding scrutiny or in circumstances where such a process was reasonably likely to follow if the admin did not resign ie controversial circumstances may only regain the bit via a new RfA." Although it may be more proper to suggest wording at an RfC rather than through an ARCA. I think the Arbs may be able to further clarify their interpretation by expanding on, in a more general manner, the example provided in the case. That may be reaching beyond the scope because I do not believe there was a need to make a more general interpretation to rule on the circumstances of the case. Jbh Talk  03:51, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by SMcCandlish
A concern some of us raised over at BN is that any active (or at least "enforcing") admin always has various people upset at them and convinced they're a "badmin". Judging whether someone resigned "under a cloud" needs to be tied to whether formal process against the admin (for admin actions, or actions that could have called into question admin suitability), was under way when they resigned. It's not sufficient that the admin was criticized or had "enemies". In the case that triggered this debate, the returning ex-admin had not been subject to formal scrutiny when resigning, but did have some other editors angry at them. Taking a long wikibreak in the face of drama, short of noticeboard or ArbCom scrutiny of one's admin or adminship-affecting activities, shouldn't force a re-RfA. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: It's "interesting" (perhaps in the sense of the ancient Chinese curse) that the Arbs can see this so differently from each other, just like the Crats did. Plus here I am (notorious for being a critic of many admins and of our adminship system in general) leaping to the defense of admins perhaps "under a slight overcast" rather than a cloud. I think there may be a fundamental philosophical difference at work, about process, about where the dividing line is between WP:Process is important and WP:NOT, or how wide and diffuse the field between them is.  It's also noteworthy that some in the BN discussion were convinced that the rule was essentially invented by ArbCom and then codified in rather different language in the policy, but this may have happened the other way around (would have to dig in page histories to be sure, but I suspect that's the case).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Point of order by Iridescent
WP:Bureaucrats (including WP:RESYSOP) is not policy (or even "guideline") and never has been; the reason it has the cumbersome Bureaucrats/Header at the top rather than the usual policy or guideline reflects the fact that no attempt to elevate it to anything more than an informal set of notes has ever been successful. As far as I'm aware, the resysop procedures never have been formally codified, other than in a few old arb cases like Scientology. The closest thing we have to a formal policy is the relevant part of the closure of Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy, which is the rather unhelpful Administrators that did not resign in controversial circumstances and whose identity is not in question will be reinstated as per resysopping policy, which still punts it back to the 'crats to determine what constitutes "controversial circumstances". (There be some RFCs regarding the limits of 'crat discretion from the time of Requests for comment/Elonka and associated recall petition or from Requests for adminship/Danny 2 but I'm no great desire to reopen those cans of worms, and in any case that was an eternity ago in Wikipedia years and the much more recent Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy would have superseded any decisions reached.)  &#8209; Iridescent 10:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by Amorymeltzer
I first want to echo everything Iridescent said above me. The Resysopping section was added in early 2010 (BN discussion) and has since been expanded to incorporate the inactive admin policy (BN discussion) and note the principle in question. While the procedures have existed in a largely similar form for years — I imagine NYB's history and institutional knowledge will be quite helpful! — to my knowledge Iri is correct that in large part they haven't been officially codified. I suppose it might be helpful for the Committee to clarify how broadly they think Scientology's circumstances of controversy should be interpreted by Bureaucrats (perhaps by noting they need not be "formal," whatever that means), but I think that's somewhat missing the point. It's not for the Committee to make policy, so if the community wishes to codify, clarify, or change policy as to how Bureaucrats interpret the proverbial cloud, we can (and should, as it seems Bureaucrats themselves would appreciate it).

To wit, I largely agree with Callanecc and Alex Shih that there isn't much for ArbCom to do here. To repeat and paraphrase my comments at BN, the process is working, even if some folks disagree with the latest outcome. That there is disagreement on a particular situation from different Bureaucrats is not prima facie evidence that the process is broken, just that Bureaucrats sometimes have hard jobs. The part that I see that could merit clarification from ArbCom is in the next line of that Principle: Determining whether an administrator resigned under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, in the discretion of the bureaucrats (emphasis added). I take that vagueness to refer to cases involving special authority — ArbCom, Jimbo, WMF, etc. — but if there is confusion as to what the Committee feels doesn't fall under 'crat purview, that could be worth clarifying. ~ Amory <small style="color:#555"> (u • t • c) 18:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Statement by [other-editor]
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.

Return of access levels: Clerk notes

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



Return of access levels: Arbitrator views and discussion

 * I don't see much of a role for ArbCom here, it's up to the community to determine what a "controversial circumstance" is and hence develop a policy on that. If the community has done that at WP:RESYSOP ("purpose, or with the effect, of evading scrutiny of their actions that could have led to sanctions"), then that is the extant policy which should be followed. I haven't checked on the policy status of that sentence, although the notice at the top of WP:CRAT suggests it is a policy/guideline. On a procedural note, I don't think you need to notify each participant individually, the notice on BN is fine. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:46, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding Amorymeltzer, point about "in most cases" I think that would only apply when a group with the authority to do so (eg ArbCom) says don't restore the tools, absent that it's currently completely up to the crat's discretion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:20, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These cases will be infrequent enough and  different enough that the crats can decide each time whether or not they think it appropriate to consult arb com, and whether to do it formally or informally,.  DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 14 July 2018‎ (UTC)
 * The bureaucrats have said they don’t consider it their role to determine whether cases like these warrant refusing to return the mop, in favor of ArbCom action. I think this is at odds with our desysopping policy, but if the bureaucrats aren’t taking on that role, we need to. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and whose role it is is definitely something which needs to be part of the RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We need to decide what to do in this situation, however. We can't allow a resysop which may be against policy to occur merely because no-one thinks it's their responsibility to enforce the policy. Perhaps an injunction until the community clears up the resysopping policy? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * presuming this is about Ymblanter, the tools were restored 24 hours ago. Doug Weller  talk 07:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I see Dweller has restored the mop to Ymblanter despite the controversy surrounding the request. For transparency, I want to make my position clear here. "Controversial circumstances" received no special definition in the Scientology case, so it holds its normal English meaning. If there is substantial controversy surrounding an administrator at the time of their resignation, they should have to go through an RfA prior to receiving the mop back. "Controversial circumstances" does not mean circumstances that would have led to desysopping. It is broader than that; it refers to any legitimate and substantial community inquiry into the actions or behavior of an administrator. It is important to note that intent does not matter here, nor do the words of the resigning administrator. The resignation need only have been under controversial circumstances in order for a new RfA to be required. Lastly, if there is no consensus among bureaucrats to restore the sysop flag due to a potential controversy, that itself is evidence of a controversy. Here, we had six bureaucrats supporting restoration and four opposing it. We had an additional bureaucrat (Xeno) who commented shortly before Dweller closed the discussion. He appeared to be taking a broad view of "controversial circumstances", which would have brought things to 6-5. We had at least one supporting bureaucrat explicitly uncomfortable with restoring if there wasn't a clear consensus for restoration among bureaucrats. This all paints an obvious "no consensus" result, which suggests there is controversy surrounding the resignation. While I have no doubt Dweller was acting in good faith, his restoration of the sysop flag was at best against policy. At worst, it was a bureaucratic supervote. I know I'll get flak for saying this, but I personally view it as the latter. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 07:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If there's a significant enough issue here a case request can be filed, absent that this is outside our jurisdiction to make a judgement on (and I would have opposed a temporary injunction for that reason). The issue here is that it's not clear where the bar should be (for example, is the sentence in WP:CRAT binding on crats as policy or not) and that needs to be determined by the community in an RfC, not by the Committee. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is any need for clarification over principle 15.1.9 of the Scientology case. As it stands, the determination of "controversial circumstances" is based on the discretion of the bureaucrats. In the relatively infrequent situation where an administrator did not relinquish their privileges in a completely uncontroversial manner, a bureaucrat discussion should take place to allow consensus among the bureaucrats to emerge, which is what happened with the Ymblanter case. Alex Shih (talk) 07:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * My opinion on the consensus of this particular bureaucrat discussion is slightly different from, although I will openly admit my bias as I was in support of Ymblanter's resysop due to my interpretation of "controversial circumstances" being different for this situation. I think it's incorrect to speculate what would have voted; they concluded their comment with were there controversial circumstances? and refrained from voting. The one bureaucrat in favour of support  had their concerns addressed after additional comments by ,  and . In their response to Deskana, the bureaucrat voted oppose (Useight) expressed that they are "okay" with resysop. This leaves us with  and  to be the two remaining votes strongly in oppose of resysop. But despite of voting strong oppose, WJBscribe did not contest Dweller's close even though they commented in their talk page afterwards. Therefore I disagree with the assessment that  acted against policy and/or participated in bureaucrat supervote. Alex Shih (talk) 08:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the history of ArbCom's thinking in this area as I understand it:
 * The first time this issue arose was in Requests for arbitration/Giano (2006). The principle adopted in that case read: Return of access levels. Users who give up their sysop (or other) powers and later return and request them back may have them back automatically, provided they did not leave under controversial circumstances. Users who do leave under controversial circumstances must go through the normal channels to get them back. Determining whether a user left under controversial circumstances is, in most cases, to be left up to bureaucrats' discretion.
 * The original proposal used the phrase "under a cloud" instead of "under controversial circumstances". I was not an arbitrator then but I commented at the time that the phrase "under a cloud" was undesirable as it might be read to suggest more serious problems than a dispute on a website, and the wording was changed. The phrase "under controversial circumstances" or "under circumstances of controversy" was just a placeholder I threw in until someone could think of something better, but it seems to have stuck.
 * To the best of my knowledge, there was not previously any policy or guideline on this subject until the ArbCom adopted this principle. As I have noted before, this is one of the clearest examples I can remember of ArbCom's making policy, which is something it's not ordinarily supposed to do. Yet I don't believe anyone objected in this instance, either at the time or at any time since&mdash;probably because the policy the arbitrators crafted was in accordance with what anyone who anticipated the issue might have suggested in any event.
 * The next case that came up was Requests for arbitration/Philwelch. In this case an administrator resigned his adminship while a request for arbitration, based on a series of bad blocks, was pending against him and appeared likely to be accepted. The resignation mooted the dispute (as a non-admin Philwelch wasn't going to be blocking anyone anymore), but the arbitrators seemingly felt they had to accept the case anyway to decide what would happen if Philwelch requested the tools back later. I wasn't an arbitrator yet, but on the Workshop I suggested adding a sentence to the principle from Giano, which was adopted with some modification: An administrator who requests desysopping while an arbitration case or a request for arbitration is pending against him or her will be deemed to have left under circumstances of controversy, unless the Arbitration Committee deems otherwise, for purposes of applying this principle, whether or not the arbitration case is accepted.
 * ArbCom has repeated these principles in several cases in the ensuing decade and in some other cases has applied them implicitly (e.g. MZMcBride 2, Scientology, Macedonia 2, Fae, Media viewer RfC, Wifione, Andrevan). However, I can't recall a case in which an ArbCom decision has gone beyond them.
 * Based on these decisions (which are consistent with the current policy), ArbCom only has a potential role in this area if an administrator has resigned (1) while a case to which he or she is a party had already been accepted and was being considered, or (2) while a request for arbitration was pending. Ordinarily, an admin who resigns under either of these circumstances would need a new RfA to regain adminship. The "unless ArbCom decides otherwise" out was envisioned as a safety valve where the arbitrators found the RfAr request completely frivolous or there were other unusual circumstances, but I don't remember it ever being used.
 * Where the admin resigns while there is no arbitration case or request pending (even if there is a discussion underway at AN or elsewhere), under current practice and policy ArbCom has no role, and any decision on whether to grant a later request for the bit back is for the bureaucrats.
 * Whether "was this under controversial circumstances?" calls should be made when an admin resigns, or only later when the admin seeks resysopping, is a decision for the community, which as a practical matter is also delegated to the 'crats unless a policy is adopted. There are valid arguments for either practice (the best arguments for deciding at the time of resignation are that events will be fresh in everyone's mind and later disputes will be avoided; the best arguments for deciding later are to allow tensions and pressures to diffuse and to avoid debates are unnecessary because the editor will not be seeking adminship again). One data point that might be of interest is what percentage of admins who resign eventually seek readminship. If it's a relatively small percentage, which is my impression without having checked, that might weigh in favor of waiting.
 * Bottom line: I generally agree with the other arbs who have commented that under current practice this is not an ArbCom matter. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have nothing of value to say. I will just echo my colleges above that this is not a matter for us to handle. -- Amanda  (aka DQ) 05:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * What I could say has been very well laid out by NYB before me. I will agree that this is not a matter for Arbcom to handle. RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm in one of those unique positions, where I wear both hats, but I thought it best to not get involved on the bureaucrat noticeboard for this one, as I thought people would give my opinion more weight than it deserves. "Clouds" are often a grey area did you see what I did there? - and honestly, I believe that if there is no clear "cloud", then the bureaucrats shouldn't be second guessing themselves. I know this gives admins an escape plan if they see which way the wind is blowing (too many weather cliches), they can duck down until it's all clear again - but actually, that's not such a bad thing - if an admin is causing problems, then perhaps they should simply be taking a break. If they don't know when to take a break, then that's a big part of the problem. With that pre-amble, I will leave the final decision to the other bureaucrats, as this is not a matter for Arbcom, explained well by my colleagues. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)